Why We Get Fat

psuLemon

We get fat for one reason, we eat more calories than we burn. /thread

JessLLoser

bumping to read later.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to read later

Mompanda4

Bump

itsjustdawn

I actually have the book... but low-carb isn't for me. I'd rather eat healthy and exercise. I am interested in his Good Calories, Bad Calories book though. However, I think I learn more from MFP and actual people who aren't out to make a buck than I do from a book.

DB_1106

I actually have the book... but low-carb isn't for me. I'd rather eat healthy and exercise.

Just curious why you think eating low carb includes eating unhealthy and not exercising......???

grinch031

Well right now we have an unprecedented obesity epidemic. Over 30% of Americans are obese, and within the next 18 years that number is projected to hit 42%. That right there is pretty significant. Now people constantly site sedentary lifestyle as a main culprit, but this problem largely began around 1980, way before video games were that popular and before the internet even existed. Most people didn't know what the internet was until probably mid 1990s. Plus there is little evidence that exercise makes that much difference in managing weight.

and Internet is the only thing that makes you sedentary?
there's another thing actually, but it seems that in US people are taking it for granted so much that they'll rather think of internet then of - cars. From what I've seen of US and from what I've heard of friends who have lived there for some time, US infrastructure is extremely pedestrian-unfriendly, and even cyclist-unfriendly. People simply don't walk any more. My partner just came back from LA and he was complaining about huge lack of pedestrian zones/paths. A friend of mine lived in mid-west for a year, she didn't have a driving licence and had huge problems doing shopping since everything is designed for cars. She even was openly told that it's her own fault since "everyone should have a car". As far as I'm concerned, this is far greater problem than internet and carbs together. When I was eating 500g of white bread daily (+ pastry from bakeries) and looked like I did on that profile picture, I was also walking for at least half an hour every morning to get that bread. No big shopping malls, no huge shopping once a week - just up and down the hill, up and down the stairs every day, to get your food in local bakeries and small shops. However, westernisation of lifestyle, opening of huge shopping malls and disappearance of small local business are taking their toll in all developed world.
where did you get this about little evidence?

Sorry I don't buy any of this. Running has grown enormously over the past couple years and has not stopped obesity. We have had cars for over a century, so you're going to use that to explain an obesity epidemic that only began skyrocketing over the past 30 years? Much of the forms of sedentary entertainment blamed for the lack of exercise as a cause of obesity also only picked up steam in the past 10 years or even less, so there is still 20 years of skyrocketing obesity to be accounted for.

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

grinch031

I find Taubes' argument more believable than conventional wisdom.

The only thing I could think of when I read this is the movie title "Dumb and Dumber". :laugh:

I think this forum proves that counting calories is not an effective form of permanent weight loss. Why else do we see hundreds of posts every day on members starving themselves and not losing weight?

Captain_Tightpants

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

But that's dramatically oversimplifying the changes in the western diet and lifestyle. So many things have changed over the past 4 decades than just simple carb intake. Big shifts in omega 3 - 6 ratios, the advent of manufactured chemical additives and preservatives, factory processing, changes in livestock feed, reduction in vegetable and fruit consumption, new combinations of refined carbs and fat specifically designed to addict, not to mention the whole shift towards sedentary living.

tsh0ck

Why we get fat: we eat too much and exercise too little.

How to change that: eat less, exercise more.

That was tough. Who knew that could be an entire book?

grinch031

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

But that's dramatically oversimplifying the changes in the western diet and lifestyle. So many things have changed over the past 4 decades than just simple carb intake. Big shifts in omega 3 - 6 ratios, the advent of manufactured chemical additives and preservatives, factory processing, changes in livestock feed, reduction in vegetable and fruit consumption, new combinations of refined carbs and fat specifically designed to addict, not to mention the whole shift towards sedentary living.

I limit my omega-6 intake and limit processed foods just like 95% of any other low carber does so we're not in disagreement there. I still think the quality of our diet is the key factor in leading to overeating and obesity, not exercise. I might actually believe the sedentary lifestyle argument if I didn't come across countless physically active people (marathon runners, competitive tennis players, gym rats) who after years and years are still fat. The main effect exercise has is it improves insulin sensitivity, but it has little to do with calories burned. Exercise only causes you to eat more because body fat is regulated. When your body fat stores decrease, leptin causes your hunger to increase and energy expenditure to decrease to compensate. Leptin deficiency is by far the biggest factor influencing plateaus and weight re-gain. Once your body becomes fat, it is permanently broken in a way.

neanderthin

I am all for cutting back on carbs. I try to keep mine relatively low and focus on more protein... but I don't think whole grains are going to make me fat. Sugar, ice cream and brownies outside of moderation will!

What is the difference though? When they break down, it all becomes glucose anyways?

What makes whole grain a healthier carbohydrate than a tablespoon of pure sugar?

That's exactly it, once they are broken down there really is no difference.

Satiety and overall nutrition, which imo has a big effect on how we eat now. Carb consumption is about the same as it was in the early 1900's except fiber is about 40% less (exchanging whole for refined grain products) . Not much fast food back then and life was more rural, we moved more.

mmapags

I find Taubes' argument more believable than conventional wisdom.

The only thing I could think of when I read this is the movie title "Dumb and Dumber". :laugh:

I think this forum proves that counting calories is not an effective form of permanent weight loss. Why else do we see hundreds of posts every day on members starving themselves and not losing weight?

And, if that were true, that would have what to do with a comparison between Taubes as Dumb and Conventional Wisdom as Dumber? Truthfully, I don't think this forum proves anything of the sort. That is your editorial version.

I see a combination of mulitple things here. Some people that a are making nice steady progress. Some people have legitimate medical issue like PCOS or thyriod issues that inhibit them from progress and lastly some people who whine for various reasons. It's pretty well documented that many people who struggle with losing weight inaccurately log food. What % of the people here who as you say "are starving themselves" fit that profile? Or how many drop to 1200 calories to try to shed the 30 or 50 lbs in 60 days that it took them 10 years to gain then stall out their metabolism??

Your belief is that this somehow has to do with sugar or carbs as a blanket villian. As you said a couple of posts back, I don't buy it. That is your bias though and you are welcome to it. When you have a bias like that though it reminds me of the saying "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

psuLemon

Your belief is that this somehow has to do with sugar or carbs as a blanket villian. As you said a couple of posts back, I don't buy it. That is your bias though and you are welcome to it. When you have a bias like that though it reminds me of the saying "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Gotta agree. If carbs and sugar was to blame, then I wouldn't be cutting body fat even though I eat a candy almost every day.

belgerian

Sorry I don't buy any of this. Running has grown enormously over the past couple years and has not stopped obesity. We have had cars for over a century, so you're going to use that to explain an obesity epidemic that only began skyrocketing over the past 30 years? Much of the forms of sedentary entertainment blamed for the lack of exercise as a cause of obesity also only picked up steam in the past 10 years or even less, so there is still 20 years of skyrocketing obesity to be accounted for.

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

My wife will do something she will hit the gym burn like 600 cal or so then come home and eat junk and say I burned it all of so I can eat whatever I want so she will eat 1000 cal worth of junk when she burned maybe 600. So I would ask out of how many of those ppl running were monitoring there calorie intake. I run and monitor and I went from close to morbidly obese with within my BMI and even within my weight limitations for the US Army. Comes down to education and makeing healhier choices. Take smoking how many ppl still smoke when they are full aware of the consequences. Same but different

grinch031

I find Taubes' argument more believable than conventional wisdom.

The only thing I could think of when I read this is the movie title "Dumb and Dumber". :laugh:

I think this forum proves that counting calories is not an effective form of permanent weight loss. Why else do we see hundreds of posts every day on members starving themselves and not losing weight?

And, if that were true, that would have what to do with a comparison between Taubes as Dumb and Conventional Wisdom as Dumber? Truthfully, I don't think this forum proves anything of the sort. That is your editorial version.

I see a combination of mulitple things here. Some people that a are making nice steady progress. Some people have legitimate medical issue like PCOS or thyriod issues that inhibit them from progress and lastly some people who whine for various reasons. It's pretty well documented that many people who struggle with losing weight inaccurately log food. What % of the people here who as you say "are starving themselves" fit that profile? Or how many drop to 1200 calories to try to shed the 30 or 50 lbs in 60 days that it took them 10 years to gain then stall out their metabolism??

Your belief is that this somehow has to do with sugar or carbs as a blanket villian. As you said a couple of posts back, I don't buy it. That is your bias though and you are welcome to it. When you have a bias like that though it reminds me of the saying "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I know people on MFP fail for a variety of reasons, but if weight management was as easy as everyone makes it out to be, "eat less, move more" then everyone would be skinny and diet success rates wouldn't be so bad all around. Instead trying to manually override the body's desire for calories ends up being futile because people either sub-consciously miscalculate calories eaten and burned or the metabolism slows down, both as the body's way of conserving energy. In the end, people can't sustain weight loss because their hormones relentlessly fight it.

I don't think sugar and carbs are a blanket villain, I think that the quality of our food supply is the primary factor contributing to unwanted weight gain. I think we have very little control over the actual quantity of food we eat, at least in the long term. I think sugar and refined carbs are a good starting point because they are associated with this problem. I do not believe total calorie count is the cause simply because body fat is regulated, and it is regulated in both directions, although moreso in the direction of conserving fat stores. If body fat was not regulated, then everybody who lives in this fast food environment and eats without regards to their calorie intake would be fat, but that's clearly not the case. There are too many people who eat whatever they want without gaining weight, so I question why is maintenance at a healthy weight effortless for some people but not others? That demonstrates to me that its not a problem of too much access to food and lacking willpower, especially because some people devote years of their lives to fighting weight gain and still end up fat anyways. Instead it is a problem of too much access to types of food that many people cannot tolerate physiologically and obesity is the end result.

WonderCort

Taubes is clearly right that its not about the calories.

i mean look around on this calorie counting site, nobody is having any success at all.

^^^This^^^

Exactly!

carld256

I don't know anyone who actually eats "whatever they want" without gaining weight. Unless we know what people are eating, which we don't, it's impossible to say that these people violate the rules of thermodynamics and therefor calories don't count, which is what Taubes' argument boils down to.

grinch031

I don't know anyone who actually eats "whatever they want" without gaining weight. Unless we know what people are eating, which we don't, it's impossible to say that these people violate the rules of thermodynamics and therefor calories don't count, which is what Taubes' argument boils down to.

You obviously haven't read the book if you think Taubes argument violates thermodynamics.

I know countless people who eat whatever they want without gaining weight. Its not that they eat endless calories, its that their body actually blunts their appetite when they've eaten too much. Many obese people can eat at a caloric surplus and still be hungry. Go figure.

carld256

No I haven't read the book. I don't give my money to shysters.