Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
ElJefeChief
Posts: 651 Member
in Debate Club
I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
12
Replies
-
I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
It's human nature to try and find the reason for their problems in something out of their hands, no one likes admitting it's their own fault.
And that excuse is even more half baked, as your body had no problem gaining weight to the point of being overweight/obese either.35 -
-
Yep, people don't want to man/woman up and take responsibility.19
-
I really think with portion control and limiting calories anyone can lose or maintain their weight. It does take desire and willpower that some people just don't seem to have. I was talking to someone last night that is type II diabetic and taking insulin. It looked to me that if he lost about 80 pounds he may improve his situation. I was thinking if that doesn't motivate you then nothing will.10
-
I agree on the CICO.
I think habits, years in the making sometimes, sneak up on you after you have lost some weight and then you slide back into consuming too many calories again and your weight creeps back up. Its a matter of catching it before it gets out of hand, or wanting to catch it. For some people its a chore not to over eat, if it wasnt we wouldnt be overweight. (unless medical issues persist)
I dont think my body is at a weight it likes, because it goes up and down depending on what I consume for calories. The hardest thing for me is to consistently keep myself at a healthy calorie intake. If im not hungry, I shouldnt eat and when I do, I go way over my normal calories and I either gain weight or stay the same.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Pressure in the bladder or the sensation of air hunger isn't the "body wanting something" - which implies that our bodies have intentionality outside of our own as sentient beings. Which is a really odd duality - "you" can want something but your "body" can want something else (as if your body is somehow separate from you).7 -
People make excuses for all types of things all the time.7
-
Pressure in the bladder or the sensation of air hunger isn't the "body wanting something" - which implies that our bodies have intentionality outside of our own as sentient beings. Which is a really odd duality - "you" can want something but your "body" can want something else (as if your body is somehow separate from you).
Oh, I get it. This is a thread about word games where you define everything in such a way as to prove you're right.
All I know is it's never started with a mental desire to pee, or to breathe, it's always a physical urge - which implies that you're drastically oversimplifying the situation in order to feel like you're right.38 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.16 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
All of this is wrong... No just no.80 -
Arguing against the ghost in the machine?
Philosophical issues aside, IMO of course our bodies are us, but it's really common and understandable to perceive desires that we don't have conscious control over as "the body" vs. "the mind." In reality for many it's basically a figurative way of talking in that most people will likely acknowledge that their body is them (and that their mind is determined by the physical as well).
That's separate from set point theory, which I don't buy.3 -
I used to say I can't get below 165...
I used to say I have big bones I can't get smaller
I used to say I will always wear a large shirt.
Guess what...
My lowest weight todate (not on purpose) was 142 (still in maintenance range)currently about 150.
I do have a larger frame but didn't matter.
Last shirt I bought was a small...
I don't believe in set point either. I think that it gets harder as we get smaller as the room for error is so small it may seem impossible but it's not....otherwise people with eating disorders wouldn't waste away would they...their bodies wouldn't "allow it"23 -
CICO -- simple solution to a complex problem. Getting metabolism burning is more important than simply cutting calories. Otherwise, I agree that people like to make excuses.0
-
My second-to-last job in the Army was Drill Sergeant, and you'd be amazed at the range of excuses basic training privates made for why they were puffy and out of shape. People nowadays don't (a) take responsibility for their actions (or inaction) and (b) expect somebody else to fix it. Great thing about being in the Army is the privates got to fix that crap themselves - one pushup, one situp, and one mile at a time. Mine is a no-excuse zone, whether from myself or others.53
-
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
Not exactly. Maybe macros are not all created equal (fat is 9 kcals per gram, protein and carbs are 4 kcals per gram and protein tends to be more satiating and there is a small difference in the thermic effect of food (TEF) for the different macros, but it's pretty miniscule. Bottomline, CICO holds true. How you go about getting that deficit can vary from person to person. Some do better with low carb strategies, some do not. To each their own there.
As far as frequent eating revving up metabolism. There is no solid scientific evidence to back that up. This is purely anecdotal (but so is your example), but for me, eating more frequently just resulted in me never feeling satiated after a meal (since I ate smaller calorie meals) or I ended up eating more calories than I burned due to the more frequent meals. Significantly limiting my snacking and sticking to essentially 3 meals a day (with maybe a light snack to tide me over here and there) has been more helpful. But again, every individual is different and the key is to find something that works for you, whether that's large meals less frequently or smaller meals more frequently or something completely different. Bottomline, calories in versus calories out during the day is what matters for weight loss, not how frequently or when you eat during the day.8 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »My second-to-last job in the Army was Drill Sergeant, and you'd be amazed at the range of excuses basic training privates made for why they were puffy and out of shape. People nowadays don't (a) take responsibility for their actions (or inaction) and (b) expect somebody else to fix it. Great thing about being in the Army is the privates got to fix that crap themselves - one pushup, one situp, and one mile at a time. Mine is a no-excuse zone, whether from myself or others.
I remember basic training...I was going to "get into shape" before mine...my uncle (Officer in Canadian Airforce) told me not to worry about it...cause I would be in shape when they were done...he was right...
Trades training was even better for that....aka Artillery.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Arguing against the ghost in the machine?
Philosophical issues aside, IMO of course our bodies are us, but it's really common and understandable to perceive desires that we don't have conscious control over as "the body" vs. "the mind." In reality for many it's basically a figurative way of talking in that most people will likely acknowledge that their body is them (and that their mind is determined by the physical as well).
That's separate from set point theory, which I don't buy.
Yeah I just think that if you ascribe a desire to something outside of yourself (e.g., "your body" wants you to eat over your TDEE but "your mind" wants you to lose weight) you're dooming yourself to failure, and you're basing it on something that's philosophically nonsensical to boot. How we use language, I think, tends to shape how we see reality and also how we deal with it.
I look at the desire to overeat as stemming from biological drives with some very longstanding origins that we've developed over centuries of evolution. I look at the desire to be fit and of a normal weight as stemming from competing drives determined by much more recent developments in neurobiological evolution (combined with community knowledge about health and wellness - perhaps with a dash of social mores about what's considered physically attractive).
It's not really the mind vs. the body, it's more our "lizard brain" (e.g, hypothalamus, brainstem, and limbic system) vs. our frontal lobes. It's our body versus our body, really. Just that we can want two things at once, and sometimes choices are hard to make.14 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..27 -
One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.50 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism46
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions