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

1356722

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    jlaw_1992 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it?

    You mean like to pee? Or the urge to breathe?

    It's a result of evolution.

    While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."

    So would it be correct if someone says "I have a weight set point"??

    I doubt it. I think they likely have developed habits that involve how quickly they eat, what they eat, and their portion sizes. It feels like a natural setpoint because it's habit.

    Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that everyone (or most) that says they have a set point believes that point is their highest weight?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    I don't know about set point, it might or might not be a thing. What I find really interesting is how naturally weight stable people (not necessarily thin) actually maintain within 5 pounds autonomously until something changes like their general level of activity... that's only a few dozen of calories. The precision It's amazing and fascinating without conscious control over the calories. I would love to find out the mechanisms that contribute to that, both physical and mental.

    Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."

    In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.

    I love this post right up to the end. Why do you assume that believing your body has a set point means they think they can't lose weight, or even that they haven't lost weight? That seems a big assumption.

    There was no such assumption! Some of those who believe in this theory do successfully lose weight and in their mind they are successfully swimming upstream against their 'set point'. The last bit was for a very specific case mentioned by the original post where some people would use it as an excuse.

    An excuse for what? The OP never says anything about not being able to lose weight, though the subject line does.

    The post itself seems more to about why it would be hard to maintain a loss, which seems a valid point to me.
  • GoKelsey
    GoKelsey Posts: 15 Member
    randomtai wrote: »
    All of this is wrong... No just no.
    I know, right?! Everybody says "just cut your calories!" but it didn't work for me. My pants just got tighter. I think CICO is definitely guaranteed to work for people who need to lose a lot of weight. A lot of people are just overeating. But I was about 10lbs from my goal weight, so I needed to be more strategic with my foods. It wasn't just about the amount anymore.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."

    This is how I think of it too. I gained when for various reasons I went from very active to sedentary twice in my life. I was never particularly weight stable, either -- I found that once I'd started gaining and was unhappy with my weight it was too easy to just decide it didn't matter, as I was going to have to lose the weight anyway or was already fat. There was some depression involved.

    When I focus on having an active lifestyle and being thoughtful about how I eat I seem to be able to maintain easily just a little bit heavier than I'd like to be. It takes more work to get lower, but I think that's about the lifestyle choices that I am comfortable with.
  • Guns_N_Buns
    Guns_N_Buns Posts: 1,899 Member
    GoKelsey wrote: »
    randomtai wrote: »
    All of this is wrong... No just no.
    I know, right?! Everybody says "just cut your calories!" but it didn't work for me. My pants just got tighter. I think CICO is definitely guaranteed to work for people who need to lose a lot of weight. A lot of people are just overeating. But I was about 10lbs from my goal weight, so I needed to be more strategic with my foods. It wasn't just about the amount anymore.

    all-moocs-and-no-play-makes-university-dull1.gif
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    chel325 wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    chel325 wrote: »
    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.

    I meal prep homemade recipes every weekend, place into tupperware to eat through out the week. I also weigh everything. It's not that hard, it's an excuse.

    Beginners don't even need to go through the effort that me and you do. I lost the first 60lbs guessing. Bought a scale only recently.

    People spend more time on netflix or Facebook than they would on losing weight by calorie counting. It's an excuse, if it's so hard and they're so busy then I'm sure measuring insulin for their diabetes will be easier.

    You and I are nothing alike it seems. I never get on Netflix and only check FB while in the loo. I don't preplan meals because I don't know what we'll be in the mood for on any given day and I'm not fond of food that's been in the fridge for more than a day. I also can't really be sure how many people I'll be feeding each day. I'm not sure what you think I'm making excuses for as I've already lost weight without weighing. Lots of people do. I was just giving you an example of one person that finds measuring and weighing food to be a PITA. Sorry you seem offended by my being different.

    I'm not offended nor talking about you if this doesn't apply, not sure why you're entering yourself into the equation if it has nothing to do with you.

    The thread is about excuses people use on why they can't lose weight and I responded giving the ones I've heard.

    If I misunderstood your remarks about diabetes and Netflix and FB and excuses as offense then I apologize for misinterpreting. They seemed rather rude to me but it's hard to tell tone in a post. Perhaps you were attempting humor. You asked a question about how calorie counting could be hard so I answered it since I'm one that finds it hard (not physically hard but nonetheless not something sustainable).
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    GoKelsey wrote: »
    Lenala13 wrote: »
    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.
    I was just sharing that CICO didn't work for me (in case there are others struggling with that too). It has to do with the fact that carbs are converted to glucose in the body. When you can't process all that sugar at once (as I said, most of my calories were carbs), the body converts it to fat. So subbing equal calories of protein for carbs fixed that issue and I lost weight! And I don't want to get too graphic, but when your metabolism is faster, the food comes out faster...

    This was equally wrong as your first post. Your body doesn't just go and convert carbs to fat. That's inefficient. If anything it turns them into glycogen and that gets used later on.
    Because you're in a calorie deficit and your body takes from its reserves, including the glycogen it created right after your meal.

    And you're going to the toilet more often because the waste in your intestines is more spaced out.

    This, this, also this.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,933 Member
    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.

    A hundred times, this. Don't get caught up in figures of speech.
  • DrEnalg
    DrEnalg Posts: 650 Member
    jlaw_1992 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it?

    You mean like to pee? Or the urge to breathe?

    It's a result of evolution.

    While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."

    Dingdingding
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member

    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.

    Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.