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.
Why do people overeat and/or become obese? Is it harder than average for some to lose weight?
Replies
-
KetoGirl83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
If you'd pay attention to the context in which it was presented, you'd see that it talks about weight, not nutrition, satiety, or whatever else. And for weight loss, CALORIES IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Full stop. You cannot gain fat when there's not enough calories present to do so, that is a fact of physics and your feelings do not change that.
A calorie of broccoli is indeed exactly the same as a calorie from a twinkie. (...)"
I know that's the general opinion. Still, it is not my experience.
My point was never about nutrition or satiety, no one would disagree that it's better to eat broccoli than twinkies. And I also agree that a cal of broccoli is the same as a cal from a twinkie, how could it not be if cals are just a measure? Where I don't agree is when one assumes that because they measure the same they have the same effect on my body.
Of course FOODS have different effects on your body (especially if you have insulin issues). But that's not about calories.4 -
The same reason why many alcoholics and drug addicts don't get treatment. Again, many people with food issues do get treatment. Of course there is a certain stigma to overcome with food addiction which other addiction programs have already overcome.mommarnurse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
So, you're basically saying people with weight problems do not know lack education on how to maintain?
No what I am saying is most people have no idea how calories work.
I'm not sure I believe this is true of most. It doesn't seem to mesh with the number of posts asking "why can't I stop overeating" or "how do I stop binge eating" or "how do I break my addiction to sugar"
To me these sound more like issues with control of cravings than a lack of knowledge that too many calories are being consumed.
This is a very small sample tho...I do firmly believe based on my own life most don't understand calories.
If they did there wouldn't be statements of CICO doesn't work for everyone and there wouldn't be this large diet industry preying on people...
Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...
But I feel like this is going to get into "food addiction" area and I am not into that debate.
What does it truly mean if not; determining the calories of current intake and eating less than that; or determining caloric output and eating less than that?
to lose weight it truly means taking in less calories than you burn
to maintain weight it truly means that you are eating the same as what you are burning.
If your current intake is making you gain 1lb a week...eating 50 calories less a day won't work...but you know that
Ok, I'm still trying to fully understand what you meant by "Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...". So for the sake of clarification, you are saying that they miscalculate their caloric needs or the number of calories they should cut from their diet? In other words, you are saying they know they need to eat fewer calories, but don't know how much fewer?
sort of...
People know that to lose weight they need to eat (for arguments sake) 1200 calories and that means to them 1lb a week. *I know this as a friend is on MFP and this is her life....
They log 1200 calories and really believe they ate 1200 calories.
They exercise and log 500 calories for 45mins of treadmill walking at 3.5 mph because that's what the treadmill says.
In reality they are eating 1600 a day and burning maybe 300..(I am being generous)
They lose 1/2 a week or maybe none because they really ate 1800 for a few days.
They ask "why am I not losing weight"...
They really believe that they are eating 1200 calories and exercising that much and feel they are one of those "that can't lose weight" or "it's the kinds of calories" or "it's because I ate after 7pm" or "because I didn't drink my hot lemon water this morning to rev my metabolism"
No concept of what 1200 calories looks like or how hard it is to exercise off 500 calories walking...
See for me I can tell you what 30gram of marble cheddar looks like and that fact it has 120 calories...or how much 180 grams of mix frozen tropical fruit looks like...I got cha...150 grams of chicken I know but if I am not familiar with the food I would need my food scale to know the weight to get the calories...
Ok, but this is somewhat different than what the thread seemed to be about....I suspect they're trying to say that, for them, either Calories In is harder to limit or that Calories Out is harder to achieve than for the average person...
...Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed?...
If you have been able to build a skill set which allows you to be able to eyeball what 30g of marble cheddar looks like, what makes you think others who have struggled for years haven't been able to develop the same skills? Surely many of them have and still struggle nonetheless. What drives overeating in people who know better? I'm talking about people who:
- know energy balance (CICO)
- Know a pound of fat is about 3500 calories
- know that exercise estimations are inaccurate
- know that measuring by volume is not always precise
- weigh everything that they eat
- have sustainable food plans
- know that forbidding foods could lead to greater temptation
- know that attempting to moderate could lead to greater temptation
- know that micro nutrients are important for body composition
- know that protein intake is recommended at .8-1g per pound of lean body mass
- know that certain food types are more satisfying for different people
- know that certain diets work because they make it easier for some to manipulate energy balance
- you get my point...
There are many who know all of this yet fail regardless. Why?
This interests me too and I've seen some comments on other threads that tell me there are a few people here who might say that this describes them. I would love to hear from them.
A friend of mine has been obese probably her entire life. As far as I can tell, she seems to know all of the above yet still struggles with her weight. It's something that I can never ask her about because it's none of my business and I would never want to risk hurting her feelings, but I know she's not the only one in her shoes and I hope someone can shed some light on what it might be like for her.
Because they aren't willing to change. I know this isn't the best analogy - but surely crack addicts know crack is bad? Surely that guy with diabetes who's repeatedly admitted to the hospital knows he shouldn't be chugging soda and what not? Knowledge isn't the first step in change, acknowledgement is. You can look in the mirror and say "hey, I'm fat" but you're not acknowledging that your own choices and lifestyle are the reason. And even if you do, you're not necessarily willing to step out of your comfort zone and make a change. That requires a very high , sustained level of emotional energy. You're settling for your lifestyle. Deep down, you don't believe that you deserve better.
People have had similar outlooks on alcoholics for decades (or mellenia), but now it is widely accepted to not be so cut and dry.
as I mentioned previous for the sake of "debate". Alcoholics can get treatment and stop drinking...and lots never touch it again. Same with other drugs...
So these people who feel they are food addicts need to get in treatment and get help but don't...explain why not...ETA: there is a post back a page or 2 where a woman admits to still having a food binge about once a week but yet she has managed to lose the weight...and maintain the weight loss for 2 years...by applying CICO to her life and allowing for the binge and saving calories and or reducing them later.
So by the logic of issues with food or addiction you can still apply the knowledge, lose the weight and maintain it....
True, but many eventually succumb to those issues and eventually gain some or all of the weight back. This exact situation was also presented on this thread by another user but has since been removed. Also, not everybody that has a problem with food is overweight. The same way that there are functioning alcoholics. Sometimes this is due to compensating measures, but it is not always necessarily healthy.
This is why I want to be aware and learn about the reasons why I binge. Most people do eventually gain their weight back. I want to be the exception. Knowledge is power.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
She actually said she hadn't gone low carb when doing it.
I think things like that must be mental, as added sugar is not physically different from other sugars and basically the same as any other carb (besides fiber) once your body starts using it. I'd be open to some other explanation, though--just can't think of any.
I'm open as well because my bloodwork was fine. And yeah, it was how I felt when I chucked caffeine (I still drank tea I just stopped consuming massive amounts of energy drink so I went from HIGH caffeine to regular Joe levels) so I'm willing to accept a mental aspect to it rather than purely physiological (although obviously some people do process foods differently because human variance is a wonderful thing). That doesn't make it any less bad of a thing though, or any less difficult to work with.
I do have a sweet tooth. Always have. I just know that and don't buy packets or big amounts of stuff and keep it in the house. If I want chocolate I buy one single-serve bar. I've tried keeping multipacks (because they're cheaper) in the house but nah. So yeah, although there wasn't a lot of sugar involved at the start, taking out what precious little I had knocked me for six.And yeah, I remembered that you had said that it really is carbs for you, but the vast majority of people here who assert that it's "carbs" they have as a trigger food mean specific carbs, typically ones with lots of fat too, and not fruits, veg, or even (usually) not plain starches. Personally, if I eat high carb meals I am less satisfied than if I eat protein also, which I think is due to the filling qualities of protein for me (again, fat does nothing for satiety for me). But I can't imagine overeating plain starches or even wanting to eat plain pasta with nothing on it.
I've totally eaten plain pasta after being "carb-triggered". I prefer to go for sweet stuff for reasons, but where not available...
Not my finest moment. But I've done it. Along with eating sugar straight from the bag. I'm not proud of myself.I just think there's a kneejerk anti carb thing these days that's not consistent with the fact that many healthy traditional diets are higher carb. That Americans tend to eat too many low nutrient carbs+fat (or drink too many sugary drinks) isn't the fault of the macronutrient or mean that all carbs are the same.
Oh totally. I'm not on the anti-carb brigade (although I think you know that
) but I do accept, being one of them myself, that some people have more... shall we say extreme... reactions to the consumption-or-lack of those low-nutrient carb foods and since those are so readily available and around us all the time it can make it a heck of a lot harder to get it under control. If I had the same response (whether physiologically or psychologically, it doesn't really matter, the response is there) to fatty greasy meat it probably wouldn't have been such an issue because it isn't as readily available -here, at least- and I'm not as surrounded by it. But I can't speak to that struggle because I don't have that reaction to protein/fat mixtures. Perhaps some of it also has to do with blood sugar spikes, which will be bigger with carb-related foods. I don't know.
I think of my dealio with carb-dense foods (and especially sugar-rich ones) as similar to... you go out to a bar with a group of friends (none of you are alcoholics). Person A has one drink and can say "I'm done, I'm gonna drink water/juice now because I only wanted one drink" whereas person B just can't resist having a second or third drink, even if they only wanted one when they got there or only intended to have one.
Not really sure where I was going with that, I got distracted by something else. ANYWAY. Is that the fault of a macronutrient? No, that's dumb. Is it other people's fault? Also no. It's something internal and it's up to the person involved to get a handle on it however they best can or see fit but when you're bombarded by images of said foods and you go to a supermarket with shelves upon shelves of candy, biscuits, cakes, ice cream... well I can see how people of lesser willpower have a time of it. I know if I start I'm not gonna stop so I either don't start or make damn sure I have to stop because I don't have anything else to consume.
This post was a mess, I apologise. I don't even know what I'm trying to say anymore. I'm tired and need to eat my lunch.6 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
I don't have to hunt, prepare and harvest my food which would have kept me active and burning calories in the past. Other people do that work, and I can open a package of something yummy much easier. I have found if I take the time to prepare and eat a meal I cooked myself I do cut back on calories because the foods are naturally less calorie dense. I'm not a baker so I don't have the sugar to deal with, at least.
Wow, this is all really offensive to me.
1) You leave off the sentence from my post where I acknowledge people believe it's an addiction, which is part of the "why" we're discussing here. I just asked that people don't debate in this thread about if food addiction is or isn't a thing.
2) Without knowing anything about my SIL other than that she's had a rough year and opts for convenience food because of it, you throw out that she may have an addiction. There are all sorts of reasons why she might be making the food choices she's making. I used her as an example of someone who isn't prioritizing weight loss because of life factors, and you want to reduce it to addiction. I don't appreciate that.1 -
Human physiology hasn't changed much in THOUSANDS of years. Like any other animal, our goal is to eat to survive and we have the correct mechanisms to store excess calories in times of famine. The problem is, in the industrial world today, you don't have to hunt for food 12 hours out of the day anymore. It's just a quick run down to the store. And it's VERY EASY to over consume calories due to the calorie density of most foods today.
Couple that with habitual behavior and people using food as comfort due to how it makes them feel, it's not hard to understand why many are well overweight/obese.
Realize too that through the centuries, being overweight was a sign of prosperity, and if one was lean, they were thought to be a worker/laborer. That doesn't hold true today with the exception of a couple of countries.
And unlike times before, medical advancement is SAVING lives. People well overweight/obese probably won't worry/do something about it till they have a near death experience. And even then, they may not do anything.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?0 -
I think it comes down to how you were raised. Children do what parents do. If you're more likely to sit on the couch and eat, your kids will most likely follow suit, developing bad habits from an early age.
My dad went hungry most of the time growing up. His mother (father was rarely home) went even more hungry since she gave the majority of the food she had to him and his brothers. Following your logic, he ought to have been skinny as a rail his whole life. My grandmother certainly was. Instead, he gained weight as soon as food became more available and eventually developed a weight problem.
Sometimes it's imitating your parents. Sometimes it's making up for things you didn't have as a kid, and sometimes it's for reasons that have nothing to do with how you were raised.
Regardless, they're all things that can be overcome - eventually, with the right psychological tools and with work.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lexbubbles wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I cut out added sugar for the month of April to raise money for charity and felt absolutely TERRIBLE the entire time. It never went away (my body didn't "adjust" after a couple of weeks or whatever). Now, I don't eat a *lot* of added sugar but that whole month I was shaking, incredibly tired (despite, yes, still eating carbs and having sufficient calorie intake), suffered from headaches, nausea, and being a generally irritable grumpy *kitten*. For the whole month. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if my diet had even more refined/added/whatever you want to call it sugar.
When May rolled around I basically went on a refined sugar binge for 2 weeks before I felt normal and healthy again.
Was I still eating carbs? You betcha. Did I feel like *kitten* anyway? Yup. Am I ever doing that again? Oh hell no.
Edited to add: my diet typically contains <150g carbs, mostly because eating high-carb food tends to trigger overeating, but stuff like my yogurt, some drinks, etc etc etc have added sugar and I'll have the occasional chocolate bar or ice cream
Probably low on electrolytes. Pretty common in low carb newbies. Adding enough salt, and possibly supplementing with potassium and magnesium can "cure" the low carb "flu".
She actually said she hadn't gone low carb when doing it.
I think things like that must be mental, as added sugar is not physically different from other sugars and basically the same as any other carb (besides fiber) once your body starts using it. I'd be open to some other explanation, though--just can't think of any.
And yeah, I remembered that you had said that it really is carbs for you, but the vast majority of people here who assert that it's "carbs" they have as a trigger food mean specific carbs, typically ones with lots of fat too, and not fruits, veg, or even (usually) not plain starches. Personally, if I eat high carb meals I am less satisfied than if I eat protein also, which I think is due to the filling qualities of protein for me (again, fat does nothing for satiety for me). But I can't imagine overeating plain starches or even wanting to eat plain pasta with nothing on it. While I can overeat pasta, it's all about the sauce (meat, veg, some fat) for me. I know people are different, though. I just think there's a kneejerk anti carb thing these days that's not consistent with the fact that many healthy traditional diets are higher carb. That Americans tend to eat too many low nutrient carbs+fat (or drink too many sugary drinks) isn't the fault of the macronutrient or mean that all carbs are the same.
If that's the case, my bad. I thought she said she was at 150g per day, normally, but then cut "added" sugars, which I figured could have put her in the low carb category. She didn't really say what she replaced the added sugars with (other carb sources? Fat? Protein? Idk). The symptoms she described are common when just starting low carb diets, especially when one neglects to increase electrolytes.
2 -
@SezxyStef "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change."
This is the part of your response to @DebSozo that I was referring to. She did not say eating is out of her control nor is she looking for an excuse to not change.3 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Human physiology hasn't changed much in THOUSANDS of years. Like any other animal, our goal is to eat to survive and we have the correct mechanisms to store excess calories in times of famine. The problem is, in the industrial world today, you don't have to hunt for food 12 hours out of the day anymore. It's just a quick run down to the store. And it's VERY EASY to over consume calories due to the calorie density of most foods today.
Couple that with habitual behavior and people using food as comfort due to how it makes them feel, it's not hard to understand why many are well overweight/obese.
Realize too that through the centuries, being overweight was a sign of prosperity, and if one was lean, they were thought to be a worker/laborer. That doesn't hold true today with the exception of a couple of countries.
And unlike times before, medical advancement is SAVING lives. People well overweight/obese probably won't worry/do something about it till they have a near death experience. And even then, they may not do anything.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?
I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.1 -
lexbubbles wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Probably low on electrolytes. Pretty common in low carb newbies. Adding enough salt, and possibly supplementing with potassium and magnesium can "cure" the low carb "flu".
I'm not a low carb newbie though... I literally just said I wasn't getting much added/refined sugar in the first place and that I keep my carbs below 150g -normally around 120g honestly- and have done since approximately forever. Like, I don't have a super-duper low carb diet a la Keto people but it's not like I went from high carb to no carb and that I haven't been limiting my carbs for a really long time.
I ate more fruit that month - I don't normally eat that much - to try and compensate so my carb levels may even have been the same or thereabouts (I tried to check my diary but apparently I didn't hit "complete entry" at any point there because it's blank even though I definitely logged for at least the first week until I stepped away because of how ill I felt so we're out of luck there). Not buying "because electrolytes" as the reason in this case. I've had electrolyte imbalance (only once, but I've been there) and it felt so different. Terrible, but different terrible. I didn't get light-headed, dizzy, have stomach cramps or muscle pain, suffer dehydration, experience bowel irregularities, or experience an irregular heart beat. I had all of those things when my electrolytes were outta whack.
How it felt was a lot, LOT closer to how I felt when I abruptly chucked *most* caffeine out of my diet post A-level exams after basically living on the stuff for a year (6 cans of sugar-free red bull/day minimum. It was bad, lads. Don't do that. 0/10 would not recommend). Wanting to kill everyone, having a perma-migraine and the shakes, and wishing for death. Except that nonsense actually did only last a week before my body was like "okay, we got this, we cool, everything's fine"
(Also noting here that I get full blood workups done fairly regularly for various other medical reasons and nothing was noted as out of place with my mineral levels or anything like that, so again probably not. I feel like if it was so bad as to cause low carb flu to that degree my doctor would have been like "yo your potassium and/or magnesium levels are super low maybe sort that out")
Hmmm. In that case it sounds psychosomatic. Replacing "added sugar" with an equivalent amount of "natural" sugar should have no physiological effect.
2 -
Because I eat more calories than my body needs. Why? Because it tastes sooo good. I want to eat all the food! Has little to do with hunger. I understand CICO and work in public health and I am therefore fairly well educated on the obesity prevention and nutrition. I truly enjoy eating - some healthy foods and some not so healthy foods. I just eat way too much of it. That's about it. My challenge is to burn more than I am eating, and to have self-control and discipline - in all aspects of my life, quite honestly.
ETA - it's far too convenient to access calorie dense foods - I pass so many places all day long and I we are constantly bombarded with food marketing daily. It doesn't help.5 -
KetoGirl83 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
If you'd pay attention to the context in which it was presented, you'd see that it talks about weight, not nutrition, satiety, or whatever else. And for weight loss, CALORIES IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Full stop. You cannot gain fat when there's not enough calories present to do so, that is a fact of physics and your feelings do not change that.
A calorie of broccoli is indeed exactly the same as a calorie from a twinkie. (...)"
I know that's the general opinion. Still, it is not my experience.
My point was never about nutrition or satiety, no one would disagree that it's better to eat broccoli than twinkies. And I also agree that a cal of broccoli is the same as a cal from a twinkie, how could it not be if cals are just a measure? Where I don't agree is when one assumes that because they measure the same they have the same effect on my body
Calories do matter, of course. Just not to the point that a "good" calorie is the same as a "bad" calorie.
For me, IR and ex-diabetic, as far as weight loss goes, it is definitely not the same. But I'll agree to disagree because I know no one ever changes their mind on this subject.
::flowerforyou::
No one assumes they have the same effect on a body. You are either making a straw man or willfully ignoring what people actually say.
We don't need to change our minds. You are the one who is either misunderstanding or just plain wrong.
This is not a debate about calories. Stop taking the thread off-topic.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Human physiology hasn't changed much in THOUSANDS of years. Like any other animal, our goal is to eat to survive and we have the correct mechanisms to store excess calories in times of famine. The problem is, in the industrial world today, you don't have to hunt for food 12 hours out of the day anymore. It's just a quick run down to the store. And it's VERY EASY to over consume calories due to the calorie density of most foods today.
Couple that with habitual behavior and people using food as comfort due to how it makes them feel, it's not hard to understand why many are well overweight/obese.
Realize too that through the centuries, being overweight was a sign of prosperity, and if one was lean, they were thought to be a worker/laborer. That doesn't hold true today with the exception of a couple of countries.
And unlike times before, medical advancement is SAVING lives. People well overweight/obese probably won't worry/do something about it till they have a near death experience. And even then, they may not do anything.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?
I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.
This has been my perception as well - people delay losing weight because they're still healthy enough right now. I just wonder if people feel "safer" being overweight now than they did 20 or 50 years ago because of how medicine has progressed. I'd guess most don't - the strides in medicine have also brought more awareness of the risks.
I'd guess the "it won't happen to me" logic is much more common - obese people who currently have good health markers don't envision them deteriorating. In the same way that I know I could get cancer or die in a car crash, I don't really think it will happen. I don't use sunscreen often enough, I drive over the speed limit. I should be better about preventative measures, but until it actually happens it doesn't seem like it will.3 -
I've used "craving" as a term to describe the feelings of sugar withdrawal on a different thtead and Stef retorted that everyone gets cravings. So I don't have a word to describe it. Eating an extra hotwing because I crave one isn't the same experience. I'm serious. I need a term to differentiate.
I've seen the term compulsion used a few times in this thread. Does that fit the bill?
I think it probably describes well what my friend experiences.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Human physiology hasn't changed much in THOUSANDS of years. Like any other animal, our goal is to eat to survive and we have the correct mechanisms to store excess calories in times of famine. The problem is, in the industrial world today, you don't have to hunt for food 12 hours out of the day anymore. It's just a quick run down to the store. And it's VERY EASY to over consume calories due to the calorie density of most foods today.
Couple that with habitual behavior and people using food as comfort due to how it makes them feel, it's not hard to understand why many are well overweight/obese.
Realize too that through the centuries, being overweight was a sign of prosperity, and if one was lean, they were thought to be a worker/laborer. That doesn't hold true today with the exception of a couple of countries.
And unlike times before, medical advancement is SAVING lives. People well overweight/obese probably won't worry/do something about it till they have a near death experience. And even then, they may not do anything.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?
I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.
This has been my perception as well - people delay losing weight because they're still healthy enough right now. I just wonder if people feel "safer" being overweight now than they did 20 or 50 years ago because of how medicine has progressed. I'd guess most don't - the strides in medicine have also brought more awareness of the risks.
I'd guess the "it won't happen to me" logic is much more common - obese people who currently have good health markers don't envision them deteriorating. In the same way that I know I could get cancer or die in a car crash, I don't really think it will happen. I don't use sunscreen often enough, I drive over the speed limit. I should be better about preventative measures, but until it actually happens it doesn't seem like it will.
Some people who are part of the Fat Acceptance Movement/HAES adherents brush off health concerns as "vague future health threats." I would say they definitely think it'll never happen to them.1 -
Personally I went from extremely athletic and active to injured, sick and bedridden for weeks at a time. Previously I never had to worry about quantity of food and I ate mostly healthier foods. When I say healthier I mean mostly whole plant based foods that were minimally processed. I still loved my snacks with the favorite being fried mozzarella yum.
Medication changed that. I know that is a very unpopular statement on this site, but for some it is accurate. I was on 3, THREE, meds that are known to cause/contribute to weight gain and/or appetite changes. (I will not name the drugs nor get into discussion about who thinks they are right and I am wrong) I always say just like there are some that suppress appetite, there are those that stimulate it as well.
One had a change on what I craved. Once I was home and slightly mobile again I went from absolutely hands down hating chips (especially powder covered doritos ::::gag:::: vile chips) and hating mayo to craving them and other high fat things constantly all day long day in and day out. I could not satisfy the intense fat craving. And it was a craving. I never wanted nasty oreos (why are stale thin cookies smeared with sweetened crisco
so popular I'll never know) lol (had to throw that in for the hardcore oreo lovers lol) I am now back to where I can only tolerate potato chips if they are chilled and how often is that available right? Never lol.
Once I figured it out after a multi-meds several month brain fog, I dropped the problem meds and asked for alternate treatment. I stopped gaining within a month or two. I was not logging, counting, exercising (I was barely mobile at all) or otherwise making any effort to lose or maintain. I made no specific intentional changes to my diet.
Because of spinal taps (every 10 days for months) and a couple back surgeries, I also stuck to loose clothing such as sweats and dresses. I really had no idea how big I was really getting. That may sound ridiculous to a lot of people but as sick and injured as I was, I wasn't getting dressed up and wasn't clothes shopping or caring much about my appearance. I'm 6' tall with a large frame so gaining weight according to a scale never meant much to me because I can weigh a LOT before looking fat.
So anyway, I was actually eating less quantity but much higher fat content/calorie foods. Still cico but the meds caused drastic changes to my normal diet and coupled with much less activity well....
Losing is easy for me now. Im back to craving fruit, veggies and just about any meats I can get my hands on lol. I'm 48 years old and technically disabled but still get up and out and move most days. No excuses about age and nothing medical to prevent weight loss as long as I stay away from the meds that could actually make some other things easier on me.2 -
There have been some very insightful posts here.
From what I've gathered, some people feel a stronger pull towards food than others, which seems to stem from psychological roots. For these ones, it can be harder to control CI when food is often on the mind, when childhood experiences numbed their hunger/satiety signals, or when eating is a way to self-soothe, or something else entirely.
It sounds like for these ones, denying a food (using willpower) in order to stay at a deficit causes more stress than another person might experience.
Just trying to piece together a coherent picture. If this doesn't sound right, I'm open to further input.
I'm also open to the idea that some people have altered hormone levels that wreak havoc on their appetites/ability to resist available food, but I haven't seen much discussion about it yet.3 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
Hmmm. In that case it sounds psychosomatic. Replacing "added sugar" with an equivalent amount of "natural" sugar should have no physiological effect.
Perhaps, and I already addressed that with LC up there ^^^ somewhere. However, a response being psychosomatic doesn't make it less real, or less horrible to deal with. There's attitude from a lot of people (not saying yourself personally!) on the boards that "there's no physical reason for it and I've never had it so it doesn't exist" and to dismiss it out of hand. My reaction, regardless of the cause, was a very real one.
I have a *kitten* reaction to refined sugar, for whatever reason, as do some other people. That's my deal to monitor. I know that if I cut out added sugar entirely, I feel like butt. I know that if I begin to eat certain foods heavy in it that I won't be able to stop and will go on a binge. Consequently I just include foods/drinks that are primarily nutrient heavy but with just a bit of added sugar (like my yogurt, or a protein bar, or some cordial in my water) and if I must have something sugar-heavy (chocolate, ice cream, a doughnut) I buy it in a single portion so that I can't binge no matter how much I want to. (I mean, as I noted before, I do also have a reaction to anything carb-dense whether that's sugar or not, which triggers the overeating in me, so you won't see me eat much pasta or rice or potato either. I have pasta almost never and a small portion of rice maybe 3x a week and that's as far as my carb-dense foods go most of the time.)
That's still only my deal to sort out, but that doesn't mean I have the exact same weightloss experience or challenges as a person without that response (or who maybe has a reaction to a different kind of food, even!) because "there's no physiological reason for it".
It's just another factor that can lead people to overeat, or make it seem really really hard to lose the weight if you haven't figured out how to manage it.2 -
If I may...you're assuming a LOT.
I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.
It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.
When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.
So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.3 -
Oh lord yes I have binged on plain pasta and straight sugar by the spoonful. The truth? There is NOTHING I haven't binged on and yes that includes crazy amounts of celery and carrots, raw, no dip. Entire bags of broccoli. I stop only at nonfood items like, say, cardboard. :P
The time in people's lives when their nervous systems have the most plasticity, the formative years, is also a time when other people typically have control over us. And when those other people don't have it together, oh dear, the results we get! Then, as adults and responsible for our own behavior regardless of how it came about, there is a lot of damage control going on. Or attempted damage control in many cases. Or lack thereof. lol. I don't think I will ever be truly free from disordered eating and the obsessive thoughts that go with it.10 -
I have said all along that overeating has nothing to do with hunger. I think it is all in the mind. So many dieticians are saying 'drink water' to help you feel full. If you are going to a party, eat before you go. Feeling full has nothing to do with how much some people eat either on a normal day or when they go out. I could have had a meal and if someone then asked me out for another meal, I would go. Or if someone brought me a bar of chocolate, I would eat it. Nothing at all to do with being hungry or feeling full. It has nothing to do with being hungry, greedy or anything else. Until I, or someone else sorts out my brain, I will not lose weight and keep it off.
My husband is tall and slim, but if I bought him chocolate after eating a meal, he wouldn't want it. Me, on the other hand cannot reax until I have eaten it. Full or not. So, I have come to the conclusion that my brain is wired differently to my husbands. So many times he says 'No I don't want it. I'm not hungry'. That never happens to me. I crave it until I get it.
I have, by the way, lost over 30lbs but it has been very hard work and if my guard is down I slip back occasionally.
Out of this whole thread, this post encapsulates my experience better than any other. For what it's worth. I still don't understand stopping eating when I'm "full".6 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »If I may...you're assuming a LOT.
I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.
It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.
When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.
So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.
Are you replying to someone in particular? I'm seeing a lot of anger here.
Most of us have been there. Most of us (not all of us) are formerly (or currently!) overweight.
I'm not seeing a lot of judgement. Instead look at this thread as soul-searching from those who share a common plight and interest.2 -
I'm also open to the idea that some people have altered hormone levels that wreak havoc on their appetites/ability to resist available food, but I haven't seen much discussion about it yet.
I can't speak to cravings, because I've been on the hormones that induced my menopausal state for some 5 or 6 years and I honestly can't remember a time before? But hormones can, and do, affect metabolism (declining oestrogen levels in menopausal women, for example) so all I do know is that it reduced my BMR. I've always had a Deal with sugary food, and I'm more or less certain that hasn't changed in any way. It just mattered much much less before to get a handle on it, because I was burning more just by being alive so... less of an issue.
The depo-provera hormonal birth control injection can have an effect with a quarter of depo users gaining more than 5% of their bodyweight within 6 months over non-depo control groups (and those that gained continued gaining) when this wasn't seen in folk on other kinds of BC. Even other hormonal options, like the implant. But the implant is slow-release long-period and the depo is more short-term and aggressive so that might be why, I'm not sure (I was on it for a while before they put me in menopause and did indeed experience fairly rapid and aggressive weight gain that I managed to get rid of once I stopped having the shot)
But also relative levels (to each other) of estrogen and progesterone have an impact on metabolism and fat storage so if you're out of whack, or taking medication that makes it out of whack it can have a weight-gain effect in and of itself.
This wasn't entirely what you asked, I apologise, but yes hormones can have an impact on weight gain/loss (although I don't know about cravings and trigger foods being impacted. Maybe? I mean, pregnancy cravings are a thing, but whether that's because hormones I have no idea)2 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@SezxyStef "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change."
This is the part of your response to @DebSozo that I was referring to. She did not say eating is out of her control nor is she looking for an excuse to not change.
okay and? I do not for one sec believe in food addiction hence my statement...
therefore if I don't believe in food addiction I do not believe eating is out of control...
I dismissed the claim she is addicted to one carb but not another with a comparison...and will continue to dismiss the fallacy of food addiction.
and since I don't believe in food addiction I do actually have the right to dismiss the post....it's full of contra evidence that not even begin to support a claim of addiction.
but to be clear I am not just dismissing that post...I am dismissing any post that claims food addiction. Esp those with such illogical fallacies used to prove it.
And let me be clear I do believe that people can have issues with food and I do believe that certain foods are better to eat for some people than others....*just glad I am not one of them*
But this debate is why are people overeat...not is food addiction real and the cause of obesity.
0 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »If I may...you're assuming a LOT.
I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.
It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.
When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.
So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.
With all due respect, that is NOT the question that we're talking about. Please read the thread to get a fuller understanding of the topic for discussion, or at least see my post above to get a bit of an idea of the gist.
Most people here do not tolerate bashing obese people. Please don't assume that's what this is about.
I'm sorry to hear of the struggles you've had and if I had been there to witness that person belittle you for using a handicap placard, I would have given him a piece of my mind. I wish you well on your journey to better health.0 -
@SezxyStef As a matter of record, I do not think the word addiction is an accurate term to apply to the cravings and obsessive thinking that some people experience about food. My point was that you were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Debsozo used a word "addict" that triggered a response from you that seemed to misinterpret the point she was making, i.e., that she found something that works for her and that she was not claiming to be out of control or making excuses (as it seemed you were implying). I am not arguing semantics here, but rather overall interpretation of the post. It is clear from her response that she interpreted your comment : "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change." the same way I did. There was nothing about her post that indicated she was making excuses or thought she was out of control. She is actually making your point...it's not a real addiction, it's just that she didn't have a better word (do you have any suggestions?) I like the term "food thinking" better, it seems more accurate to me. You seem really angry about this and I don't understand why.6
-
I've used "craving" as a term to describe the feelings of sugar withdrawal on a different thtead and Stef retorted that everyone gets cravings. So I don't have a word to describe it. Eating an extra hotwing because I crave one isn't the same experience. I'm serious. I need a term to differentiate.
I've seen the term compulsion used a few times in this thread. Does that fit the bill?
I think it probably describes well what my friend experiences.
It is more like a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach along with an angsty, stressful sensation. I have learned to ignore it, but it feels like hunger. It usually happens when I am on 1200 calories in between meals.2 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@SezxyStef As a matter of record, I do not think the word addiction is an accurate term to apply to the cravings and obsessive thinking that some people experience about food. My point was that you were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. She used a word "addict" that triggered a response from you that seemed to misinterpret the point she was making, i.e., that she found something that works for her and that she was not out of control or making excuses (as it seemed you were implying). I am not arguing semantics here, but rather overall interpretation of the post. It is clear from her response that she interpreted your comment : "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change." the same way I did. There was nothing about her post that indicated she was making excuses or was out of control.
Yes it did trigger a response and in order to get my point across I have to use those terms. If you are going to claim addiction be prepared for people to assume you are out of control and/or using it as an excuse not to change. Does that mean I dismissed what she said? Probably...and why did I, because if people are going to claim addiction I have to infer they mean they are out of control and that is the only word they know to apply to their feelings...is it a semantic game? perhaps but in forums you have to be specific as there is no way to read other cues such as body language or tone...
0 -
Galadrial60 wrote: »If I may...you're assuming a LOT.
I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.
It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.
When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.
So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.
Are you replying to someone in particular? I'm seeing a lot of anger here.
Most of us have been there. Most of us (not all of us) are formerly (or currently!) overweight.
I'm not seeing a lot of judgement. Instead look at this thread as soul-searching from those who share a common plight and interest.
I agree. This is just a good discussion/debate going on.2 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@SezxyStef "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change."
This is the part of your response to @DebSozo that I was referring to. She did not say eating is out of her control nor is she looking for an excuse to not change.
okay and? I do not for one sec believe in food addiction hence my statement...
therefore if I don't believe in food addiction I do not believe eating is out of control...
I dismissed the claim she is addicted to one carb but not another with a comparison...and will continue to dismiss the fallacy of food addiction.
and since I don't believe in food addiction I do actually have the right to dismiss the post....it's full of contra evidence that not even begin to support a claim of addiction.
but to be clear I am not just dismissing that post...I am dismissing any post that claims food addiction. Esp those with such illogical fallacies used to prove it.
And let me be clear I do believe that people can have issues with food and I do believe that certain foods are better to eat for some people than others....*just glad I am not one of them*
But this debate is why are people overeat...not is food addiction real and the cause of obesity.
You say that you are not going to debate addiction anymore yet you can't seem to avoid it. It's kind of comical.The debate is about why people overeat.
Yes let's get back to there. I suggested compulsion/addiction/some-other-stuff as one possible reason. Do you assert that none of those words are a viable reason for overeating? If so, why?5
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions