Are people helpless in controling their weight?

And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.

The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.

Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"

Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?

Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.

Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.

Re-read the section about adoptees and twins. Its the nature versus nurture argument. The article is stating that the major causes are more likely genetic and not environmental. That is what I found to be interesting because it goes against what many of the "experts" here think and are spewing.

I made it chubby, I can make it fit.

I don't fit because I never had a genetic or fattie issue. I packed on weight after a neck and back injury. For me, a relatively easy fix. Hit the weights, cardio, and cut calories. I don't need any excuses. But I know numerous people who are motivated, have will power, and just can't get it off or keep it off. Why is that??? Its not a matter of laziness or pulling themselves up by their boot straps. But I dont have the answer. Heck, how many people in this forum have the same issues. A lot apparently......

Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss.

No, it is not even part of the answer.

Drop those "genetically disabled" people into Eritrea for six months, and they will come out skinny as rails.

Genetics plays zero role in obesity.

Regardless, 100 calories is nothing. You can easily burn that by standing up for a while instead of sitting.

.

Is this true?

I don't fit because I never had a genetic or fattie issue. I packed on weight after a neck and back injury. For me, a relatively easy fix. Hit the weights, cardio, and cut calories. I don't need any excuses. But I know numerous people who are motivated, have will power, and just can't get it off or keep it off. Why is that??? Its not a matter of laziness or pulling themselves up by their boot straps. But I dont have the answer. Heck, how many people in this forum have the same issues. A lot apparently......

This is probably the most arrogant thing I've seen you post.

Do I believe I got fat because of my genetics...NO. I eat and drink too much.

If he had studied normal, slow weight loss we might not be having this conversation.

"Normal, slow weight loss" has been studied.

That method has the same abysmal regain rate as quick, fast, low calorie.

None of the current methods of weight loss lead to lasting change in the vast majority of people. Call it a lifestyle change, slow and steady wins the race, etc, it all leads to the same road for the overwhelming majority of people.

Fat and fat again.

That's why the concentration has to be on a total and complete mind change AFTER the weight is gone, because how you lost it is proving to matter so little.

I disagree with this and would like to see studies that compare the regain rates/percentages of people who did the different techniques. Also, I'd like to see the measurements be body fat instead of "pounds"....

I think that there is a huge difference in success long term between people who do quick starvation diets and those who do slow and steady. First of all, slow and steady is sustainable and IS a lifestyle change. Second, when you lose weight by sever calorie restriction, you lose critical muscle mass which lowers your metabolism. You also encourage a mind-set of all or nothing... as opposed to a mind set of moderation.

I did slow and steady, lost 50 lbs and gained back 20. But as I said, I would like to see the measurements not in pounds but in body fat...because my weight is up, but so is my muscle mass (I lift heavy). My body fat was down to 19% at it's lowest and is now up to 23%. Not something I'm ashamed of, considering I started in the ball park of 40% four years ago.

You can chose to believe whatever you like, but it's the truth. Losing weight/fat/pounds/whatever, regardless of method, the overwhelming majority of times, in the overwhelming majority of people, leads to significant regaining of weight in the long term.

Long term success is extremely rare, and even most of the 'successes' are people who managed to not gain back ALL the weight.

There is no evidence that calling it a "lifestyle change", doing it the "slow, or "right", way leads to a great percentage of long term weight loss success. Those are popular dieting mantras that have no basis in fact at all. They just sound really good and encouraging, and for companies in the business of weight loss, they're great ways to keep people hooked for long periods of time.

This article references a study where almost all the slow, moderate, and fast losers regained the weight. The difference was that the quicker losers, on the whole, enjoyed far more weight loss because they'd lost more in the same amount of time. Everyone regained about similar amounts of weight, regardless of rate of loss.
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/11/nutrition/the-myth-of-slow-weight-loss_43011

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094

An excerpt from the study:

"Our study provides further evidence that, within the context of lifestyle treatment, losing weight at a fast initial rate leads to greater short-term weight reductions, does not result in increased susceptibility to weight regain, and is associated with larger weight losses and overall long-term success in weight management," the authors write in the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Here is an analysis over over two dozen US studies, done across 5 years, comparing people who lost on a very low energy diet (less than 800 a day) vs a more balanced diet of 1200-1500 calories.

The conclusions?

"Participants who completed a very low energy diet programme lost significantly more weight and maintained greater weight losses after four to five years than those who completed a hypoenergetic balanced diet programme".

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long



Anecdotally I've lost slow, and lost fast. Regain rates were the same following each type of loss. I have never seen any advantage to slowing down weight loss, except frustration. Most important is how you adjust after you lose weight, regardless of how you lost it.

I challenge you to find a single study that champions strong long term success for slow, "lifestyle" change dieters.

Regardless of all of this, I guarantee you that 100% of the people who regained did so because they ate above maintenance, and 100% of the people who did not regain were because they did not eat above maintenance.