New Discovery: Protein shuts down Fat burning
Replies
-
Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Exactly the point I was going to make.
Additionally, CICO isn't simply how much you exercise vs how much volume you eat. There is always more to it than that, sometimes a great deal more.7 -
psychod787 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.
I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.
Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind
8 -
psychod787 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.
I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.
Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind
Agreeing so much with the first bolded.
Re the second bolded, Biggest Loser is likely referenced in the OP because it was referenced in the article https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
The first bolded explains what happened to the BL contestants far better than what the author of the article is trying to do.
Does the actual study mention BL?1 -
psychod787 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.
I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.
Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind
@kimnyc72 .... you know I love ya girl! 😘1 -
Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Exactly the point I was going to make.
Additionally, CICO isn't simply how much you exercise vs how much volume you eat. There is always more to it than that, sometimes a great deal more.
Agreed.. ei vs eo... though the things that attribute to ei are a whole different ball of wax!🤔1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.
I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.
Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind
Agreeing so much with the first bolded.
Re the second bolded, Biggest Loser is likely referenced in the OP because it was referenced in the article https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
The first bolded explains what happened to the BL contestants far better than what the author of the article is trying to do.
Does the actual study mention BL?
Good catch. So I'm actually not sure why the BL was included in the article then
and suspect it was for the same reasons I attributed to the OP 2 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
"Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures ***for everyone,*** "
I wouldn't agree "for everyone".
One woman in college ate like a bird, her roommate confirmed she ate like a bird, and she was a big woman.
One of my dorm mates was a petite Asian woman who weighed maybe 100 pounds, stick thin, and she out ate football players. It was a burden to her, some gave her a cruel nickname, but she had a super high metabolism.
I understand these are exceptions. While caloric deficits may apply to most, I'm guessing Mother Nature may also have individuals in between 'the norm' and the exceptions.
Yet you prove the point that was made..... We are not saying everyone requires the same caloric intake. The person eating like a bird and gaining weight requires less intake than the skinny person who eats a lot. The "exception" is the metabolism, not CICO.4 -
Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.5 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
The point is that simply observing how much someone eats and whether or not they gain weight proves nothing. There's FAR more to the picture than that... and the fact that both were under doctor's supervision only supports that). If you know the rest of the picture, please fill us in (I'm sure most of us would love to learn). If you don't, then stop using them as proof of anything.6 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
As was noted above anecdote=/=fact.8 -
psychod787 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.
I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.
Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind
One of the things I think is super fun about a "genetic doom" line of reasoning is that somehow, at the population level, our USA genetics have miraculously changed since the 1980s, when the so-called "obesity epidemic" purportedly got started, in most representations about it.
Oh, wait: I forgot. It's the aspartame, or the gluten, or the GMOs, or one of those kinds of things that flipped a bunch of epigenetic switches, so it's still outside our control, so we should just give up and stay/get fat. (<== For the literal: This paragraph is sarcasm. Sarcasm.)15 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
So they had a medical issue with processing food into metabolically useful energy, and were under treatment. As they should be. Cool.
Everyone can starve to death, if sufficiently deprived of food. Literally no one is fat when they die of starvation. (Sometimes there is abdominal distention along the way from malnutrition or other correlates, but that doesn't even look like fat.)
If people can starve to death (something we should urgently be trying to eliminate from the world, BTW), then people can lose weight with some less punitive regimen than literally stopping all intake. They may require an unusual calorie level in order to accomplish it, especially in cases of treatable medical conditions, and no one has said otherwise.6 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
14 -
Dont know where I heard this ,but a great quote. " Genetics loads the gun... we pull the trigger." End quote...1
-
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
My colleagues really wonder how I'm so slim when I'm doing nothing but eating all day. Well.. on a normal eating day I eat about 800-900kcal of food in the office, including breakfast, lunch and snacks. I like to talk about food. And I take a cookie every now and then, which people see as it's a tiny company. For those reasons people get the impression that I'm constantly eating.9 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
A hyper-thin, highly intelligent Asian woman spending every open minute in the Dining Commons isn't a 'part-time' observation. At some point she told us, "I get tired of eating, I want to move to an apartment, but I won't be able to afford the food bill." She was under doctor's care.
Just as its theoretically impossible for a teenager to gain 30 pounds of good weight in 1 summer eating avocados ... but the Somoans I knew went into puberty sooner, became men / women sooner, and became overweight / obese far sooner. The highly over-represented rate if Somoans, a tiny island, in the NFL, is theoretically impossible. And yes, I also know 1 stick-thin Somoan woman.18 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
This is like that time I judged a book by its cover, and was completely wrong about what was inside.9 -
Kind of like this thread.6
-
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
Of the two examples you noted the one who 'ate like a bird' was eating in a calorie surplus. If there's one thing that I (and I'm sure A LOT of others here) can attest to is that it's possible to eat enormous amounts of food away from prying eyes. Just because you and those that were closest to her didn't see it didn't mean it wasn't happening.
The other is likely the exact opposite and was someone who ate voraciously when observed but not at other times. I had a friend who used to be the proverbial 'eat like a horse and never put on a pound' person. So out of interest I asked them to track their eating for a week. He was interested and agreed. Guess what? He was eating in what we figured out to be a pretty normal amount. His 'eating like a horse' turned out to be in a calorie balance as his eating habits saw him naturally eating large but infrequent meals. We saw the big meals but didn't see or take notice of the skipped breakfasts, light lunches, etc
Point being you can't tell how much people are REALLY eating based on your or other peoples very limited observations of the few minutes of their life you get to witness.8 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
Of the two examples you noted the one who 'ate like a bird' was eating in a calorie surplus. If there's one thing that I (and I'm sure A LOT of others here) can attest to is that it's possible to eat enormous amounts of food away from prying eyes. Just because you and those that were closest to her didn't see it didn't mean it wasn't happening.
The other is likely the exact opposite and was someone who ate voraciously when observed but not at other times. I had a friend who used to be the proverbial 'eat like a horse and never put on a pound' person. So out of interest I asked them to track their eating for a week. He was interested and agreed. Guess what? He was eating in what we figured out to be a pretty normal amount. His 'eating like a horse' turned out to be in a calorie balance as his eating habits saw him naturally eating large but infrequent meals. We saw the big meals but didn't see or take notice of the skipped breakfasts, light lunches, etc
Point being you can't tell how much people are REALLY eating based on your or other peoples very limited observations of the few minutes of their life you get to witness.TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
Of the two examples you noted the one who 'ate like a bird' was eating in a calorie surplus. If there's one thing that I (and I'm sure A LOT of others here) can attest to is that it's possible to eat enormous amounts of food away from prying eyes. Just because you and those that were closest to her didn't see it didn't mean it wasn't happening.
The other is likely the exact opposite and was someone who ate voraciously when observed but not at other times. I had a friend who used to be the proverbial 'eat like a horse and never put on a pound' person. So out of interest I asked them to track their eating for a week. He was interested and agreed. Guess what? He was eating in what we figured out to be a pretty normal amount. His 'eating like a horse' turned out to be in a calorie balance as his eating habits saw him naturally eating large but infrequent meals. We saw the big meals but didn't see or take notice of the skipped breakfasts, light lunches, etc
Point being you can't tell how much people are REALLY eating based on your or other peoples very limited observations of the few minutes of their life you get to witness.
I understand your first point, which I'll accept for brevity sake. I had one relative in Overesters Anonymous confide she took home leftovers on holidays, plus hid desserts in her purse. When I temporarily stayed with another friend, I saw she had a half-gallon jug of malt balls under her bed.
The second woman was well known, and was under the care of a specialist. Other contiguous dorms that used the same dining commons often commented. She was the first in, and last out. I just did a quickie TDEE for a 5'6", 100# 20 year old woman, and it said 1,700 CPD. She blew that away probably just at dinner. And she didn't move out of the dorms due to the financial cost of food. (I believe she was pre med.) Women often left the dorms early bc they didn't eat half as much as the men, sometimes skipped meals or just had a salad. Wonderful woman, but you could see the toll it took emotionally.8 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
A hyper-thin, highly intelligent Asian woman spending every open minute in the Dining Commons isn't a 'part-time' observation. At some point she told us, "I get tired of eating, I want to move to an apartment, but I won't be able to afford the food bill." She was under doctor's care.
Just as its theoretically impossible for a teenager to gain 30 pounds of good weight in 1 summer eating avocados ... but the Somoans I knew went into puberty sooner, became men / women sooner, and became overweight / obese far sooner. The highly over-represented rate if Somoans, a tiny island, in the NFL, is theoretically impossible. And yes, I also know 1 stick-thin Somoan woman.
Your Asian colleague could easily be bulimic, hence why she is under a doctor.5 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one ... one eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)[/i]
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
A hyper-thin, highly intelligent Asian woman spending every open minute in the Dining Commons isn't a ... ...
oretically impossible. And yes, I also know 1 stick-thin Somoan woman.
Your Asian colleague could easily be bulimic, hence why she is under a doctor.
Possibly.
Interesting little item. My former skipper (amateur sailing) was an ex-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine.
He claimed a large weight gain of muscle during his entrance into the Marines by the time he came home for Christmas. His Mother was astounded at his weight gain in several months. He attributed it to their speciality, "Sh-t on a Shingle". Turns out it is a military thing.
Chipped beef, butter, flour, butter, pork and or bacon, gravy, milk, sometimes peas.
https://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-calories.asp?recipe=1524634
1 serving. 500 calories, 30 carbs, 32 Gs of protein.
4 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000. Metabolism?, hormones?, not my expertise.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
Of the two examples you noted the one who 'ate like a bird' was eating in a calorie surplus. If there's one thing that I (and I'm sure A LOT of others here) can attest to is that it's possible to eat enormous amounts of food away from prying eyes. Just because you and those that were closest to her didn't see it didn't mean it wasn't happening.
The other is likely the exact opposite and was someone who ate voraciously when observed but not at other times. I had a friend who used to be the proverbial 'eat like a horse and never put on a pound' person. So out of interest I asked them to track their eating for a week. He was interested and agreed. Guess what? He was eating in what we figured out to be a pretty normal amount. His 'eating like a horse' turned out to be in a calorie balance as his eating habits saw him naturally eating large but infrequent meals. We saw the big meals but didn't see or take notice of the skipped breakfasts, light lunches, etc
Point being you can't tell how much people are REALLY eating based on your or other peoples very limited observations of the few minutes of their life you get to witness.
Exactly. The 'bird' woman could easily be secretly eating. Even a roommate might not notice.
Last year people would have said I was like the second woman because I could put away massive amounts of food. But I was bulimic. I either didn't digest the food or I wouldn't eat for like 24 hours afterwards. But because I was secretive, few knew. Even kept it from my husband for awhile.
(For the record, me and food habits are pretty normal these days--thanks, therapy!)6 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?
Consider the young women I noted above. I'm not a scientist, they were both under doctor's care. Two individuals out of 1,000.
I agree many of most should be able to lose weight.
If you had a meal with my son you would be astounded by how much food he eats at one sitting, especially if Dad is paying! (Anecdote - How can someone eat so much and stay slim and fit? He must have a super fast metabolism.)
But if you spent a day with him working on a construction job you would wonder how he works so hard all day just drinking water and not eating anything. (Anecdote - How can someone eat so little and work so hard and not get skinny? He must be a special snowflake and a hard gainer.)
Casual and part-time observation of someone's eating habits simply isn't worthwhile evidence.
Yes, people who eat Thanksgiving dinner with my skinny mom marvel at her "fast metabolism".
However, if they were to follow her around all day long they would notice she is 1. incredibly active, 2. skips meals, and 3. some of her meals are high volume but low calorie.1
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