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: 650 Member
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 -
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 metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Yep, people don't want to man/woman up and take responsibility.
Can you explain your reasoning. How would your body having a set point it wants to get back to relieve you of responsibility for weight control?2 -
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.
It is a lot harder to walk around with all the extra weight. For me my food diary is my best friend. It gives me complete control. The "logging is hard" excuse drives me nuts.16 -
I think there may be something to the 'set point'. I know I have a real tough time getting below 150. It's not a cop out or some means of refusing responsibility (whatever that means). I'm not saying I can't get below 150, just that it's a lot harder than it is to get down to 150.
I also start to feel fat if I get above 160. I'm not talking looks, I'm talking how I feel. I feel 'big', sluggish, like I need to lose weight. Below 150 I think I look like I could still lose a few, but I feel skinny. I feel hungry when I don't think I should be hungry.
No matter what the mirror shows I feel 'right' when I'm around 150 - 155 lbs.
But, it wasn't always this way. I can remember when I was younger I felt this way around 135 - 140 lbs.
If set point is a thing I think we alter it by becoming overly fat. And I'm not sure we can change it back once it's been altered. At least I haven't been able to. Maybe if I got down to 135 and maintained there for a year or so that would become my set point again. IDK I haven't had the motivation to get down there again yet.11 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yep, people don't want to man/woman up and take responsibility.
Can you explain your reasoning. How would your body having a set point it wants to get back to relieve you of responsibility for weight control?
The reasoning is right there.
Because you can ascribe responsibility to your body ("my body wanted my set point more than I wanted to lose weight").
5 -
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.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.20 -
I like to think of it as simple math, if truly in deficit you must lose weight.
As I looked at the whole CICO model I also went deeper into the quality of the calories. I decided that if I am going to be immersed in a healthier lifestyle I should try to eat calories that come from nutritious foods.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
It is really easy, especially for those who found the path to success is easy (or they are done and forgot how difficult it was), to assume that absolutely everybody will find the path to successful weight loss just as easily. It is also easy to blame everyone who hasn't found success for being lazy and making excuses. So here is my explanation for how I became heavy to begin with... if you think this is my fault, I would ask for an explanation as to how you arrived at that conclusion:
When I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, I was underweight for my height and age (by about 10 lbs.). At that time, the treatment for type 1 was not nearly as advanced as it is today. Basically, the treatment was insulin shots for both a basal and bolus (some today still are on MDI, though many of us are on pumps that allow greater flexibility) and a rigid meal plan. The meal plan was setup to eat exactly the same amount of the same types of foods at exactly the same times every single day.
Within the first month, I gained 20 lbs. and was overweight. Within the first year, I had doubled my weight. Over the next 2 years (3 total), I had more than tripled my weight and was obese. This was on the insulin and meal plan given to me by a CDE and dietition working for an endocrinologist. Though I had more training on type 1 diabetes by the time I was 10 years old than most U.S. physicians (according to those who spent weeks training me), and though there was an even better educated healthcare team involved, a way to stop gaining didn't come until I went to a pump several years later - the pump allowed much more flexibility for timing and quantities of meals.
I started out taking pork insulin before things like Apidra, Humalog, Lantus, Levemir, and other newer insulins were available - you can forget about Symlin until much later. As technology, medications, and treatment methods improved, I was able to finally start losing weight... slowly. I had some pretty good losses at first, but then had serious low BG's. During the 4th month (so after 3.5 months), I had a serious low BG day. For about 14 hours, without taking a single bolus and while using a temp. basal of 0 during part of that time, I needed over 600g of carbs to treat persistent low BG. Things like that make it extremely difficult to lose weight. Sure, you could argue that I could just eat less... but that also means that I could die.
I've had unusual experiences with weight loss - times where I had long plateaus followed by large "whooshes" and a time where I've gained weight after cutting calories further (when losing weight slowly prior to cutting calories). I've seen huge increases in losses by changing macros without changing total calories. CICO is just not that simple for me.
So my point is that there are some of us who are not fat because we are lazy, but because of circumstances over which we have little or no control; and that CICO is not as straight-forward as many here believe.24
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions