Real Reasons for Obesity

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.

There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.

Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.

"The basic premise is that overeating doesn’t make you fat. The process of getting fat makes you overeat."

Well, actually...
Fat releases leptin, which is supposed to be an appetite suppressant. But just as obese people can develop insulin
resistance, they can develop leptin resistance. So even though there's a LOT of leptin running around (because
they have a lot of fat making it), it doesn't work as well.
And when losing weight, they'll be making even less leptin, so will be more hungry.

Also, if someone is insulin resistant (which happens often with being fat) your body will be starving at the cellular
level because there isn't enough insulin to shove glucose into the cells (for it to burn to run your body), no matter
how much you are eating or how high your blood sugar is, so again you will be hungry.

If those happen together, you'll be miserable.


.

In his new book, “[title redacted],” he argues that the primary driver of obesity today is not an excess of
calories per se, but an excess of high glycemic foods like sugar, refined grains and other processed carbohydrates.

Again, well...
Those types of foods do tend to be high-calorie, and cause blood sugar spikes (after which we're hungry again
quickly, so will eat more calories). But it's not the sugar causing a problem, other than for health (because you're
not getting actual nutrition) & the lack of hunger control, it's the eating too much.


But this bit actually makes sense:

Q. what is the underlying cause of obesity?

A. It’s the low fat, very high carbohydrate diet that we’ve been eating for the last 40 years, which raises levels
of the hormone insulin and programs fat cells to go into calorie storage overdrive.
...
The quickest way to lower insulin is to cut back on processed carbohydrates and to get the right balance of
protein and fat in your diet.

lbctfs wrote: »

It sounds pretty on point to me. High glycemic foods digest really quickly. Think about having just a baked potato or bottle of Gatorade. You'd get a lot of cals but barely feel any fullness. White bread, white potato, baked chips, soda, etc are all severely empty calories. If you have a lot of these in your diet and just cut back on calories you'll be super hungry and less likely to be successful. Substituting lower GI foods with more protein and fat or complex carbs helps you feel full.

Some of the statements seem to suggest that total calories don't really matter. While that's a bit extreme I think it's saying calories don't matter as much as what foods they come from. And that if you're getting quality nutrient dense foods, you'll probably require fewer calories anyway.

You actually just compared a baked potato, something with lots of nutrients, fiber and the like, to Gatoade, sugar water with some electrolytes?

lbctfs wrote: »

missblondi2u wrote: »

This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!

Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?

Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.

But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.

Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.

msharrington315 wrote: »

"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really *kitten*! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!" - Louis Black

Not seen this particular quote before but I absolutely love it!

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.

There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.

Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.

Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here isn't exactly true.

Bonny132 wrote: »

msharrington315 wrote: »

"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really *kitten*! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!" - Louis Black

Not seen this particular quote before but I absolutely love it!

I actually heard him say it in one of his stand up routines... It rang so true in my world!

This conflicting information is one of the big reasons I do not always follow what people, including so-called experts, tell me to do. I listen, but I have to find the answers myself. People are fallible. What we once thought to be true at one time, may not be the reality later.

We use to think the world is flat... what makes us think we have all the answers now with weight loss?

rabbitjb wrote: »

clobern80 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

DataSeven wrote: »

I eat processed foods every day and am losing weight. Am I breaking the laws of science here?

That's not what the article suggested. But according to the author you may be making it harder on yourself than if you didn't eat them.

I would rather make it a little tougher while still losing and enjoying foods I think are delicious than be miserable and give up eating like a rabbit.

Narrows eyes

Whaddayamean? I eat lots of delicious foods

:bigsmile:

Interrupting this thread to say that the awesomeness of rabbit's new avi surpasses even the quackiness of Ludwig (which is a big deal).

Carry on.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.

There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.

Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.

Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.

Prove it.

...cuz the skinny man says so!

I just think it's interesting how weight loss for me became so simple and straightforward, so damned easy, when I discovered (and applied) the concept of CICO to my situation (e.g., used MFP, Fitbit). I am an Atkins veteran and while I did lose weight with Atkins, it was far more labor-intensive than calorie counting.

Added benefit is I now eat a lot more processed carbs and I'm a lot happier, I feel far less deprived.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.

There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.

Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.

Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.

Prove it.

It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.

You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.

There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.

Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.

Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.

Prove it.

It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.

You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.

No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.

The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.

Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?

SanteMulberry wrote: »

Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).

Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.

Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:

1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.