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
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
Yes, but one's calorie requirement can decrease naturally as one ages, often without a corresponding decrease in hunger. Therefore one can eat the same as one always did and still gain weight. The reasons for the decrease in energy expenditure can vary greatly, which is why it can be hard to understand why one is suddenly gaining weight when they didn't before, especially if the reason is something 'unseen' like hormone levels.
As far as macros affecting weight loss, I don't think there have been a ton of studies in this area, at least not in humans (more in rats/mice). I at least find the hypothesis that macro composition could impact weight loss to be plausible, through a hormone or gut bacteria mechanism that would change nutrient absorption. I'm not saying something as extreme as true nutrient malabsorption. Just different digestion efficiencies, basically.
But like I said, while it's an intriguing hypothesis there's no comprehensive studies to back it up yet. Would like to see more research on that area to either prove or disprove it once and for all though!
Then if one doesn't want to gain weight because of less activity/muscle mass it's simply a matter of eating less, again CICO. One can adapt to eating a bit less to avoid weight gain.
The change in caloric needs is minimal and occurs over a long period of time. For example a moderately active 20 yo male needs 2800 calories a day. When that person gets to age 66 and older they need 2200, a change in daily caloric needs of around 100 a decade. Easy to adapt to if someone wants it.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
Refer to title of the thread.
This does not follow my own experience. I've experienced long plateaus. In one case, while meticulously logging CI and without changing CI, I just stopped losing weight. If the explanation is that my CO changed, then it would have been abrupt. CO measurement with Fitbit Surge was consistent throughout, so you couldn't even argue that I was suddenly exercising less than I had been before and wasn't meticulously logging before and after.
After those 2 months, I switched to a version of IF that had me eating huge surpluses in total for each week. I did this for 6 weeks and did not gain weight overall. There were fluctuations day-to-day (bigger than one would expect normally, but explainable due to IF). If the explanation for why I didn't gain during those 6 weeks is that my CO suddenly increased by thousands of calories per day, then it is a rapid change and not over a long period of time.
After that 6 weeks, I went back to a daily deficit... but didn't lose for more than 2 months. So if the explanation is that my CO abruptly decreased for 2+ months, then CO did not change over a long period of time.
Finally, this plateau ended with a "whoosh" where I lost almost 10 lbs. in less than a week. If the explanation is that CO abruptly increased for a number of days and then abruptly decreased again, then CO change is not slow.
The realistic explanation of my experience is that I was in a plateau. In a true plateau, a person does not lose weight while eating at a deficit and does not gain weight while eating at a surplus. Since I was eating at a deficit in total (at a surplus during part of that time, and a deficit the rest of the time), the end of the plateau provided a "whoosh" of weight loss. I realize there are a lot of people who never have experienced a true plateau, and most don't understand them. Still, it is just one of many examples of cases where CICO is imperfect. Other users have mentioned the relevance of macros, and I have my own experience to show macros have more impact than straight calories. Assuming CICO is absolute ignores the great complexity of the human body and ignores many variabilities, both known and unknown, from person to person.5 -
Yeah. Fatlogic is something that I used myself when I was obese. It's true I grew up with poor eating habits, but denial is all part of the excuse.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"
All of this. I was always told, and I always believed that I was naturally big and curvy, just like so many others in my family, and I thought anything below 130lbs would be extremely difficult. It did take time, but I managed to get down to 110lbs. In maintenance, as long as I log, I find it pretty easy to stay in my goal range. Set point is BS imo.9 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »As to CICO not working - it's a semantics problem. When someone say it doesn't work for them they aren't saying the math doesn't work (or it's a discussion of what the term actually encompasses); They mean they actually need to look at composition to manage hunger, or that certain ways of eating allows them to remain consistently under calorie needs. Macros, meal frequency, meal time, etc. may influence individual hunger, fatigue, performance... which in turn impact weight loss.
Not always. Quite often on MFP people assert that they cannot lose even eating 1200 on whatever macros they were eating (often the 50-30-20 that MFP defaults to), but that once they change their macros they can lose on 2400. This also gets argued by some vegan posters or "clean eaters" in just about the same way.*
I think everyone agrees that counting calories can not work for some either because they choose a diet that prevents satiety (although I always wonder why fixing that is not an obvious and intuitive step if one is hungry), cut too low and have negative effects (although it's weird and wrong to think CICO=starvation diet), or don't count well (common enough).
I also think for many, especially women, there's an internalized negative stigma to eating too much such that they really need to cling to the idea that they got fat while eating like a bird. It can't possibly have been related to how much they consumed. And that's a psychological reason to insist that CICO cannot work. (I was in denial about how much I was eating when I got fat, but I'm lucky in that I don't really have this issue, so when I forced myself to think through how I gained and what I was eating, I realized that it was quite a bit more than I'd been noticing.)
*For example, from this very thread, here is the claim that was made: "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."6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »As to CICO not working - it's a semantics problem. When someone say it doesn't work for them they aren't saying the math doesn't work (or it's a discussion of what the term actually encompasses); They mean they actually need to look at composition to manage hunger, or that certain ways of eating allows them to remain consistently under calorie needs. Macros, meal frequency, meal time, etc. may influence individual hunger, fatigue, performance... which in turn impact weight loss.
Not always. Quite often on MFP people assert that they cannot lose even eating 1200 on whatever macros they were eating (often the 50-30-20 that MFP defaults to), but that once they change their macros they can lose on 2400. This also gets argued by some vegan posters or "clean eaters" in just about the same way.*
I think everyone agrees that counting calories can not work for some either because they choose a diet that prevents satiety (although I always wonder why fixing that is not an obvious and intuitive step if one is hungry), cut too low and have negative effects (although it's weird and wrong to think CICO=starvation diet), or don't count well (common enough).
I also think for many, especially women, there's an internalized negative stigma to eating too much such that they really need to cling to the idea that they got fat while eating like a bird. It can't possibly have been related to how much they consumed. And that's a psychological reason to insist that CICO cannot work. (I was in denial about how much I was eating when I got fat, but I'm lucky in that I don't really have this issue, so when I forced myself to think through how I gained and what I was eating, I realized that it was quite a bit more than I'd been noticing.)
*For example, from this very thread, here is the claim that was made: "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."
I agree that there are people that don't believe that the CICO equation is truth. They are living in outer space (that is a reference to my analogy from earlier, not a jab at their intelligence). While they may incorrectly assert that "CICO doesn't work", the practicality of the situation is that it had no (or very little) perceived effect on their experience. The same way the perceived effect of gravity in outer space would be less than those perceived on the surface of another object (like Earth).1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.
You're missing my point entirely. OBVIOUSLY eating less will compensate, but it's not necessarily BAD nor is small weight gain with aging ALL FAT.
The person I originally replied to noted a SMALL weight gain over a time span of years, and it is well established that in terms of population health, not only is this type of weight gain normal, but it's linked with growth of bone, organ and tissue growth. This may be part of why the negative effects of excess weight occur at higher bmi for older adults.
Conventional wisdom was that all growth ceased after puberty, but we're starting to understand that it does not, rather it proceeds very, very slowly.
I'm not saying that people don't also put on unnecessary fast, or that they can't lose weight by reducing intake. I'm saying that not all weight gain is necessarily fat in adulthood, nor is it necessarily bad.5 -
Sympathy is feeling sorry for people...
Empathy is feeling how they feel because you have been through it...
I am not a proponent of the top because I know what it took to get to the bottom.
Because you have lost and got there or your body was easy to get there, or you had the emotional ability to get there does not mean that others do. With that said, I know what it takes to get there. Getting off your bum and planning, executing, and pacing yourself.
I have been 100 pounds overweight. Those who have not battled with big weight issues do not really understand it is more than just CICO.
It's the emotional intelligence and acknowledgement that comes into play. Food for many people IS A DRUG. If you have ever met an alcoholic or a drug addict in your life you can easily understand how overweight people get fat. They over eat to deal with emotional issues. They eat because it makes them feel better. They are depressed. It's not simply just about willpower.
Ever been faced with a challenge in your life but put it off because you found an easier road to take? Imagine having it in your face everyday and then feeling so depressed because the issue you are facing is your own self.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. It's self deprecating, cyclical, and requires a support system to get out of that many simply fail to come to grips with.
If you have not been there you are simply trying to imagine the feeling.
If you can understand the psychological manifestation with being overweight you will begin to understand why people who struggle with weight are usually considered malleable, lacking discipline, or just lazy... Reality is they are addicted and need help. Condescending and trying to analyze it from a physiological perspective isn't the trick either...16 -
Groan.5
-
I know someone who has had drug/alcohol problems for 15 or so years, and no, drug addiction is NOT the same. I've also been on both sides. I used to think food was a drug, but it really was just that eating was a coping mechanism.jessiethe3rd wrote: »Food for many people IS A DRUG. If you have ever met an alcoholic or a drug addict in your life you can easily understand how overweight people get fat.
15 -
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.
IDk that people's bodies have a certain preference for a certain weight, but depending on how you went about your weight loss, the smaller you get the harder it is to continue to lose.
CICO is simplistic, sometimes too much so.
Depending on what calories you eat and how much exercise you do to maintain or increase your lean muscle mass, your BMR and TDEE is going to decrease along with your weight loss as you will be losing muscle along with fat. It's why it is harder and requires a more significant (often unsustainable) cut to the CI to continue to lose weight past a certain point and further maintain that new weight without some exercise portion and resistance training. People here like to refer to people who are experiencing true starvation as proof you never stop losing weight. Not entirely true, eventually you die. Further it looks past where your body shifts from healthy weight loss in fat to looking for fuel from cannibalizing muscle tissue and in extreme case, organs and the essential fat that protects them.
The set point I think people refer to is the point where they really have to adjust again that CI portion to keep seeing results. Especially if their weight loss is tilted more to restricting calories in rather than increasing calories out. CICO is a simple formula, but like many things simple isn't the same as easy. Human nature, physiological make up, macros, all play a part in making it easier to put in practice the simple.
Also, calculating the CO side of the equation is harder than most here give credit. We use some online calculators but I doubt there is a single person here that can 100% attest (and be truthful) they know to an exact number their caloric burn on a given day.0 -
Personally, I think that unless I've personally been extremely overweight and then lost and maintained that loss in a healthy manor for over 5 years, I have no room to judge. Unfortunately I think her statement is backed by statistics (95% of those who lose weight regain it - #biggestlosercontestants.) but there are outliers - which is what we all hope we are. Most here will lose and regain, lose and regain. Research tells us that yo-yo dieting is bad for us. So 95% of us ar doing damage - lol. Are you the 5%....?, I'm hoping I am. I'm also hoping that technology, medicine, advancements help solve the obesity problem; and I'll keep trying new things, like Fitbit, or Yourfitnesspal etc. until then. Your friend sounds like a pessimist, which is what's bothering you. She doesn't believe in outliers or new approaches - she would have laughed about the concept of us sharing like this 15 years ago. You won't change her.2
-
Suspended_User wrote: »I heard an amazing ad on the radio recently. "Maybe you're not fat, maybe you're just bloated! Try our new all natural pro-biotics. They reduce bloating and will magically make your belly disappear!"
Especially hilarious (to me) because I have used that very excuse looking in the mirror before even though I knew for sure it was total BS.
That was a fallacy used as a sales tactic and also the use of "Headlines" simple but well designed words melted into a fallacy and used to create desire and "I want it" to increase steady consumerism in people only to sell their products to the unsuspecting people who don't understand marketing & advertising or why fallacies are too easy to believe. That one creates hope in magic & more. Learn about fallacies, there are many and they are all around us and many, if not most, are aimed at our children to train them early to desire to buy. Then you won't fall for them because you will see through the sales tactics quickly. It goes even further to your benefit in life and health when you begin to see your own personal thinking habits of using fallacies which keep you bound to "whatever" beliefs you may already have whether it be weight struggles or other situations found in and of life. Keeping those fallacious beliefs will keep the struggle real and ongoing. Change the thought patterns once you learn they are only based on fallacies.
"I've tried dieting but I can't seem to lose any weight.
I'll never be able to lose weight no matter how hard I try.
I give up on dieting and exercise for now." (not my fallacy, but I've read it many times here on MFP)
What you called BS after looking in the mirror and you used that excuse was you recognizing your own use of a sneaky fallacy. Think about it. More people use fallacious reasoning than those who use true critical thinking. I am not picking on you at all and I enjoyed that you saw your own BS. We've all been there too. Just giving some constructive logical reasoning ideas to ponder.
(I love logic and philosophy)0 -
shinycrazy wrote: »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.
I'm a psychology major and one of the things that stuck with me was locus of control(it's been 10 years so bear with me). It's the idea of whether you (internal) or outside forces (external) control your behavior or outcomes. Many folks are more comfortable explaining behavior based on an external locus of control because then they are off the hook for what is happening.
THIS...This is pretty much the truth. It is accountability and self honesty versus feeling okay and comfortable about an experience. Erroneous belief in external forces where a different choice would give a better outcome, barring catastrophic events, like auto accidents, floods or hurricanes...?
In the end, a person wants to make their self feel good somehow, usually via justification to self of reasons why something happened and they tried but felt they had no power to make things happen differently. I would call them excuses for myself personally -- for most experiences like weight loss or control.
That said, some external forces do cause, hopefully, a temporary loss of internal locus of control. We've all been there too. Most psych untrained people would call this "needing to get themselves centered again" and this works for them. Good that they think that way.0 -
itsalifestylenotadiet wrote: »I was really thinking how neat having this community was but this thread is extremely judgemental so I think maybe I don't really want to join in much. No one out there knows everyone else's struggles and what they go through their entire lives up and down in weight unless they have gone thru it. If it works for you then great, but don't judge others because you don't have similar experiences. Just like the saying goes.... If you haven't walked in my shoes.... I mean seriously, it pisses me off when I use my handicapped placard on the days I have to and i'm told to get off my lazy *kitten* and park in the other spaces. No one knows my struggles or that I only use it when I absolutely have to because I truly would like to leave it for those in a wheelchair. Strangers making others cry and feel unworthy are the worst IMO anyway.
The thing to be aware of here at MFP is that it is a VERY large community. I, too, am appalled at the tone of some posters, but I think it comes with the large territory -- there are thousands of people here. You'll find plenty of kindness and encouragement here as well.
If you decide to stay, block/ignore the really rude folks.5 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@itsalifestylenotadiet There are so many other threads on MFP that are supportive. Not every thread attracts snarkiness.
If you keep looking, you will find a group that you feel comfortable in, don't give up! Concerning the handicapped placard and people shaming you for using it. All I can say is shame on them! Anyone who has to stop to rest after walking 200 feet is entitled to one. There are so many conditions other than being wheelchair-bound that qualify for a placard, and assuming anything about the person parking in a handicapped spot just shows ignorance.
Exactly. Well said re the placard...no one knows and has no need to know why you're using it. I've seen this at stores, and I do speak out to the criticizer of the handicapped person. Firmly, whatever it takes. I will continue to do that when I see it occur. Judgemental people do not know what each others' struggles are. To be nasty and snarky anywhere is not good. But it is common here. Many don't read the entire MFP threads, many jump in and make snap rotten comments due to their own struggles and they get offended easily on things said which they take out of context and they react badly. Please @itsalifestylenotadiet try not to pay attention to the mean comments. If I had a nickle for every horrid comment I've read on MFP I could spend a week in Hawaii without spending even one of my own nickles. SMH.2 -
Suspended_User wrote: »I heard an amazing ad on the radio recently. "Maybe you're not fat, maybe you're just bloated! Try our new all natural pro-biotics. They reduce bloating and will magically make your belly disappear!"
Especially hilarious (to me) because I have used that very excuse looking in the mirror before even though I knew for sure it was total BS.
My area has a similar radio ad, but instead of being bloated, you might be full of toxic sludge! I believe they are selling a cleanse.0 -
Hello to all, sorry i'm new to the threads and am unsure how to navigate around here and don't know how to respond directly to those who responded to me. I didn't feel the comments were directed at me at all. I just felt that there was a majority of condescending comments on both sides of the debate about what kind of diet works and vice versa. We all need to find what works for us and I have to say I am not on a diet. My name here is "its a lifestyle not a diet" because it's my mantra 100%. Diets don't work for me. Lifestyle changes do, and if I don't lead a healthy one it will end with me putting all of the lbs. back on that I fought hard to lose. I lost 76 lbs on WW and kept it off for 5 years. Between my health getting even worse two years ago which resulted in me not being able to walk again, and my depression kicking back in I put nearly half of my weight on again. I finally kicked the "I don't give a care attitude" and the depression to the curb and have lost 20 lbs of it in the last 6 months, 14 of that in the last 2, doing Keto because WW wasn't working for me anymore. I am trying to get back down to the weight I am in my profile pic so that I can wear my closet full of clothes again and most importantly feel better. When people assume that all others "have to do is start moving, go to the gym, get outside and do things" not all of us have that option. So therefore the original post to start with about people using their "overweight and obesity" as an excuse is not that way for everyone. Some of us struggle everyday and have their whole lives trying to keep their weight down. So what I am essentially saying is unless someone has truly been in someone elses shoes they will never understand what others go through and to have some kind of empathy for them.4
-
Cathy10019 wrote: »Personally, I think that unless I've personally been extremely overweight and then lost and maintained that loss in a healthy manor for over 5 years, I have no room to judge. Unfortunately I think her statement is backed by statistics (95% of those who lose weight regain it - #biggestlosercontestants.) but there are outliers - which is what we all hope we are. Most here will lose and regain, lose and regain. Research tells us that yo-yo dieting is bad for us. So 95% of us ar doing damage - lol. Are you the 5%....?, I'm hoping I am. I'm also hoping that technology, medicine, advancements help solve the obesity problem; and I'll keep trying new things, like Fitbit, or Yourfitnesspal etc. until then. Your friend sounds like a pessimist, which is what's bothering you. She doesn't believe in outliers or new approaches - she would have laughed about the concept of us sharing like this 15 years ago. You won't change her.
I would question the 95% statistic. They are usually taken from weight loss studies, which usually attract people with weight issues who are either desperate to try anything (chronic dieters who keep failing repeatedly) or people who are only in it for the money and wouldn't care to maintain afterwards. Many of them also tend to pay attention to the weight loss process, but expect to not regain when they go back to doing what they have always done. Not to mention studies are usually not long enough to lose all the weight a person needs to lose so they feeling of an incomplete job leaves the person less inclined to maintain the new (still fat) weight.
Conversely, we could pull out a 80%+ success rate statistic from something like the National Weight Control Registry, but it would be equally erroneous because it attracts people who are already successful at maintaining.
It's not as impossible as some make it to be, but it's also not as easy as dieting down to your desired weight then considering the job done.4 -
This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.13
-
This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
Set weight isn't "rubbish". There is "programming" to maintain pH, haematocrit, blood pressure, activity, sleep ... and yes, even weight within certain levels. That we are able to override some of that, doesn't make it rubbish.
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
2 -
This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
Yeah the whole thing strikes me as woo4 -
what is woo1
-
-
Set point as in there's naturally one weight your body "wants" to be that doesn't change is, of course, nonsense. It may well be that there's some weight at which it's easy to maintain (based on the calories you like to eat and activity you like to do) and lower weights are more difficult to maintain, sure.
But set point as in if you lose or gain your body will make changes (hormonal, metabolic adaptation) designed to maintain the weight and body fat level it's been at, sure. The point is that doesn't actually mean that we can't gain or lose weight or eventually create a different set point.
The problem is that lots of people either use set point inaccurately to suggest that there is a weight we are meant to be at and so we can't change it or to suggest that biological factors are the primary reason for weight gain (vs. environment or lifestyle choices).
A couple of related points by Yoni Freedhoff:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/12/set-point-theory-is-stupid.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/06/is-it-really-scientifically-impossible.html4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.
I'm not saying that people don't also put on unnecessary fast, or that they can't lose weight by reducing intake. I'm saying that not all weight gain is necessarily fat in adulthood, nor is it necessarily bad.
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Set point as in there's naturally one weight your body "wants" to be that doesn't change is, of course, nonsense. It may well be that there's some weight at which it's easy to maintain (based on the calories you like to eat and activity you like to do) and lower weights are more difficult to maintain, sure.
But set point as in if you lose or gain your body will make changes (hormonal, metabolic adaptation) designed to maintain the weight and body fat level it's been at, sure. The point is that doesn't actually mean that we can't gain or lose weight or eventually create a different set point.
The problem is that lots of people either use set point inaccurately to suggest that there is a weight we are meant to be at and so we can't change it or to suggest that biological factors are the primary reason for weight gain (vs. environment or lifestyle choices).
A couple of related points by Yoni Freedhoff:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/12/set-point-theory-is-stupid.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/06/is-it-really-scientifically-impossible.html
Yep, agree. Kinda like the term "starvation mode" is abused. Or "CICO". Or...3 -
I have noticed that many people parrot what they heard some place. We all hear "they say...". The other thing is we all find ways to justify or rationalize what we do. In my case recently I was told "your weight loss is pretty agressive...." Well I want to know who says so?1
-
[/quote]
I'm not saying that people don't also put on unnecessary fast, or that they can't lose weight by reducing intake. I'm saying that not all weight gain is necessarily fat in adulthood, nor is it necessarily bad. [/quote]
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
[/quote]
Could it be that older women with fewer health issues have a healthy appetite, versus women with underlying medical conditions who tend to have a less healthy appetite, and are more susceptible to becoming frail and underweight? I'm not convinced that it proves that being overweight is protective, but rather that healthier older women eat more than those with health complications.3 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »what is woo
*kitten*.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »what is woo
*kitten*.
B.S.2 -
This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
Yeah I think you've got it
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions