Why Do We Overeat? A Neurobiological Perspective

waldo56

Person A spends 300 days that year in a calorie deficit trying to lose weight. The other 65 days they blow it, screw up their diet and binge, or manage to contain the damage enough that they only eat maintenance for the day.

Person B spends 365 days that year at maintenance, with virtually no day to day fluctuations.

Person C spends 300 days that year in a calorie surplus trying to build muscle. They other 65 days they spend cutting to shed the excess fat gain, or at maintenence transitioning.

Given that calories for all 3 are exactly the same...
Which person has the healthiest diet?
Which person will end the year with the best body composition? How about the worst?
Which person will have the highest metabolism? Whose will be the lowest?
Which person will have the highest quality of life (as directly impacted by diet)?
Which person will worry most about their diet? How about the least?

I don't think you can give definitive answers with just the information you gave...

Can you answer each and provide a source? Not being a d.ick - I find this very interesting and am wondering myself.

My hunch is the macro and micro ratio of those calories would be more important, than how they scheduled eating them.

Id argue the last two questions would be highly based on personal preference.

Well first off, an actual study that tested this exact thing would be so ridiculously expensive that it would never happen (though MFP's databases do include the data if one could seek and analyze it efficiently, the big data potential of MFP's databases is mind boggling, what it lacks in laboratory level quality, it gains in ridiculous over the top quantity).

Assume macros and micros are controlled for as well.

However:

- Healthiest is a fairly subjective term, it really depends on the markers you want to use. A blood panel would likely show person C to be the healthiest. If you measure it by body composition, person C is certainly the healthiest. If measuring subjectively by feel/vitality, person A is clearly behind the other 2.

- There is no doubt to this answer, person C will clearly have the best body composition, person A clearly he worst. If person A even manages to maintain their existing muscle mass, they were successful. Person C not only will have gained more muscle than the other two, they would have lost more fat. Person B is in the sort of middle ground, small incremental change. The absolute best person A could hope for is to be exactly the same as they were at the start of the year. Person C may have made a rather dramatic transformation. And remember...exact same calories for all 3.

- Metabolism changes with your persistent calorie state, both because of muscle gain/loss and adaptive thermogenics. With adaptive thermogentics, your metabolism is always drifting toward your surplus/deficit. Again this is a poorly studied issue, not enough work has been done on the forest, there is too much focus on the trees. That there is metabolism decline with both time and magnitude of a calorie deficit is not even a question, that is well proven (though the flipside, though obviously true if you spend time in the gaining forum/among bulkers, is much less studied).

A couple studies of interest:

This one about beige fat, which provides a solid mechanism for adaptive thermogenesis in humans; it explains why it changes slowly and why those changes persist, and why perception of temperature is a good subjective measure of it in yourself:
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/27/3/234.full

Here is another one, rather a review of a study (though the most relevant to this topic info isn't covered in the review) that basically challenges the crash dieting = bad beliefs, in this ridiculously extreme study, not only did health markers all improve, loss was actually maintained, and virtually no muscle mass was lost.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/time-efficient-reduction-fat-mass-4-days-exercise-caloric-restriction-research-review.html

The picture I was trying to paint with those two studies is the fact that TIME, not MAGNITUDE, is the important factor for determining muscle and metabolism gain and loss. This is really obvious when trying to gain muscle; it is a slow process, you have to put in the time, trying to speed things along is fruitless.

Person A, in spending a vast majority of the year in a calorie deficit, would would see their metabolism decline. The net result of this is that their weight loss efforts becomes progressively less effective and their binges become more and more effective at packing on fat.

Person C, spending the vast majority of the year in a calorie surplus, would see their metabolism progressively rise. The net result of this is that their weight gain efforts become progressively less effective and the short time they spend cutting becomes more and more effective.

When you consider the effects of the metabolism changes along with the constant calories, person A would end the year the heaviest, person C the lightest!!!

- Quality of life is also very subjective, however person A spends the majority of the year cutting, meaning feeling restricted most of the year, having the extra stress that comes from a calorie deficit, and having the reduced energy that comes from a calorie deficit. Person C OTOH spends most of the year bulking, which means much, much less food restriction, all the energy that comes from being in a surplus, and has lower stress due to greater recovery.

- And finally worrying. Person A, spending a whole year trying to lose weight with frequent binges sabotaging progress is more or less an exercise in wheel spinning torture. Person C will have to worry a bit about a little too much fat gain, and will have to spend some time cutting, but the results will be there which always eases the mind.

likitisplit

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Any time someone tells me something is the "healthiest" way to eat, I need a little more back up than their word. That's probably my own bias though - I rarely find anything in the fitness/nutrition world to be completely black and white.

I'd also argue that "consistent calorie surplus" and "periodic starvation" can't co-exist.

Whether you limit your caloric intake daily, or by overeating somedays, while under eating on others there is still some sort of caloric management. You have just described a different way for people to manage their cals. (In fact the exact way I managed to lose most of my weight early on).

Regardless - even if you are right (not saying you arent - would love to see sources for why you feel this way - I love to learn about this ****) the video is touching on why we overeat to the point of obesity (neurologically speaking).

To relate to your stance - the video touches on why we overeat and don't use the "periodic starvation" you suggested.

Being in a consistent calorie surplus is obviously healthier. Your body will shunt calories to growth and repair of muscles/skin/etc... that simply wouldn't be done unless a calorie surplus was present. Your body will build up stores of beige fat (a big time metabolic regulator), all of your hormone systems work far better (especially the sex hormones and stress hormones; not eating a surplus is a source of stress, stress hormones are destructive to sex hormones). You have energy and a pep in your step that is lacking at all other times.

How can a consistent calorie surplus and periodic starvation not co-exist? Up until very recent times, periodic starvation was forced on us by nature. The biological response to this is to prepare for its inevitability; if food is not scarce the body desires to be in a surplus at all times. Maintaining or worse, long term dieting, is a fight against our basic animal instincts.

Why we "overeat" is a very simple question to answer. It is our basic animal instinct to do so.

The solution to this is also very simple when framed the right way. Our instincts are not the problem. They are just fine and healthy. What we need is the periodic starvation that nature used to force on us.

A lot of people that successfully "maintain" their weight actually do nothing of the sort. They just have the good sense to cut back/diet occasionally to get rid of excess fat gain long before it ever becomes an issue. If you are looking to learn how to long term maintain, this is where to look (and yes, I am speaking from experience, having maintained my 75 lb loss now just about 2 years). You only have to diet once, that is a fat man's fallacy, occasional short term dieting is just a normal part of life, its only a big deal if you have a lot to lose.

One of the biggest causes of people getting fat IMHO is that dieting is such a big deal and made out to be a major undertaking; major projects are easy to delay/procrastinate on. If OTOH its not big deal and just a normal part of life thats a little uncomfortable but easy to do, procrastinating isn't nearly as big of an issue.

So you are arguing that bulking/cutting is healthier than maintaining?

Yes.

Take 3 different people: Each eats exactly the same number of calories in a year.

Person A spends 300 days that year in a calorie deficit trying to lose weight. The other 65 days they blow it, screw up their diet and binge, or manage to contain the damage enough that they only eat maintenance for the day.

Person B spends 365 days that year at maintenance, with virtually no day to day fluctuations.

Person C spends 300 days that year in a calorie surplus trying to build muscle. They other 65 days they spend cutting to shed the excess fat gain, or at maintenence transitioning.

Given that calories for all 3 are exactly the same...
Which person has the healthiest diet?
Which person will end the year with the best body composition? How about the worst?
Which person will have the highest metabolism? Whose will be the lowest?
Which person will have the highest quality of life (as directly impacted by diet)?
Which person will worry most about their diet? How about the least?

Simply in order to totally derail the thread and because I find your POV incredibly stimulating:

Given that calories for all 3 are exactly the same...
Which person has the healthiest diet? that would depend on macro/micronutrient content
Which person will end the year with the best body composition? How about the worst? All I know is that I've never NEVER been able to grow muscle in my life and 9 weeks into a bulk I not only have stomach definition but actual visible muscles in my arms - even though I started too fat and am about 8 pounds heavier than when I started
Which person will have the highest metabolism? C Whose will be the lowest? A
Which person will have the highest quality of life (as directly impacted by diet)? Depends on how the individual defines it.
Which person will worry most about their diet? How about the least? I don't know about you, but I was doing maintenance without logging. While bulking is, in some ways a lot easier than dieting, it's kind of hard not to wig out and start trying to lose weight again.

likitisplit

This conversation made me think of reading "Farmer Boy" to my 6 year old son.

According to the book (which is a fictionalized account of his life), Almanzo Wilder apparently consumed maple syrup, pancakes, doughnuts, cookies, and pie for breakfast every morning.

Which is considerably more sugar than I consume in an entire day.

Sorry I have nothing scientific to contribute to this conversation. It just reminded me of feeling sick every time we read the descriptions of what this 19th century family ate at every meal.

I read that too. Love the series! It should be noted that where Almanzo grew up, maple trees were to be found in plenty for miles around. In one of the early books about Laura, it was also noted that having a cake was a rare thing limited to birthdays and special occasions. In the prairies, there are few, if any, maple trees.

Laura's family also starved at least twice in the book. Manny never did, however.

True. They struggled a lot until they got to that town...I think it was in MN??...When Laura was a little older. That was the town on which they based the TV series. They were finally fairly well off at that point, after years of struggling and looking for the right place to settle.

Actually, the time when it snowed so badly that the trains couldn't come through was after that. Her dad owned two houses, it was just that there wasn't any food available until Almanzo started giving away his seed wheat.

ETA - I think that was actually Nebraska.

QuietBloom

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

WendyTerry420

This conversation made me think of reading "Farmer Boy" to my 6 year old son.

According to the book (which is a fictionalized account of his life), Almanzo Wilder apparently consumed maple syrup, pancakes, doughnuts, cookies, and pie for breakfast every morning.

Which is considerably more sugar than I consume in an entire day.

Sorry I have nothing scientific to contribute to this conversation. It just reminded me of feeling sick every time we read the descriptions of what this 19th century family ate at every meal.

I read that too. Love the series! It should be noted that where Almanzo grew up, maple trees were to be found in plenty for miles around. In one of the early books about Laura, it was also noted that having a cake was a rare thing limited to birthdays and special occasions. In the prairies, there are few, if any, maple trees.

Laura's family also starved at least twice in the book. Manny never did, however.

True. They struggled a lot until they got to that town...I think it was in MN??...When Laura was a little older. That was the town on which they based the TV series. They were finally fairly well off at that point, after years of struggling and looking for the right place to settle.

Actually, the time when it snowed so badly that the trains couldn't come through was after that. Her dad owned two houses, it was just that there wasn't any food available until Almanzo started giving away his seed wheat.

ETA - I think that was actually Nebraska.

You may be right. I'm thinking the series just used the MN town but that they didn't actually move there until much later. I'll have to read the source materials again. (As if I need an excuse to read! hahaha)

likitisplit

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

Once I lost the weight and maintained awhile, I was able to maintain for six months without tracking as well.

likitisplit

This conversation made me think of reading "Farmer Boy" to my 6 year old son.

According to the book (which is a fictionalized account of his life), Almanzo Wilder apparently consumed maple syrup, pancakes, doughnuts, cookies, and pie for breakfast every morning.

Which is considerably more sugar than I consume in an entire day.

Sorry I have nothing scientific to contribute to this conversation. It just reminded me of feeling sick every time we read the descriptions of what this 19th century family ate at every meal.

I read that too. Love the series! It should be noted that where Almanzo grew up, maple trees were to be found in plenty for miles around. In one of the early books about Laura, it was also noted that having a cake was a rare thing limited to birthdays and special occasions. In the prairies, there are few, if any, maple trees.

Laura's family also starved at least twice in the book. Manny never did, however.

True. They struggled a lot until they got to that town...I think it was in MN??...When Laura was a little older. That was the town on which they based the TV series. They were finally fairly well off at that point, after years of struggling and looking for the right place to settle.

Actually, the time when it snowed so badly that the trains couldn't come through was after that. Her dad owned two houses, it was just that there wasn't any food available until Almanzo started giving away his seed wheat.

ETA - I think that was actually Nebraska.

You may be right. I'm thinking the series just used the MN town but that they didn't actually move there until much later. I'll have to read the source materials again. (As if I need an excuse to read! hahaha)

The TV series did stop them in Minnesota (and turned really stupid).

If I remember correctly they started in Wisconsin moved to Missouri (where they met the ex-confederate soldier), Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Western Minnesota, Iowa, Dakota...and The Long Winter is in Dakota.

Her writing style is priceless and worth a re-read at any age.

QuietBloom

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

Once I lost the weight and maintained awhile, I was able to maintain for six months without tracking as well.

I'm thinking about my daughter and her cousin (both 10). They don't have to be periodically starved to maintain a normal weight. Perhaps that might have something to do with a thing called 'eating intuitively'? No food is forbidden for either one of them, and snacks are always available except an hour or two before meals. Yeah, I'm gonna straight call the theory that all humans eat to excess 'naturally' or else they have a disorder, baloney.

lindsey1979

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

Once I lost the weight and maintained awhile, I was able to maintain for six months without tracking as well.

I'm thinking about my daughter and her cousin (both 10). They don't have to be periodically starved to maintain a normal weight. Perhaps that might have something to do with a thing called 'eating intuitively'? No food is forbidden for either one of them, and snacks are always available except an hour or two before meals. Yeah, I'm gonna straight call the theory that all humans eat to excess 'naturally' or else they have a disorder, baloney.

Really? You think a comparison of children going through a huge number of calories to fuel growth is a comparable example?

Plenty of adults had no weight problems as kids -- growth, more play time, less stress, etc.

Shoot, I could eat so much as a kid/teenager. Things I could never eat today on a regular basis -- huge bowls of ice cream, french fries, pizza, etc. What did I eat as a snack mid-morning in high school? A package of those mini powdered doughnuts and chocolate milk. I didn't worry about what I ate until I was in my early 20s. I also was quite athletic so spent several hours a day on that, and wasn't working/commuting 10-12 hours a day behind a desk or in a car.

Big differences.

likitisplit

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

Once I lost the weight and maintained awhile, I was able to maintain for six months without tracking as well.

I'm thinking about my daughter and her cousin (both 10). They don't have to be periodically starved to maintain a normal weight. Perhaps that might have something to do with a thing called 'eating intuitively'? No food is forbidden for either one of them, and snacks are always available except an hour or two before meals. Yeah, I'm gonna straight call the theory that all humans eat to excess 'naturally' or else they have a disorder, baloney.

It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I wasn't super-thin. There is a reason why MFP is for adults...and why traditional breastfeeding extended until the children were 4 or 5.

waldo56

We overeat naturally because it is our instinct to do so and the healthiest way to eat. Everything about your body works better in a consistent calorie surplus.

However, in order to prevent obesity, the consequence of long term consistent overeating, periodic starvation has to be implimented since nature no longer does that for us.

"Overeating" is not wrong eating, it is correct eating. The very word makes it sound like something shameful or a disorder. This is wrong. If you don't naturally overeat when no dietary control mechanisms are in place, then you are the one with the disorder.

IMHO there needs to be a focus away from correcting this supposed imbalance in humans to instead celebrating it, and using it as a force for good. Eating a consistent calorie surplus is not only OK, it is great for you. However when you embrace this you must periodically restrict intake to control the fat gain (the stronger and shorter the restriction the better), and be sure to exercise, including resistance exercise, so that those extra calories are used in the healthiest way.

If you've never spent time in a consistent calorie surplus while not overweight, you have no idea of what it feels like to be normal.

It ok to "overeat", everyone should be doing it most of the time.

Guess I guess I have a disorder. :ohwell:

Once I lost the weight and maintained awhile, I was able to maintain for six months without tracking as well.

I'm thinking about my daughter and her cousin (both 10). They don't have to be periodically starved to maintain a normal weight. Perhaps that might have something to do with a thing called 'eating intuitively'? No food is forbidden for either one of them, and snacks are always available except an hour or two before meals. Yeah, I'm gonna straight call the theory that all humans eat to excess 'naturally' or else they have a disorder, baloney.

Really? You think a comparison of children going through a huge number of calories to fuel growth is a comparable example?

Plenty of adults had no weight problems as kids -- growth, more play time, less stress, etc.

Shoot, I could eat so much as a kid/teenager. Things I could never eat today on a regular basis -- huge bowls of ice cream, french fries, pizza, etc. What did I eat as a snack mid-morning in high school? A package of those mini powdered doughnuts and chocolate milk. I didn't worry about what I ate until I was in my early 20s. I also was quite athletic so spent several hours a day on that, and wasn't working/commuting 10-12 hours a day behind a desk or in a car.

Big differences.

We all start life bulking nonstop for the first 20 years or so.

Even people that maintain do have to exert some level of control, whether through concious decisions to not eat too much or to exercise more, or simple sheer laziness at not wanting to prepare food.

If your meal times consisted of an all you can eat buffets every day, virtually noone would maintain weight effortlessly.