Obesity research-impossible to lose weight long term?
Options
Replies
-
This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
0 -
"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
0 -
Honestly, to me it sounds like a scare-tactic to get people to buy "diet pills" or other gimmicks. If I had the time, I'd love to dive in and uncover the funding behind some of these "studies."
In the academic world, there have a couple of researchers whose funding has come to light recently, calling into question the objectivity of their work. One was a Harvard researcher who denied climate change with funding from the Koch brothers and another about the Oklahoma Seismology Institute saying the increase in earthquakes in OK in the last few years (they had over 100 more than California in 2014) had nothing to do with the corresponding increase in fracking permits. The OSI reports to the University of Oklahoma, the President of which sits on a conglomeration board of Big Oil companies (who hold the fracking permits).0 -
"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.0 -
No. No, it isn't."An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
0 -
"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
This guy (obesity researcher)'s blog reviews research supporting your points as well as the conclusions of the original study.
http://www.drsharma.ca/
The factors you mention aren't taken into account at all. Neither are technologies like MFP that make logging so easy. And they haven't seemed to use samples of people like many MFP users, who 1) educate each other on ways of managing the factors you mention and 2) are highly motivated.0 -
"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Then curtail the choices of the people resorting to surgery, not those of us who are capable of limiting ourselves.
Note: I dont even want to do that. I'd rather try basic nutrition education before anyone tells anyone else they can't have fast food, candy, soda or simply inexpensive/readily available foods.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. No, it isn't."An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Want to explain why not?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. No, it isn't."An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Want to explain why not?
I'd like to hear why you think it's better and how it would be implemented/work.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. No, it isn't."An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
Want to explain why not?
I'd like to hear why you think it's better and how it would be implemented/work.
Ha. Making it work would really depend on the details, and I'm not capable of magicking those up on a Sunday afternoon. The right policies, though, would make it easier for even unmotivated people to make better choices, that seems obvious.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.
Private companies are not accountable? How have you decided that? There's mandatory nutrition labels, strict safety guidelines, and sites like this that promote nutrition education thereby making an educated consumer that can choose how to gote with their money.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
This guy (obesity researcher)'s blog reviews research supporting your points as well as the conclusions of the original study.
http://www.drsharma.ca/
The factors you mention aren't taken into account at all. Neither are technologies like MFP that make logging so easy. And they haven't seemed to use samples of people like many MFP users, who 1) educate each other on ways of managing the factors you mention and 2) are highly motivated.
Okay, what am I looking for on his website?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.
Private companies are not accountable? How have you decided that? There's mandatory nutrition labels, strict safety guidelines, and sites like this that promote nutrition education thereby making an educated consumer that can choose how to gote with their money.
If private companies are accountable at all, it's because the government makes those labels mandatory, and established those safety guidelines.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »This thread is entertaining. All of these posters saying "but I will be DIFFERENT" is crazy; all of the patients in the studies who regained weight thought they'd be different too.
The facts are the facts, and your attitude cannot overcome your biology. However, I will continue to work hard because it's the only option. I'd rather work hard to be in the 5% and know that I earnestly tried than the alternative of letting my blubbery behind waddle through life in a panting, sweaty mess. Maybe I'll be that fat guy forever, maybe not, but trying affords me a 5% chance and not trying affords me 0%, so it's an easy choice.
In this study/article I see absolutely zero evidence that points to this being a biology problem.
The only "biology" problems are some hormonal shenanigans after weight loss which lead to increased hunger and sort of want you to return to your former weight. If you're aware that it's going to happen, you can ride it out. I've read different time frames for how long the effect lasts.
The other factor which comes into play is a decreased TDEE among those who have lost weight compared to those who would naturally have been that weight. This can be somewhat offset by strength training during weight loss and taking diet breaks.
I don't remember seeing these factors mentioned in the article, though.
This guy (obesity researcher)'s blog reviews research supporting your points as well as the conclusions of the original study.
http://www.drsharma.ca/
The factors you mention aren't taken into account at all. Neither are technologies like MFP that make logging so easy. And they haven't seemed to use samples of people like many MFP users, who 1) educate each other on ways of managing the factors you mention and 2) are highly motivated.
Okay, what am I looking for on his website?
Ach, sorry to not have pointed you towards a particular study - there's a ton of research he's linked to and discusses about obesity in general, metabolic influences, etc. Really sorry - I'm not totally with it today!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.
Private companies are not accountable? How have you decided that? There's mandatory nutrition labels, strict safety guidelines, and sites like this that promote nutrition education thereby making an educated consumer that can choose how to gote with their money.
If private companies are accountable at all, it's because the government makes those labels mandatory, and established those safety guidelines.
Okay? That's not the government telling what they can or can't make.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »"An appropriate rebalancing of the primal needs of humans with food availability is essential," University of Oxford epidemiologist Klim McPherson wrote in a Lancet commentary following last week's study. But to do that, he suggested, "would entail curtailing many aspects of production and marketing for food industries."
This is the disturbing part of the article for me. I have no desire for some committee of central planers to sit around deciding what foods companies should be allowed to produce or what we should or should not be allowed to eat.
I think it's a better answer than suggesting whatever percentage of obese people resort to surgery.
How? It wouldn't solve the problem any more than WLS does anyway, and you would have just handed the government all that power.
Sure it would. I have no problem with governments. Governments are accountable through elections, and offices like the Auditor General here in Canada, and through journalists and other watchdogs. Private companies are not.
Private companies are not accountable? How have you decided that? There's mandatory nutrition labels, strict safety guidelines, and sites like this that promote nutrition education thereby making an educated consumer that can choose how to gote with their money.
If private companies are accountable at all, it's because the government makes those labels mandatory, and established those safety guidelines.
Okay? That's not the government telling what they can or can't make.
Um, that's the government imposing constraints on production, as far as the safety standards are concerned, absolutely.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions