Mice become Obese WITHOUT Consuming Any More Calories
Replies
-
So I think we can all relax a little bit because you can argue for either case.
Do you think we can argue for either case in a population that is monitoring energy balance closely? For ad libitum intake I would absolutely agree that this is a massive grey area because a population not tracking intake or expenditure (or even weight, for that matter) has to basically rely on satiety/intuitive eating.0 -
IMO it is overkill trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to eating. For example, if I were to eat 100 grams of lactose you can be sure I will not get 400 calories out of it, and probably other foods eaten with or before it will not have time to be properly absorbed, LOL. This doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because my body is not a closed system.
I don't know if there have been any studies to determine how much humans vary in relative efficiency of absorption, but I would guess there is at least some among individuals. Protein and fat digestion is aided by enzymes, which are gene products, which means their structure and thus their effectiveness are at least in part determined by an individual's genes. I'd think it would be pretty unlikely to find all humans identical at all of those loci.
But when it comes down to it, it's still calories in/out. The above may confound our simplistic approach to the "in" part of the equation as far as applying it to everyone exactly the same. But the reality, as shown by many on this site, is that an individual can find what works for them even if they were to have some predisposition.0 -
IMO it is overkill trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to eating. For example, if I were to eat 100 grams of lactose you can be sure I will not get 400 calories out of it, and probably other foods eaten with or before it will not have time to be properly absorbed, LOL. This doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because my body is not a closed system.
I don't know if there have been any studies to determine how much humans vary in relative efficiency of absorption, but I would guess there is at least some among individuals. Protein and fat digestion is aided by enzymes, which are gene products, which means their structure and thus their effectiveness are at least in part determined by an individual's genes. I'd think it would be pretty unlikely to find all humans identical at all of those loci.
But when it comes down to it, it's still calories in/out. The above may confound our simplistic approach to the "in" part of the equation as far as applying it to everyone exactly the same. But the reality, as shown by many on this site, is that an individual can find what works for them even if they were to have some predisposition.
I agree totally. I have observed two young women of my acquaintance who both work the night shift (one is a paramedic and the other a nurse). The paramedic is naturally thin (works out with weights in order to stay strong for her job, which often involves rescue work), the nurse is prone to gain weight very easily. The paramedic knows that if she doesn't work out, she loses muscle mass and weight---she frets that her night work schedule often interferes with her workout routines (she has two young children). The nurse, on the other hand, says that working nights make her want to "scarf up carbs" (likely, in an attempt to boost serotonin levels which are lowered by a lack of daylight). She gains body fat working nights unless she strictly follows her diet and exercise plans.0 -
And would you propose that these people were inactive and eating junk food and staying thin, and then became visibly overweight after switching to eating healthy foods and being active? Of course not.Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer.
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?0 -
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
We did the same activity growing up - we both figure skated nearly 30 hours a week. She was very heavy from early childhood and I was always thin. We ate the same food, the difference being that my parents were constantly putting her on insanely low calorie diets (my father was obese and a fad dieter, and my mom was slender until she neared menopause). My sister was never sedentary, and she ate the same meals I did dexcept for when my parents put her on these insane diets. It's the way her body was, and is. She became bulemic, and still didn't lose weight. She lived with her ED for 20 years.
My sistser has struggled with her weight her entire life. She started running two years ago when she was fifty; she finished a 5 K and is training for a half marathon. She runs nearly every day, but has lost only fifteen pounds. She still looks very heavy. But she is no longer pre-diabetic, and she has reduced her blood pressure and resting heart rate. And she is much, much happier and more energetic.
it may not be your ideal, but it is remarkable for her and a huge accomplishment. She is healthier than she was, and healthy in general.0 -
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
We did the same activity growing up - we both figure skated nearly 30 hours a week. She was very heavy from early childhood and I was always thin. We ate the same food, the difference being that my parents were constantly putting her on insanely low calorie diets (my father was obese and a fad dieter, and my mom was slender until she neared menopause). My sister was never sedentary, and she ate the same meals I did dexcept for when my parents put her on these insane diets. It's the way her body was, and is. She became bulemic, and still didn't lose weight. She lived with her ED for 20 years.
My sistser has struggled with her weight her entire life. She started running two years ago when she was fifty; she finished a 5 K and is training for a half marathon. She runs nearly every day, but has lost only fifteen pounds. She still looks very heavy. But she is no longer pre-diabetic, and she has reduced her blood pressure and resting heart rate. And she is much, much happier and more energetic.
it may not be your ideal, but it is remarkable for her and a huge accomplishment. She is healthier than she was, and healthy in general.
Your post here brought a tear to my eye---I hope you tell her how proud of her you are. One day, perhaps they will discover what makes some people overfat. It seems that they are getting closer. Has your sis ever tried cutting out sugar and wheat? They were always somewhat of an addiction for me (duh--that should have been my first clue
) I too have struggled with my weight all my life but just two years ago cut wheat and sugar out of my diet and started exercising. I discovered, to my delight, that it wasn't very difficult to shed 50 pounds over that time. Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society. :flowerforyou: 0 -
Thank for this. She knows how proud I am! When she started running her husband and daughter were not supportive, they thought "here we go again." Now, after two years, her husband is changing his diet and is going to the gym with her and my niece is starting to run as well. She has struggled so hard to get here, and now is an example to us around her.
Interesting about wheat and sugar, she has lost lots of weight on Atkins in the past, but has never been able to sustain it. I don't know what the answer is for her.
best,
Janet0 -
Thank for this. She knows how proud I am! When she started running her husband and daughter were not supportive, they thought "here we go again." Now, after two years, her husband is changing his diet and is going to the gym with her and my niece is starting to run as well. She has struggled so hard to get here, and now is an example to us around her.
Interesting about wheat and sugar, she has lost lots of weight on Atkins in the past, but has never been able to sustain it. I don't know what the answer is for her.
best,
Janet
Yes---I too lost a lot of weight on Atkins (years ago) but got sick and had to stop it (and then I gained back all the weight plus more). My problem was that I thought I had to keep the carbs below 60 grams and had to induce "ketosis" in order to keep my appetite under control. What I found out over the last couple of years is that all I had to do was remove sugar and wheat from my diet (but I eat everything else, including a piece or two of 100% whole rye bread every day). I also restrict my fructose consumption to 25 grams or less per day. There's some sound science behind restricting fructose. There is a book called, "The Fat Switch" by cardiologist/renal specialist and researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. that explains the effect of high fructose consumption (through eating sugar--table sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The small amount of fructose that one gets from one or two pieces of low-fructose fruit do not seem to pose a problem. I keep my total carbs between 100-200 grams per day (with the higher amounts on my heavier workout days) and I have no trouble with cravings or appetite control anymore. I finally feel free of the "monkey on my back". :happy:0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.
Sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the obesity epidemic (and all the diseases that ride with it). After WWII, the rapid expansion of sugar production (and the consequent price drop) meant that sugar was easily accessible to most people. The use of sugar skyrocketed and obesity rates rose at the same pace. I agree that it couldn't be genetic because both my parents were lean as youngsters and young adults. They both went through the Great Depression and were often hungry and emaciated during that period. It was only during the prosperous 50s that we had such easy access to food in general and especially soda pop and sweets of one sort or another. Our parents urged us to eat because, "...there are children starving in Europe!" We ate too much and way too many sweets because we didn't know any better. We all became obese (including my parents). My sister, brother and I all have had major struggles with obesity and my brother has gone on to develop Type II diabetes. I am now the healthiest (I am the middle child). My BF percentage has gone from over 50% (morbidly obese) to 31% over the course of two years. But I really do not think I could have done it without eliminating sucrose and wheat from my diet. It has turned out to be "metabolic magic" for me.0 -
I agree totally. I have observed two young women of my acquaintance who both work the night shift (one is a paramedic and the other a nurse). The paramedic is naturally thin (works out with weights in order to stay strong for her job, which often involves rescue work), the nurse is prone to gain weight very easily. The paramedic knows that if she doesn't work out, she loses muscle mass and weight---she frets that her night work schedule often interferes with her workout routines (she has two young children). The nurse, on the other hand, says that working nights make her want to "scarf up carbs" (likely, in an attempt to boost serotonin levels which are lowered by a lack of daylight). She gains body fat working nights unless she strictly follows her diet and exercise plans.
Don't see what's naturally thin or prone to gaining weight about that, sounds like lifestyle plain and simple.0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.
Sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the obesity epidemic (and all the diseases that ride with it). After WWII, the rapid expansion of sugar production (and the consequent price drop) meant that sugar was easily accessible to most people. The use of sugar skyrocketed and obesity rates rose at the same pace. I agree that it couldn't be genetic because both my parents were lean as youngsters and young adults. They both went through the Great Depression and were often hungry and emaciated during that period. It was only during the prosperous 50s that we had such easy access to food in general and especially soda pop and sweets of one sort or another. Our parents urged us to eat because, "...there are children starving in Europe!" We ate too much and way too many sweets because we didn't know any better. We all became obese (including my parents). My sister, brother and I all have had major struggles with obesity and my brother has gone on to develop Type II diabetes. I am now the healthiest (I am the middle child). My BF percentage has gone from over 50% (morbidly obese) to 31% over the course of two years. But I really do not think I could have done it without eliminating sucrose and wheat from my diet. It has turned out to be "metabolic magic" for me.
How is it that every forum thread in which you post , you attempt to turn it into a daitribe on the evils of sugar in your opinion? Are you a one trick pony?0 -
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.
I'm tired, so please bear with me while I try to articulate what I want to say here.
I really feel bad for everyone who is overweight, for any reason. I don't think we can assess what reasons are "legitimate" any more than we can know why a person is overweight just by looking at them.
No one is happy being overweight, and I can't imagine how it would feel to be morbidly obese. But people are more comfortable being this way than they are when they stop medicating themselves with food. This tells me that people who overeat to this extent - which is classified as an eating disorder and is no less legitimate a disorder than anorexia - are suffering hugely. They need more than they can get from losing weight, and to just try to "fix themselves" with diet and exercise is doomed to fail. It can be an addiction just like drugs or drinking when it is used this way.
So, there is that. But there is also a huge amount of ignorance about what is healthy food, and healthy portions. That can be fixed, but I'm not sure people want to fix it. We get so much information about food from food marketing boards and restaurant chains, and they don't want to educate us, they want to sell us food. A whole lot of food. So they are automatically not to be trusted, imo. We get defensive when people tell us we can be doing better, and think we have a "right" to eat unhealthily if we want to. I think this is pretty crazy, but that is just me and the way I want to eat. My choice, and I can't enforce it on anyone else.
And of course, as you said, there are medical reasons people get heavy, whether it's medications, injuries, or illnesses that limit us.
So when I look at people who are very heavy I just feel a soft feeling for them. Their lives aren't easy, not least because people are constantly judging them and every bite of food they put in their mouths. If we get angry when we see those people, we need to consider why that is. I don't think it's their fault.
Over and out.0 -
I agree totally. I have observed two young women of my acquaintance who both work the night shift (one is a paramedic and the other a nurse). The paramedic is naturally thin (works out with weights in order to stay strong for her job, which often involves rescue work), the nurse is prone to gain weight very easily. The paramedic knows that if she doesn't work out, she loses muscle mass and weight---she frets that her night work schedule often interferes with her workout routines (she has two young children). The nurse, on the other hand, says that working nights make her want to "scarf up carbs" (likely, in an attempt to boost serotonin levels which are lowered by a lack of daylight). She gains body fat working nights unless she strictly follows her diet and exercise plans.
Don't see what's naturally thin or prone to gaining weight about that, sounds like lifestyle plain and simple.
I don't think you quite understand. Naturally thin people like the paramedic do nothing to stay thin---they eat what they like, they only exercise to KEEP WEIGHT ON. People who struggle with their weight, often exercise 5 days a week, eat half of what their naturally thin cousins eat and STILL have extra body fat that wants to grow with every lapse from the very strict program that they place themselves on. The loathing that society wants to inflict on obese people is really saddening.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.0 -
I doubt they really have the same amount of activity or that she "does nothing" to stay thin. Activity is not just a 30 minute session a couple of times a week. I probably burn more calories grocery shopping than a lot of people do in their 30 minute workout. Yeah, I'm that bastage that walks faster than you run, and blows by you and all the other slow people in the store who act like they are going to die if they move faster than a turtle. I also ride the shopping cart through the parking lot. Wheeeeeee!I don't think you quite understand. Naturally thin people like the paramedic do nothing to stay thin---they eat what they like, they only exercise to KEEP WEIGHT ON. People who struggle with their weight, often exercise 5 days a week, eat half of what their naturally thin cousins eat and STILL have extra body fat that wants to grow with every lapse from the very strict program that they place themselves on. The loathing that society wants to inflict on obese people is really saddening.
I found out when I stopped moving so much that I'm not "naturally thin" like I and everyone else thought I was. The human body is not built to sit on a couch and watch TV or sit at a PC or lounging all the time. Doing that all week and then swinging one's arms and legs around for 30 minutes a couple times a week is still a tiny amount of activity compared to how much our bodies are actually capable of and excel at. There's 112 waking hours in a week, if someone spends 111 of those hours vegetating it should be no surprise if they have a lower caloric need.
My nonscientific personal observation is that a person's size tends to be inversely proportional to how quickly they move. Not just walking speed, I mean everything. When they reach for something, when they get into or out of their car, pretty much every bodily movement. Watch whenever you're out in public and see for yourself. If they're moving that slowly in public, there's no reason to believe they would do any differently during the rest of their day. It's like people make it their goal to be sedentary even when they're walking.0 -
Same here. I love to get a few hundred calories before bed around 3 or 4 in the morning.
Usually have an evening shift till 11 p.m.
Still losing weight by calorie control and hard exercise early in the day and getting enough sleep, so I'm lucky I'm not a mouse!0 -
mice eat their own poop. don't eat poop0
-
This type of movement is part of NEAT and there's quite a range in calories.....500+ a day comparatively speaking. I couldn't gain a lb if I tried when I was younger, and I tried, I was a skinny kid and wanted to put on weight, didn't happen. Things changed when I hit about 38 and the weight was easier to put on.......now I'm back to a decent weight over the last 10 years, but that was all about watching what and how much I ate. Now it's all about body fat percentage, lol.
I doubt they really have the same amount of activity or that she "does nothing" to stay thin. Activity is not just a 30 minute session a couple of times a week. I probably burn more calories grocery shopping than a lot of people do in their 30 minute workout. Yeah, I'm that bastage that walks faster than you run, and blows by you and all the other slow people in the store who act like they are going to die if they move faster than a turtle. I also ride the shopping cart through the parking lot. Wheeeeeee!I don't think you quite understand. Naturally thin people like the paramedic do nothing to stay thin---they eat what they like, they only exercise to KEEP WEIGHT ON. People who struggle with their weight, often exercise 5 days a week, eat half of what their naturally thin cousins eat and STILL have extra body fat that wants to grow with every lapse from the very strict program that they place themselves on. The loathing that society wants to inflict on obese people is really saddening.
I found out when I stopped moving so much that I'm not "naturally thin" like I and everyone else thought I was. The human body is not built to sit on a couch and watch TV or sit at a PC or lounging all the time. Doing that all week and then swinging one's arms and legs around for 30 minutes a couple times a week is still a tiny amount of activity compared to how much our bodies are actually capable of and excel at. There's 112 waking hours in a week, if someone spends 111 of those hours vegetating it should be no surprise if they have a lower caloric need.
My nonscientific personal observation is that a person's size tends to be inversely proportional to how quickly they move. Not just walking speed, I mean everything. When they reach for something, when they get into or out of their car, pretty much every bodily movement. Watch whenever you're out in public and see for yourself. If they're moving that slowly in public, there's no reason to believe they would do any differently during the rest of their day. It's like people make it their goal to be sedentary even when they're walking.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
There are people who cannot digest fructose (the paramedic I mentioned, is one of them--it took the docs a while to figure it out. Now, as long as she stays away from fructose, she's fine). Those people could not get fat if they wanted to. There are others in the same category, for one reason or another (a high degree of musculature, a rapid metabolism, etc). There are others who have unwittingly damaged their metabolism through eating unwisely since childhood (lots of sugar) and who have small bones and muscles, etc. who gain body fat VERY easily. Before I got my thyroid problems cleared up and was able to start exercising (in spite of horrible pain from arthritis) and built muscle so that my body burned more than 1200 calories a day, I was in that category. I thank God for the information that we have now that we didn't have when I was a child. One of my granddaughters is "naturally thin"---doesn't show any sign of ever becoming overfat---she's five. Her 2 year-old sister is already showing signs of having appetite control problems and appears to be getting a bit plump. Her mother has responded by cutting out all sweets and fruit juice. But she's TWO for cryin' out loud. She is a darling sweetheart and it is so sad to have to tell her that her sister can eat whatever but that she must be proscribed in her eating. And how do you make a two-year-old do aerobics and lift weights? Where is your compassion? I've been fat and I've been thin and thin is much better. But until recently, I didn't have the information that I needed to make a big change in my life. It necessitated giving up sugar and wheat permanently---but I'm okay with that because I'd like to live to see my grandchildren grow up and to love and serve them. I am no longer morbidly obese as I was two years ago. I have gone from more than 50% body fat to 30% body fat and I hope to be down to 25% in another year or so. I am fortunate in being able to carry a lot of muscle (but I have small light bones and am not very tall). Others are more fortunate and still others not so fortunate. The obesity epidemic does not call for anger and censure--it calls for compassion just as any other illness does.0 -
Yeah, F=ma. (Accelerating twice as fast requires twice as much energy... moving half as slowly requires half as much.)This type of movement is part of NEAT and there's quite a range in calories.....500+ a day comparatively speaking. I couldn't gain a lb if I tried when I was younger, and I tried, I was a skinny kid and wanted to put on weight, didn't happen. Things changed when I hit about 38 and the weight was easier to put on.......now I'm back to a decent weight over the last 10 years, but that was all about watching what and how much I ate. Now it's all about body fat percentage, lol.
Interesting @ NEAT, hadn't heard of it but it sounds a lot like what I was saying. A paper I found and am reading says two similar size people can vary by up to 2000 calories a day because of it. That's 14,000 calories a week, compared to what, 500 or 600 that someone might burn "exercising" for 60 minutes a week. In other words, being a hummingbird burns 25 times more excess calories.0 -
I doubt they really have the same amount of activity or that she "does nothing" to stay thin. Activity is not just a 30 minute session a couple of times a week. I probably burn more calories grocery shopping than a lot of people do in their 30 minute workout. Yeah, I'm that bastage that walks faster than you run, and blows by you and all the other slow people in the store who act like they are going to die if they move faster than a turtle. I also ride the shopping cart through the parking lot. Wheeeeeee!I don't think you quite understand. Naturally thin people like the paramedic do nothing to stay thin---they eat what they like, they only exercise to KEEP WEIGHT ON. People who struggle with their weight, often exercise 5 days a week, eat half of what their naturally thin cousins eat and STILL have extra body fat that wants to grow with every lapse from the very strict program that they place themselves on. The loathing that society wants to inflict on obese people is really saddening.
I found out when I stopped moving so much that I'm not "naturally thin" like I and everyone else thought I was. The human body is not built to sit on a couch and watch TV or sit at a PC or lounging all the time. Doing that all week and then swinging one's arms and legs around for 30 minutes a couple times a week is still a tiny amount of activity compared to how much our bodies are actually capable of and excel at. There's 112 waking hours in a week, if someone spends 111 of those hours vegetating it should be no surprise if they have a lower caloric need.
My nonscientific personal observation is that a person's size tends to be inversely proportional to how quickly they move. Not just walking speed, I mean everything. When they reach for something, when they get into or out of their car, pretty much every bodily movement. Watch whenever you're out in public and see for yourself. If they're moving that slowly in public, there's no reason to believe they would do any differently during the rest of their day. It's like people make it their goal to be sedentary even when they're walking.
We all vary in the amount of ATP available in the DNA of our muscles. Some people are incapable of speed (ever notice a room full of 70 year-olds speeding around?). You can be judgmental if you want but it won't do your heart any good.0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.
Sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the obesity epidemic (and all the diseases that ride with it). After WWII, the rapid expansion of sugar production (and the consequent price drop) meant that sugar was easily accessible to most people. The use of sugar skyrocketed and obesity rates rose at the same pace. I agree that it couldn't be genetic because both my parents were lean as youngsters and young adults. They both went through the Great Depression and were often hungry and emaciated during that period. It was only during the prosperous 50s that we had such easy access to food in general and especially soda pop and sweets of one sort or another. Our parents urged us to eat because, "...there are children starving in Europe!" We ate too much and way too many sweets because we didn't know any better. We all became obese (including my parents). My sister, brother and I all have had major struggles with obesity and my brother has gone on to develop Type II diabetes. I am now the healthiest (I am the middle child). My BF percentage has gone from over 50% (morbidly obese) to 31% over the course of two years. But I really do not think I could have done it without eliminating sucrose and wheat from my diet. It has turned out to be "metabolic magic" for me.
How is it that every forum thread in which you post , you attempt to turn it into a daitribe on the evils of sugar in your opinion? Are you a one trick pony?
No--I also think modern wheat is very bad for some people (including me). I am just trying to help people with suggestions on what has worked for me. Once I eliminated sugar and wheat, I was able to start losing weight (when I previously scrupulously kept to 1200 calories a day with only slight losses). Suddenly, my arthritis began to improve and my blood pressure started to normalize even as I was able to reduce my blood pressure medication that was making my muscles hurt ALL the time. Once I got off of the B.P. medication, I was then able to begin exercising (after my thyroid function improved--apparently just from the elimination of sugar and wheat). By that time, my body fat was down considerably but it has gone down another 10% since I started working out on a regular basis. To date, I have lost 50 pounds (and probably added ten pounds of muscle so it looks like more) I have at least 30 more pounds to go, but I am patient and I have enjoyed the journey even if I never shed another pound. Why do you need to be so caustic? That would be my question to you.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.0 -
Her 2 year-old sister is already showing signs of having appetite control problems and appears to be getting a bit plump. Her mother has responded by cutting out all sweets and fruit juice. But she's TWO for cryin' out loud. She is a darling sweetheart and it is so sad to have to tell her that her sister can eat whatever but that she must be proscribed in her eating. And how do you make a two-year-old do aerobics and lift weights?
WTF @ lifting weights? I've never seen a two year old that is sedentary. My two year old and four year old are constantly running and jumping and wiggling and everything else. I have to wonder what kind of environment must a kid live in if they are so non-energetic that "aerobics" would even make a difference.
My two year old loves juice, but it's just sugar water so he can't have it more than every once in a while. He asks for a popsicle, or gummies, or other sweets every single time I even walk in the general direction of the kitchen. The answer is no. It's not an angry or mean no, it's just "nope, let's eat something else."
I was the youngest so I got to grow up with the neverending chorus of "you're too young to (do whatever it is we are doing that looks like fun)" so I understand that it can sometimes suck, but jealousy is not good for you anyway, so the earlier you learn to get over it, the better.
My compassion is directed at ensuring my children have a sense of "normal" that will serve them well for the next 100 years they are expected to live. Even if that requires some short-term annoyance to them and me.Where is your compassion?
And telling people, "you are naturally fat and won't ever be able to do anything about it so just give up and accept my pity," is not going to help anyone figure out how to live so that they become and stay thin.I've been fat and I've been thin and thin is much better. But until recently, I didn't have the information that I needed to make a big change in my life.
You are the one making value judgments over everything. Just because you do that all the time doesn't mean everyone else is. The obesity epidemic is preventable. If you find negative judgments about people in that, that is all inside your head, not mine. The best way to keep yourself from understanding anything is to make value judgments about it.You can be judgmental if you want but it won't do your heart any good.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.
Sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the obesity epidemic (and all the diseases that ride with it). After WWII, the rapid expansion of sugar production (and the consequent price drop) meant that sugar was easily accessible to most people. The use of sugar skyrocketed and obesity rates rose at the same pace. I agree that it couldn't be genetic because both my parents were lean as youngsters and young adults. They both went through the Great Depression and were often hungry and emaciated during that period. It was only during the prosperous 50s that we had such easy access to food in general and especially soda pop and sweets of one sort or another. Our parents urged us to eat because, "...there are children starving in Europe!" We ate too much and way too many sweets because we didn't know any better. We all became obese (including my parents). My sister, brother and I all have had major struggles with obesity and my brother has gone on to develop Type II diabetes. I am now the healthiest (I am the middle child). My BF percentage has gone from over 50% (morbidly obese) to 31% over the course of two years. But I really do not think I could have done it without eliminating sucrose and wheat from my diet. It has turned out to be "metabolic magic" for me.
How is it that every forum thread in which you post , you attempt to turn it into a daitribe on the evils of sugar in your opinion? Are you a one trick pony?
No--I also think modern wheat is very bad for some people (including me). I am just trying to help people with suggestions on what has worked for me. Once I eliminated sugar and wheat, I was able to start losing weight (when I previously scrupulously kept to 1200 calories a day with only slight losses). Suddenly, my arthritis began to improve and my blood pressure started to normalize even as I was able to reduce my blood pressure medication that was making my muscles hurt ALL the time. Once I got off of the B.P. medication, I was then able to begin exercising (after my thyroid function improved--apparently just from the elimination of sugar and wheat). By that time, my body fat was down considerably but it has gone down another 10% since I started working out on a regular basis. To date, I have lost 50 pounds (and probably added ten pounds of muscle so it looks like more) I have at least 30 more pounds to go, but I am patient and I have enjoyed the journey even if I never shed another pound. Why do you need to be so caustic? That would be my question to you.
I'm not caustic, just factual. Why are you defensive? That would be my question for you. And what objective, credible, study based evidence do you have of your various theories beside you personal n=1 experience? From what you are saying, you are reactive to wheat and you have issues with sugar. This is not the case for all people. Or even the majority of people. So when you post, you may want to use the the words "I" and "my" instead of "we" and "our".
If you believe it is the case for a significant number of people, feel free to offer and proof source for your theory in the form of a peer reviewed study or 2. If not, than what you offer is just your opinion based on anecdotal evidence of a person who has a thyroid problem and does not have universal application beyond people that had or have thyroid problems.
FTR, disagreeing with you =/= caustic or judgemental as you accused another poster of being.0 -
I lost 90 lbs eating all the way up til bed time (11pm - 12am). The difference is I watched my calories, no matter what time of day it was.
This is idiotic.
This.
However the fact people who work night shifts may become obese is because of the types of things they eat when they're on shift. Snacks. High calorie, high in sugars and sweeteners and fat. In addition, as it CAN (not always) mess with natural circadian rhythms, it can cause your body to become "stressed" and releae that nasty stuff, cortisol, which is known to cause heart problems and weight problems.0 -
Her 2 year-old sister is already showing signs of having appetite control problems and appears to be getting a bit plump. Her mother has responded by cutting out all sweets and fruit juice. But she's TWO for cryin' out loud. She is a darling sweetheart and it is so sad to have to tell her that her sister can eat whatever but that she must be proscribed in her eating. And how do you make a two-year-old do aerobics and lift weights?
WTF @ lifting weights? I've never seen a two year old that is sedentary. My two year old and four year old are constantly running and jumping and wiggling and everything else. I have to wonder what kind of environment must a kid live in if they are so non-energetic that "aerobics" would even make a difference.
My two year old loves juice, but it's just sugar water so he can't have it more than every once in a while. He asks for a popsicle, or gummies, or other sweets every single time I even walk in the general direction of the kitchen. The answer is no. It's not an angry or mean no, it's just "nope, let's eat something else."
I was the youngest so I got to grow up with the neverending chorus of "you're too young to (do whatever it is we are doing that looks like fun)" so I understand that it can sometimes suck, but jealousy is not good for you anyway, so the earlier you learn to get over it, the better.
My compassion is directed at ensuring my children have a sense of "normal" that will serve them well for the next 100 years they are expected to live. Even if that requires some short-term annoyance to them and me.Where is your compassion?
And telling people, "you are naturally fat and won't ever be able to do anything about it so just give up and accept my pity," is not going to help anyone figure out how to live so that they become and stay thin.I've been fat and I've been thin and thin is much better. But until recently, I didn't have the information that I needed to make a big change in my life.
You are the one making value judgments over everything. Just because you do that all the time doesn't mean everyone else is. The obesity epidemic is preventable. If you find negative judgments about people in that, that is all inside your head, not mine. The best way to keep yourself from understanding anything is to make value judgments about it.You can be judgmental if you want but it won't do your heart any good.
My two-year old granddaughter is about as active as any two-year old gets (many people have asked, "Does she ever stop?" and her mother responds, "Yes, when she sleeps.") So you can save your angry judgments because they fall very short of the mark. And I would say the same to you, "The best way to keep yourself from understanding anything is to make value judgments about it." If you have never been truly obese, you don't understand anything about it. I have and I understand what it takes to trim the weight off. I have had a lot of success after many years of struggles and for that I am grateful. But I assure you, it is not easy. My naturally thin husband sometimes gets a bit pudgy at the holidays and he just stops eating desserts and his plates full of chocolates for a couple of weeks. He understands because he has seen what I have gone through (and because he loves me) but that isn't the same as having gone through it himself.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions