Are people helpless in controling their weight?



  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    I made it chubby, I can make it fit.


  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    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.

    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. I managed to lose 53 pounds, so I don't think genetics was keeping me fat. But why would it be hard to believe our genes play some role in this. There is a great deal we don't know about obesity.

    We have only scratched the surface in understanding how our genome affects different areas of our lives. And it isn't just our genome; they are now studying the interaction between our genetic makeup and the genes of all our microbial hitch hikers. there are exciting times ahead.

    Eta....I don't believe genetics makes obese people helpless. But genetics does have some role. That's all I am saying.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    While genetics play a role in more and more diseases, it's not an excuse. No one is perfect. We all have limitations, but limitations are not excuses. Improvise, Adapt and Overcome ... This is coming from someone who went from 245 to 160, all before finding out I suffered from low T. Was it hard prior to my diagnoses, hell yeah! But, I still drop the weight because I was determined. Is it easier now being on TRT, hell yeah!

  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 729 Member

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

    Is this true?

    According to

    A 150lb person would burn 88 calories reading while sitting. They would burn 122 reading while standing.

    This one says it is almost the same...

    Popular belief is that it takes more energy to pump the blood while you are standing so you would burn more calories. I'll have to ask the doctor next time I see him.
  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 729 Member
    And please feel free to go on your merry way as the discussion is clearly above your pay grade. The article references several studies which show the genetic connection to obesity. Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss. Is that so controversial or difficult to understand? Perhaps for some. Read these forums if you doubt it. Clearly there is a metabolic quotient (?) that seems to be significantly different from person to person that may make long term possible difficult/impossible for some beyond the environmental ones.

    You keep saying the same thing and we keep saying the same other thing and even though I know you made this thread to get a rise out of us, I'm just going to say:

    We've read these forums. Some of us for many many years. If you think you can use any group of related posts to confirm or deny any of your claims, well good luck with that. Anyone who comes in here and acts the way you are acting is going to get his or her hat handed to him.

    Continue to be rude and argumentative, and that's what you will get in return. Post threads with titles and claims like this one and expect pictures and arguments. Attack long-time intelligent members and find yourself on the "other" end of friendly.

    Better to come in expecting the best rather than the worst.

    We eagerly await your next attempt at proving your non-point.

    Actually I have cited 4 scientific articles that address the issue. Your narrow viewpoint on what you read on a forum is not really compelling evidence to the contrary. And continuing to be argumentative "that my brother this", or "my sister that", is really not convincing evidence to dispute the fact that there are serious genetic reasons that may make real weight loss impossible for some. /how many people fail in ongoing weight loss 95%??? They are not all fat slobs who lack will power. There are genetic, chemical, and biological reasons that underly the problem.

    How do you fit into this study? You have lost 47 pounds in three months. If you stop exercising and start eating like you did before you started MFP you would gain the weight back.

    Two plus two equals four. If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. SOME people have physical conditions that make it hard for them to lose weight. MOST people gain the weight back because they went back to the old habbits.

    Your studies said the people went back to their old ways. OBVIOUSLY they were bound to gain the weight back. Find me a study that shows people that kept following the menu and exercise schedule they were on that they gained everything back.

    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......

    You are living proof that not everyone is predisposed to fail. You have done a great job getting back into shape after everything.

    A lot of people have a problem because they don't know how to do it right.
    They might not have the support they need.
    They may say they are doing it but are cheating or miscounting.
    They might not have the activity level set right- They could be eating too much or not enough.
    They might be trying to do it with diet alone and no exercise.
    They could be doing all exercise and no diet.

    They could have a thyroid problem. It could be a medical issue they don't know about.

    There are so many reasons it isn't working. The only way to find out is to challenge them to log what they eat and what they do -honestly- and go from there.

    Keep encouraging them Challenge them to step outside their comfort zone. Maybe it is what they need.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    Feel free to be as helpless as you like.

    I choose not to be.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Nope. But it seems you are still looking for excuses OP. :ohwell:

    I don't have any excuses. I will hit my goal in a month or two. I am just pointing out that the genetic deck maybe stacked against certain people, based on the metabolism that they inherited. It is a somewhat sobering article. You must have missed the point. Not surprising.
    No.....I think you've missed the point. Big time.

    It really doesn't matter whether fat cells are inherited, because we all have the choice of whether to take care of our bodies or not. We have control over what we put in our mouths and how we treat our bodies. If we eat at a reasonable calorie deficit (eat less than we burn) then we will lose weight at a reasonable rate. If we eat more than we burn, we will gain weight.

    No wonder the obese people in the study became cranky and lost weight on 600 calories a day, and no wonder their metabolism slowed down to snails pace. No wonder they snuck food in their rooms and gained weight. Think about it; if any person was in this same situation, the outcomes would most likely be the same. The less you weight the less calories your burn.

    And those people who'd been thin their whole lives eating loads of food and gaining weight and increasing their metabolism? Well, that made perfect sense too. Well, the more your weigh the more calories you burn because of all that fat.

    I certainly believe genetics play in many areas of our lives,but I also think that overeating is a learned behavior and a choice. Look at all the people from high school who were thin and are now fat. Look at some of the fat people from high school who are now thin and have kept their weight off for years. How do you explain that?

    I'm not saying that you personally are making excuses for obesity, but that its' easy to throw some kind of "study" or "label" into the mix of a more obese world to become resigned to saying "well, that's just the way I am."

    I have a girlfriend who has been overweight her whole life. She's never tried to lose weight and takes full responsibility for her choice to stay obese and said that it's never bothered her. She does not blame genetics, or her mother, or anyone else.

    Certainly, we can be born with more fat cells than other people, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to it and not do anything about it.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    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......
    Scotty, no offense intended, but you come across as a real smart aleck who wants to be right. You also seem to put yourself in a category outside of those with inherited fat cells. Why?

    I encourage you to stop and look at reality. There are so many people who were fat kids who have lost weight as adults and continue to keep it off without starving themselves. They simply make better choices in food and/or exercise. They choose not to be fat anymore.

    I was an obese kid and young adult, lost weight as an adult, then gained some back. I started paying attention last April and now I'm at normal weight and trying to learn how to maintain my weight but, shoot, it keeps coming off slowly. No medical conditions present, so if I'm loaded with those fat-cell genetics, shouldn't I have trouble keeping the weight off? I mean, it should just start piling on again because I'm eating between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day.

    It has been so darned easy taking this weight off, and its' easier now than ever to keep it off because I have the tools for weight management. I created a calorie deficit be eating less than I burn, I continued weight lifting and running but added more exercise, and here I am.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member

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

    Is this true?

    Yes, if you stand long enough! The other thing is, standing tends to make people fidget more, use stabilizer muscles, shift their weight, etc. insome cases. Even sitting I move my legs and feet, upper body, etc. All the time. I've never had an overweight issue. It's been said that people who fidget more, burn more calories. I think that's reasonable. It's called "NEAT" -- non-exercise adaptive thermogenesis" and is the modern explanation for "fast" versus "slow" metabolism in healthy, hormonally balanced people.

    In some cases, it can supposedly amount to a 900 calorie difference in a day between high-fidget people and low-fidget people. I don't know if I believe that extreme...but I definitely can see how there could be a few hundred calorie difference. Most of the studies I've read point to fidget behavior as a key difference between thin and obese people, other than caloric intake. And guess what...they claim fidget behavior *may* be...wait for it...influenced by genetics and heritable...
  • acogg
    acogg Posts: 1,871 Member
  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member

    All chains can be broken, apathy, complacency and and a desire to find reasons why you can't do something are a mindset which can be changed.

    Have seen first hand people break away from negative family (so called genetic) traits because their desire to change and take control of their lives was stronger than the comfort of having external factors to blame...seen plenty success stories on here that go on to prove this.

    TBH did not read link but as the saying goes "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

    Skinny people must have fast metabolisms right?

    Think again:

    Still convinced your problem is a slow metabolism?

    You don't:

    ETA: *Using rigorously controlled studies, we’ve found that:

    1. When people are in a caloric deficit, they always lose weight.

    2. When people are in a caloric surplus, they always gain weight.

  • SrJoben
    SrJoben Posts: 484 Member
    Whats the ratio of fat to muscle lost on a low calorie diet without strength training?

    If it's anything worse than 2-1 than the explanation for this is blindingly obvious.

    Gotta love the doc (or journalist?) thinking that the people he starved showing symptoms of starvation is a significant finding.
    NRSPAM Posts: 961 Member
    Towards the end, he says that if people want to remain thin, it will be a constant battle. I already knew that about myself. Some people are thin, and don't typically have a problem remaining that way. My in-laws, for example. They are all thin, and have no real interest in food. They have to be very hungry, to even eat anything, most of the time. I, on the other hand, do not have to be hungry to eat. Lol. I eat because I enjoy it, I eat when I'm hungry, just about every time. They don't always eat when they're hungry. My husband is the same way. I love food, and he doesn't even seem to like it. It's always puzzled me. Honestly they're all a little too thin, in my opinion, and my husband has always wanted to gain weight, but he just gives up. I, on the other hand, have always been overweight, and food is like an addiction for me. I like it....TOO much. I've tried to develop a more healthy relationship with food, and try to eat to live, rather than living to eat. I know I will always struggle to maintain my weight, once I've reached my goal. I love food, and I that is why I have to count calories, because that is the only real way to know when I've reached my limitations.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    This is probably the most arrogant thing I've seen you post.

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

    ...we are in agreement.
  • sk_pirate
    sk_pirate Posts: 282 Member
    ETA: nope, not worth it.
  • kit_liu
    kit_liu Posts: 22 Member
    You may have inherited a condition that will lead to you being overweight or obese, but whether you do become fat is up to you. Think positive and do something about it.
  • Just my 2 cents...

    I believe the tendency to become obese is hereditary.
    But that doesn't mean you have to overeat and actually become obese.

    I have 3 siblings (but I'm the only adopted one). I was brought up in a house of healthy eaters. None of my siblings and neither parent has ever had any sort of weight problem. But I am morbidly obese. Did I overeat? Hell, yeah! But maybe genetics had a hand in why I was always wanting more food. Just a thought.

    I also am pretty sure that once I have lost this weight, it will be a constant struggle and effort to keep it off. My siblings don't struggle to maintain their weight.

    So I don't think obese people are helpless in controlling their weight, but I do think it's a lot harder for those who are genetically predisposed to obesity.

    Edit: forgot to mention that my biological mother was morbidly obese too.
  • Vailara
    Vailara Posts: 2,433 Member
    Helpless? Maybe not, but I do think it's much harder for some people to stay at a "healthy" weight than others. The twin studies are compelling (although, it always seems odd to me that identical twins were raised apart - presumably adopted into different families? I think there's a whole other story there).
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member

    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.

    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".

    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.

    A point that wasn't being argued, so I'm a bit baffled why you quoted my post.