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.
The complexity of weight loss
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »It essentially started as a "fix broken sidewalks" set of projects. I am all for these for a few reasons, as yes, many areas had fallen into a ridiculous state of disrepair. A lot of it stemmed from poor planning 50 years ago: trees being planted next to sidewalks, and the roots subsequently shoving up slabs, breaking things, etc.
Not really here or there, but we have a "mixed use pathway" that runs through the heart of our city, coming through residential districts first, going immediately past the university, then connecting with several bike routes into downtown. It's a bike commuter superhighway, as you can imagine. The university section is riddled with tree roots pushing the pavement up and cracking it. In the fall, they clear downed leaves from the roads but not from the trail, so, when the rains come, those wet leaves are a death trap for cyclists.
As a result, I don't use the trail, I ride in traffic instead. I'd prefer to take the path but I'm safer with the cars. I'm pretty sure every driver behind me would prefer I take the path too. But I'm allowed to choose my own route.
Anyway if there has to be a point I guess it's that I agree about being stuck with the result of a lot of poor planning.0 -
Ah, here we go: https://books.google.com/books?id=Cm_kLhU1AP0C&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq=BMR+Hypothyroid+20%&source=bl&ots=ZrboZhlWW-&sig=f1j68wz4RO27XKh68c8h9khthds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC3deJvJXRAhUJiVQKHYLmCJEQ6AEIKjAD#v=onepage&q=BMR Hypothyroid 20%&f=false
This source says that a normal BMR test someone in a normal range will test + or - 20% those with hypothyroidism can test -30 to -40 % . That's a pretty big difference even if a "normal" reading would be -20% that's still a 10% decrease in BMR not a 5% difference. Those on the more severe end would be up to even a 20% difference.
Mind you that's on the low in. The calorie consumption guidelines assume an
"average" BMR right about in the middle giving the 1,200 cal/ day guidelines. Meaning someone who has a super severe hypothyroid problem could feasibly eat 500 (ridiculously low for impact) and not be able to lose. In reality, even living off of 800 ish cals/ day can cause issues as well and is not a life I would suggest anyone live unless they are under complete care of a doctor and only for short while.0 -
The way I see it CICO is a formula but it does not fill in the gaps of knowledge. Even simple concepts like "You burn calories just by living" escapes some people. And it does not address the gross overestimation of calories burned. I just did 25 mins on a recumbent bicycle and all it earned me was a single cookie.
Similarly ELMM condenses a whole bunch of ideas in to a digestible sound byte but for those who have no travelled that road they may be lost figuring out what that looks like.
Incremental change might not be as sexy as a new Zumba outfit but it sure looks good in hindsight.1 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »
No one needs to remain incapacitated by their weight, because they can control how they live.
I think there's a major problem with that statement. Not everyone can control how they live. They can control how they live given their unique set of circumstances but that's not always going to achieve the goal that they want. For example, someone with unchecked hypothyroidism can sometimes eat as few as 500 calories/ day and not lose weight due to having an abnormal BMR caused by the hypothyroidism. Sure someone can TRY to eat 500/ day to lose weight, but it's going to end up making them cranky and at risk for other metabolic issues. Obviously the solution is to get the thyroid in check. This can be difficult to do and can take months, years, and still change.
Let's add external factors into that equation. Low BMR + having a full time job. Add in the physical symptoms of living on 500 calories and one would pretty much rather just stay fat in some cases. So sure, you can chose how you live. You can't often chose how your body can react to it. Thus, it is important and 100% necessary to treat the whole person. Treat their diet but also treat their soul. Let them be empowered but also let them accept the limitations of what they can do. And most importantly, don't suggest for a that they aren't doing enough for themselves if they don't have the willpower to fight those odds alone.
A person having hypothyroidism that is that severely unchecked and who is only eating 500 calories would not be functioning.
My sister's thyroid tanked to the point the doctor wondered why she hadn't died, her level was that bad. She was still homeschooling her children, cleaning the house, but barely functioning. And she was taking in calories.
In other words, don't try to make a point with an unrealistic scenario.
Thyroid issues don't work the way you think they do, and the point you tried to make doesn't rebut what you tried to rebut.
No one needs to be incapacitated by weight. People can control how they live. Even with hypothyroidism. There are users on here who have lost weight even with untreated hypothyroidism, ftr.
I speak from experience of having limits and working with them but not letting them dictate the body I have. I'm older (54), I have hypothyroidism and both psoriatic and osteoarthritis. I used to be 210 pounds and walk with a cane. I now weigh 116 pounds and run daily. I've made slow progress towards achieving this because of my limitations, but I didn't let that stop me. I intend to keep going.
No one has to be limited by their circumstances. There are success stories from wheelchair bound users on this site. No one has to stay overweight.5 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »
No one needs to remain incapacitated by their weight, because they can control how they live.
I think there's a major problem with that statement. Not everyone can control how they live. They can control how they live given their unique set of circumstances but that's not always going to achieve the goal that they want. For example, someone with unchecked hypothyroidism can sometimes eat as few as 500 calories/ day and not lose weight due to having an abnormal BMR caused by the hypothyroidism. Sure someone can TRY to eat 500/ day to lose weight, but it's going to end up making them cranky and at risk for other metabolic issues. Obviously the solution is to get the thyroid in check. This can be difficult to do and can take months, years, and still change.
Let's add external factors into that equation. Low BMR + having a full time job. Add in the physical symptoms of living on 500 calories and one would pretty much rather just stay fat in some cases. So sure, you can chose how you live. You can't often chose how your body can react to it. Thus, it is important and 100% necessary to treat the whole person. Treat their diet but also treat their soul. Let them be empowered but also let them accept the limitations of what they can do. And most importantly, don't suggest for a that they aren't doing enough for themselves if they don't have the willpower to fight those odds alone.
No, anyone can control their weight. They might require some pretty extreme sacrifice, but anyone can do it. And as far as I know nobody in the world requires only 500 calories / day. You're using a pretty extreme example of a person only requiring 1000 calories/day then putting a 500 calorie / day deficit on themselves, and absolutely NOBODY in the world who is a full-grown adult, even with a major metabolic problem, requires that. You can lose weight, albeit slowly, on a 100 calorie/day deficit, and obviously a person who is significantly overweight, so that their weight itself is a problem, has even higher maintenance needs EVEN WITH MEDICAL PROBLEMS.
Actually, one of the hardest things for me was finding out what my necessary caloric intake was. I would guess this is a fairly common roadblock. It's something my mother is struggling with right now. You see, my mother has one of those "worst case scenario" lives. She's entirely physically disabled. Some of her disability is impacted by her weight, much of it is not. She has Cushing's Disease.
The absolute worst thing a doctor told her was that with Cushing's Disease she could not control her weight. So she ate whatever she felt like. Her weight went from 220 lbs at 5'11" all the way to 525 lbs. And the doctors said, repeatedly, that there was nothing she could do , because she had Cushing's Disease, and she was physically disabled and could not exercise.
And then I began counting calories. As her caretaker, I took away ALL ACCESS to the foods that she nibbled on almost constantly. It was hell for both of us. Serious hell. I did it because I was having trouble taking care of her at that weight.
In the last 18 months, my mother has lost 180 lbs, despite 100% immobility and Cushing's Disease. This is exactly the rate predicted by the caloric deficit we have her on (1000 calories / day ) as a sedentary woman in her 60s. It's more miserable for her than it would be for more people, because her body is sending absolutely CONSTANT hunger signals. But even for her, CICO works.
I wish to the bottom of my heart that she hadn't given up on weight management so many years ago. I can't go back and change the past, and neither can she. Her absolutely conscious decision to not do anything to control her weight came from a point of hopelessness, depression, and emotional trauma. It was an understandable decision. But it was one with devastating consequences. The entire idea that people are helpless against their bodies and environment is one that is patently false. No, you can't control your environment or health, but you CAN make decisions that will impact your options in the future. And your weight. It might be hard, it might not seem worthwhile given the sacrifices, but it CAN BE DONE.
13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
A person having hypothyroidism that is that severely unchecked and who is only eating 500 calories would not be functioning.
My sister's thyroid tanked to the point the doctor wondered why she hadn't died, her level was that bad. She was still homeschooling her children, cleaning the house, but barely functioning. And she was taking in calories.
In other words, don't try to make a point with an unrealistic scenario.
Thyroid issues don't work the way you think they do, and the point you tried to make doesn't rebut what you tried to rebut.
No one needs to be incapacitated by weight. People can control how they live. Even with hypothyroidism. There are users on here who have lost weight even with untreated hypothyroidism, ftr.
I speak from experience of having limits and working with them but not letting them dictate the body I have. I'm older (54), I have hypothyroidism and both psoriatic and osteoarthritis. I used to be 210 pounds and walk with a cane. I now weigh 116 pounds and run daily. I've made slow progress towards achieving this because of my limitations, but I didn't let that stop me. I intend to keep going.
No one has to be limited by their circumstances. There are success stories from wheelchair bound users on this site. No one has to stay overweight.
Actually I know all too well how thyroid issues work having Hashimotos hypothyroid as well as had having thyroid cancer resulting in now not having a functioning thyroid... at all. I can't tell you how many times doctors have asked me "How tf you alive right now?!". I also have chronic pain, no ovaries, and have been through more than most people could possibly imagine. Personally I've pretty much stopped giving a crap about my weight as long as it stays steady. I think we overemphasize weight loss too much and don't emphasize the health benefits of other things. Such as being active, eating nutritiously, positive mind set.
0 -
I'd find that far more beneficial and encouraging than being overloaded with a bunch of gobbledygook (much of which is trivial or outright false) saying that it's virtually impossible to lose weight because of genetics, hormones, habits, macro ratios, sugars, artificial sweeteners, carbs, meal timing, etc., etc. To me, that sends the message, "just give up and stay fat because it's much too hard anyway and you probably won't be able to do it, so why bother?"
This is exactly the kind of terrible thing that contributed greatly to both my becoming far too heavy to be healthy, and my mother reaching such a high weight. In the guise of compassion or knowledge, this kind of advice robs people of their power of self-agency. And to what end?
4 -
They might require some pretty extreme sacrifice, but anyone can do it.
I think "extreme sacrifice" is the key words you're using here. Of course it CAN be done, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm also not saying CICO doesn't work for everyone (because it does). What I'm saying is we demonize people who say "it's too hard for me". We push them to feel bad about themselves if they can't also be a success story because of external factors. We basically say they're not good enough to be thin/healthy if they don't have the stamina. That's where the external factors come in. Treat the whole person, not just the symptom.
2 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »They might require some pretty extreme sacrifice, but anyone can do it.
I think "extreme sacrifice" is the key words you're using here. Of course it CAN be done, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm also not saying CICO doesn't work for everyone (because it does). What I'm saying is we demonize people who say "it's too hard for me". We push them to feel bad about themselves if they can't also be a success story because of external factors. We basically say they're not good enough to be thin/healthy if they don't have the stamina. That's where the external factors come in. Treat the whole person, not just the symptom.
I have been VERY careful not to denigrate individuals for making decisions that lead to high weight. But they are the individual's decisions.2 -
I have been VERY careful not to denigrate individuals for making decisions that lead to high weight. But they are the individual's decisions.
I think sometimes, as a society, we do so without meaning to. We do so with the best of intentions. Such as sharing "inspirational" stories. They sometimes can leave someone feeling... inadequate? I've seen it a lot, people just giving up because so and so can lose 100lbs, what's wrong with me?! There are so many factors that lead to weight gain, so many that prevent weight loss. And while yes, it's the individual's decision we don't help mitigate the factors that led them down that road to begin with.
I worked with the SNAP-ED grant for a while, to help educate those who are poor on healthy eating. What I found wasn't necessarily the willpower to eat healthy it was that there are so many barriers to doing so if you're poor. Worse if you're poor AND live in a food desert. God forbid you have trouble with nutrition on top of that. Part of the campaign was to convince convenience stores to stock fresh or frozen fruits and veggies. It wasn't easy. But yet we will demonize those same people even in the smallest ways. In the end you can't really take care of your body if you spend your life loathing it.
0 -
I think you're very determined to point out how only privileged people have any self-agency. That's a pretty awful view.6
-
The way I see it CICO is a formula but it does not fill in the gaps of knowledge. Even simple concepts like "You burn calories just by living" escapes some people. And it does not address the gross overestimation of calories burned. I just did 25 mins on a recumbent bicycle and all it earned me was a single cookie.
But that's one beauty of ELMM -- you don't need to know any of that. You need to figure out (honesty) what you eat and how much you move and eat less and move more (or one or the other, but if you don't want to actually track it's probably easier to do both).
Another beauty of it, and one I promote, is that it's not an end-all, be-all. Obviously if you want to ALSO learn more information like how to track calories and/or activity or what your TDEE is or how much you burn running 5 miles (all which I find useful to know) that's great, but it's not necessary and a lot of people don't care to know those things. (I dunno why not, but I dunno why people don't want to know lots of things most people seem to not want to know.)Similarly ELMM condenses a whole bunch of ideas in to a digestible sound byte but for those who have no travelled that road they may be lost figuring out what that looks like.
Again, it's a starting point. It simplifies everything by telling you what a goal is that will result in weight loss. HOW you get there is going to vary, and be harder or easier depending on lots of other factors. But YOU (generic you) is the expert on how you can eat less or what the stumbling blocks are or questions you need answered in order to get there.
I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to how to get to "eat less" for people eating too much.2 -
I think you're very determined to point out how only privileged people have any self-agency. That's a pretty awful view.
No, I think she is just trying to enlarge the discussion to point out another point of view. Acknowledging that that reality exists for some people is not automatically relieving them of accountablilty or saying they CAN'T do it. Just showing the complexity of the problem.
3 -
I think you're very determined to point out how only privileged people have any self-agency. That's a pretty awful view.
No, I think she is just trying to enlarge the discussion to point out another point of view. Acknowledging that that reality exists for some people is not automatically relieving them of accountablilty or saying they CAN'T do it. Just showing the complexity of the problem.
I don't see how one could honestly read tomteboda's posts and think she's not acknowledging the reality that exists for some people.
Saying it is possible, it may be very hard or require sacrifices that perhaps are not worth it to you is empowering. Also, it helps people think through what the stumbling blocks are -- what they think the sacrifices are -- and more often than not they are not as high as people imagine them to be. (For someone with severe thyroid disease of course I think usually the focus should be on controlling the disease first, getting properly medicated, and simply not gaining more weight that will make it harder in the meantime.)
I also do not think that acknowledging it's a choice of some sort means people are "demonized." Among the reasons I regained weight I'd lost was that I was scared to deal with my weight/weight loss when I was still in a shaky point with my sobriety. People do, there was no physical reason I could not, but for me I didn't think the trade off (the shift of focus) was worth it. I don't think I have to say I COULDN'T lose weight then for that to have been a perfectly reasonable choice for me, and I am not angry with myself or think I need to apologize for the rest of the time when I was fat and not losing weight. Nor do I think that of everyone else.
I think this discussion is about people who want to lose weight, no? Not society telling them they should. (Even if you want to you can still feel like you can't, and for me learning I was wrong and finding tools to get going before I knew I was wrong was extremely helpful.)3 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »
I have been VERY careful not to denigrate individuals for making decisions that lead to high weight. But they are the individual's decisions.
I think sometimes, as a society, we do so without meaning to. We do so with the best of intentions. Such as sharing "inspirational" stories. They sometimes can leave someone feeling... inadequate? I've seen it a lot, people just giving up because so and so can lose 100lbs, what's wrong with me?! There are so many factors that lead to weight gain, so many that prevent weight loss. And while yes, it's the individual's decision we don't help mitigate the factors that led them down that road to begin with.
I worked with the SNAP-ED grant for a while, to help educate those who are poor on healthy eating. What I found wasn't necessarily the willpower to eat healthy it was that there are so many barriers to doing so if you're poor. Worse if you're poor AND live in a food desert. God forbid you have trouble with nutrition on top of that. Part of the campaign was to convince convenience stores to stock fresh or frozen fruits and veggies. It wasn't easy. But yet we will demonize those same people even in the smallest ways. In the end you can't really take care of your body if you spend your life loathing it.
You're reaching here, though. To say that someone sharing their inspiration story is denigrating someone choosing not to do similarly by default is quite simply fat logic and the blame lies in the person interpreting it as denigration, not in the person sharing the story.
It's certainly not a societal problem.8 -
I think everyone has heard an overweight person say "It's my thyroid", it seems to be the go too condition whether they have it or not.
I also don't understand poor=overweight thing i read regularly. We have been scrimping by the last few months, and i've lost weight quicker than i ever have! I can no longer afford to go to the store with an unlimited grocery $$ limit, so i have to buy less food, less treats, just less of everything, which for me equals easier weight loss.3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think everyone has heard an overweight person say "It's my thyroid", it seems to be the go too condition whether they have it or not.
I also don't understand poor=overweight thing i read regularly. We have been scrimping by the last few months, and i've lost weight quicker than i ever have! I can no longer afford to go to the store with an unlimited grocery $$ limit, so i have to buy less food, less treats, just less of everything, which for me equals easier weight loss.
A very thin woman once told me "I used to be really damn fat, if you can believe it. Then I went on the best diet ever: unemployment."4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think everyone has heard an overweight person say "It's my thyroid", it seems to be the go too condition whether they have it or not.
I also don't understand poor=overweight thing i read regularly. We have been scrimping by the last few months, and i've lost weight quicker than i ever have! I can no longer afford to go to the store with an unlimited grocery $$ limit, so i have to buy less food, less treats, just less of everything, which for me equals easier weight loss.
Poor doesn't automatically equal overweight, but poverty can be a contributing factor to why someone remains overweight.
Food deserts do exist, and sometimes the grinding nature of poverty and the drudgery and soul-depleting nature of scraping by leave people without the emotional resources to want to deal with their weight. Food is a solace to them, eating is a way to comfort them. Add to that the fact that foods available to the poor which are cheap and plentiful are often calorie dense? Perfect storm.7 -
The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
So then it's cheap convenience foods, which are often more expensive, often saltier and fattier.
One doesn't need Whole Foods to eat well, but a person scraping by has to make tough choices until they get a bit of a break.2 -
The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
Yeah, it's called living in a food desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert1 -
I'm enough of a diva that I've lamented the unavailability of Bok Choy in small-town Alberta. My new small-town friend turned to me and asked, "What's Bok Choy?"
Oy vey.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I suspect that if we had to condense it down to a single factor for nost successes, it would be discipline, either innate, or learned. The fact is that until people learn to control their emotional and psychological responses to food, they are a ridiculous cycle of "fell off the wagon", "I hate myself", and "I'm back".
The only real problem with this, is that I have yet to find a surefire way to instill said discipline into others. Frankly, I'm starting to think that it's something that some have, but most don't. You can't trigger what isn't there to begin with.
I think most everyone is capable of having discipline. I am just not sure that everyone wants to be disciplined.
Since joining the community section of MFP I have been constantly amazed at how many people want someone else to tell them what to do.
Questions such as...
What should I eat for breakfast?
How much should I eat?
How many jumping jacks should I do?
etc
etc
There was a thread once asking how many calories in an egg. I just wanted to scream...LOOK IT UP!
IMO Before people can learn discipline they have to take responsibility for themselves. Quit depending on someone else to do it for them or to make it easier for them.
If someone truly needs help I have all of the patience in the world...I have little patience for those that are just too lazy to do the work.
This is going to come across as elitist, I think, but I don't believe it's always simple laziness. Sometimes it's simple "lost-ness".
In my pre-retirement career, I spent some time as an IT manager. I was responsible, among other things, for helping people develop and progress in their careers. I came away with an inescapable sense that different people have different learning styles, and that some of those learning styles more limiting than others.
Some people can just learn things, do their own research, read between the lines, fill in missing info, identify missing pieces and seek out information to fill the gaps.
Other people need to be taught things, in a structured way - they want a class, or a mentor with a structured approach, or some such thing. Sometimes, these folks just need to be taught a sort of conceptual framework to hang new facts on, sometimes they need to be taught everything. Once they are taught, they may develop similar working capabilities (in the subject matter) to the person who can learn with less structure. They work hard at learning - they aren't lazy; they just need a degree of structure (call it hand-holding or coddling if you like). Every once in a while, I've encountered someone who could be taught (in a structured way) how to learn (in an unstructured way), but it's rare.
Then there are some people who just need to be told what to do next. They may then do it, energetically and with commitment, but they're never going to make the career progress that either of the other types will.
Putting the learning styles in 3 categories is a cartoon, of course - it's really a continuum, and there variations in how people learn best along different axes (learning by reading, learning by seeing it done, learning by doing, etc., and other wrinkles).
Then there are people who are lazy. They avoid doing things. They can be of any of the above learning styles, but they're also more likely to be less able to learn (perhaps because they're unwilling).
Lazy is a different thing from lost or clueless. Lost-ness or clueless-ness manifests in various dysfunctional ways that can look like laziness, though. Some people, facing a disempowering, dislocating sense that they must act, but don't know how to proceed, panic and Just. Can't. Process. Anything. Just asking ridiculous or simple questions doesn't necessarily demonstrate laziness.
I think we see some of the same learning styles play out on MFP. A lot of the frequent helpful-advice-posters are people who are readily able to learn on their own, in an unstructured say. Some of them are good at empathizing with people who aren't able to learn that way, and find ways to help those people move along. Yeah, it takes patience.
The psychological dimension of this - those who need careful, positive, warm support vs. those who need "tough love" as one example - is a whole 'nother piece. Clearly, no one who is offering help needs to be able to reach everyone who needs help . . . we ain't gettin' paid for this.
Random afterthoughts:
I often say that everyday life (combination of taxes, investments, medical issues, mortgages, contracts, technology etc.) is getting too complicated for the average person to manage; maybe weight loss, health and fitness are, too?
A lot of people all the way through school were not very good at "story problems", even when they new how to do the required math. Maybe some of that applies here as well? Weight loss and nutrition really are a big story problem!
Reading comprehension, retention, reading for details and context rather than responding to some "hot button": Read any thread here, and you can't avoid realizing how uncommon these skills are. Heck, I probably wouldn't even have written this long, ridiculous reply if I'd properly processed the point of the thread, and the key facts in the post to which I'm responding. 12 -
I like your broader context of how different learners require a different approach.1
-
The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
Yeah, it's called living in a food desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
Interesting. I've never heard that term before. It would be horrible living in a food desert. Where i live atleast, there's a major supermarket in just about every suburb, all of them have a good selection of fresh fruit, veggies and meat.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
Yeah, it's called living in a food desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
Interesting. I've never heard that term before. It would be horrible living in a food desert. Where i live atleast, there's a major supermarket in just about every suburb, all of them have a good selection of fresh fruit, veggies and meat.
In the USA, a "food desert" is defined as being more than a mile from a grocery store.
It's actually really patently absurd given the way that most people live in this country. Heck, I'm in a "food desert" at the moment. The grocery store is 6 whole miles away from me. This isn't really a big deal, I happen to have a car (a 1995 sedan, for the record), but even if I didn't, there's bus service. I took the bus or rode my bicycle to get groceries for a long time.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
Yeah, it's called living in a food desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
Interesting. I've never heard that term before. It would be horrible living in a food desert. Where i live atleast, there's a major supermarket in just about every suburb, all of them have a good selection of fresh fruit, veggies and meat.
In the USA, a "food desert" is defined as being more than a mile from a grocery store.
It's actually really patently absurd given the way that most people live in this country. Heck, I'm in a "food desert" at the moment. The grocery store is 6 whole miles away from me. This isn't really a big deal, I happen to have a car (a 1995 sedan, for the record), but even if I didn't, there's bus service. I took the bus or rode my bicycle to get groceries for a long time.
Geez that makes no sense. 1 mile is nothing, that's an easy walkable distance for most people.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »The very poor have trouble saving up for sales, transportation to get to and from big box stores, and stocking up on staples. They may not have a large freezer, or limited cooking facilities.
Yeah, it's called living in a food desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
Interesting. I've never heard that term before. It would be horrible living in a food desert. Where i live atleast, there's a major supermarket in just about every suburb, all of them have a good selection of fresh fruit, veggies and meat.
In the USA, a "food desert" is defined as being more than a mile from a grocery store.
It's actually really patently absurd given the way that most people live in this country. Heck, I'm in a "food desert" at the moment. The grocery store is 6 whole miles away from me. This isn't really a big deal, I happen to have a car (a 1995 sedan, for the record), but even if I didn't, there's bus service. I took the bus or rode my bicycle to get groceries for a long time.
This is why I always found the idea ridiculous. I live about 2.5 miles from the nearest grocery store. Clearly, I should weigh 400 lbs., have T2D, and every blood ailment known to man.
What's that? Walking five miles everyday for groceries is helping to prevent those?
The funny part is, people are always asking me why I don't have a car, when I lost my license, etc. Their faces when I inform them that I actually own two vehicles and have a commercial driver's license with all endorsements...at what point did walking "because I have legs" become such an alien concept?
Just another reason that I lose more faith in people as a whole, every day.5 -
Don't you guys know that walking is only for exercising and extra calories...not for use in daily life.
People always look at me a little strange when they find that I walk to the store and haul back most of my groceries for the week. My grocery trolly is one of my most valuable assets.
As far as "food deserts" go...I think that they can exist even if one lives next door to a grocery store. I have had times in my life that all you would find in my kitchen are boxes of macaroni and cheese,hot dogs, bologna, bread and potatoes. I took the money that I had which some weeks might only be $10 and tried to buy foods that would feed me and my daughter for the week. Mac and cheese at the time I could find 5 boxes for $1, $1 for bread, potatoes were cheap and I there was always BOGO free on the bologna or hot dogs. My choices were not always healthy and certainly not low calorie. However my choices did allow me to put food in my child's mouth.
I think my pantry and fridge might have qualified for a "food desert"...it was pretty barren at times.5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I suspect that if we had to condense it down to a single factor for nost successes, it would be discipline, either innate, or learned. The fact is that until people learn to control their emotional and psychological responses to food, they are a ridiculous cycle of "fell off the wagon", "I hate myself", and "I'm back".
The only real problem with this, is that I have yet to find a surefire way to instill said discipline into others. Frankly, I'm starting to think that it's something that some have, but most don't. You can't trigger what isn't there to begin with.
I think most everyone is capable of having discipline. I am just not sure that everyone wants to be disciplined.
Since joining the community section of MFP I have been constantly amazed at how many people want someone else to tell them what to do.
Questions such as...
What should I eat for breakfast?
How much should I eat?
How many jumping jacks should I do?
etc
etc
There was a thread once asking how many calories in an egg. I just wanted to scream...LOOK IT UP!
IMO Before people can learn discipline they have to take responsibility for themselves. Quit depending on someone else to do it for them or to make it easier for them.
If someone truly needs help I have all of the patience in the world...I have little patience for those that are just too lazy to do the work.
Edited for length...though it was a good read and thought provoking.
Random afterthoughts:
I often say that everyday life (combination of taxes, investments, medical issues, mortgages, contracts, technology etc.) is getting too complicated for the average person to manage; maybe weight loss, health and fitness are, too?
A lot of people all the way through school were not very good at "story problems", even when they new how to do the required math. Maybe some of that applies here as well? Weight loss and nutrition really are a big story problem!
Reading comprehension, retention, reading for details and context rather than responding to some "hot button": Read any thread here, and you can't avoid realizing how uncommon these skills are. Heck, I probably wouldn't even have written this long, ridiculous reply if I'd properly processed the point of the thread, and the key facts in the post to which I'm responding.
The following is based on what I saw when I worked in the educational system several years ago.
Sadly critical thinking is not always taught in schools any more. Essay questions were eliminated for the most part and replaced with fill-in-the-blank, T or F or matching up by drawing a line. Only those children that were at the top of the class and qualified for advanced learning had any access to more advanced learning techniques.
There were several reasons for this but one reason was..."building self-esteem"...less advanced children did better on these types of tests. They never had to think outside the box nor use their reasoning skills.
We live in a world where knowledge is just a few seconds away...sadly there are many that will go with the first answer they find and never question it nor research further.
I think that your post is on point with the topic of the OP...why is all of this so difficult...why are there so many outside influences that make losing weight difficult for some. Most of all...why when something is as simple as ELMM...CICO...etc...etc...is it so hard to execute.
IMO...it is the "roadblocks" that were depicted in the chart shown at the beginning of this thread that I think holds the key for many people that struggle with weight loss(among many other things). We let them send us down a detour that for some reason we can't seem to find the main road again.
I agree that everyday life can take its toll on people. They are just trying to make it through the day with very little hope for the future. Why worry about weight when all you are trying to do is to survive the day?
I have been there. In the last four years of trying to lose weight I have had failures and successes. Each time that I renew my weight loss efforts I get a little closer to reaching my goals. Each time that I have had failure I have allowed those "roadblocks" to send me down detours. Each time the detour is getting a little shorter.
For me anyway, success depends on removing the "roadblocks" taking them apart brick by brick...and not going down the detours.
1 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »Ah, here we go: https://books.google.com/books?id=Cm_kLhU1AP0C&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq=BMR+Hypothyroid+20%&source=bl&ots=ZrboZhlWW-&sig=f1j68wz4RO27XKh68c8h9khthds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC3deJvJXRAhUJiVQKHYLmCJEQ6AEIKjAD#v=onepage&q=BMR Hypothyroid 20%&f=false
This source says that a normal BMR test someone in a normal range will test + or - 20% those with hypothyroidism can test -30 to -40 % . That's a pretty big difference even if a "normal" reading would be -20% that's still a 10% decrease in BMR not a 5% difference. Those on the more severe end would be up to even a 20% difference.
Mind you that's on the low in. The calorie consumption guidelines assume an
"average" BMR right about in the middle giving the 1,200 cal/ day guidelines. Meaning someone who has a super severe hypothyroid problem could feasibly eat 500 (ridiculously low for impact) and not be able to lose. In reality, even living off of 800 ish cals/ day can cause issues as well and is not a life I would suggest anyone live unless they are under complete care of a doctor and only for short while.
I'm familiar with the text, but have never been able to find a reputable source for this claim. All published research has never moved beyond the median of 5%.
As for source here is one of the more recent journals on REE/levothyroxine: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jcem.82.4.3873
Personally, in November 2015 I conducted a self study with my team and went off my 175/200 mcg alt day dose of Synthroid to zero. I was due for a full body scan anyway, but went 30 days without and tested my BMR each day during the study. My BMR started at 2002 and was 1913 on day 30. I was 44, 6'4" 218lbs and at the time and experienced a normal fluctuation of weight throughout this.
Even so, doing something so dramatic as reducing calories by 60% is dangerous. It is a fine example of ad absurdum, but little else. Levothyroxine simply does not have this dramatic of an impact on weight.2
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
- 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