well, yes, both can be bad - but i dont see how that is an argument for not promoting weight loss.
Actually weight loss promotion that I see, both on an individual level ( eg a doctor to a patient) and group levels - eg government guidelines and commercial interests like Weight watchers, only promote weight loss to people who should be losing weight.
Doctors dont say to people who are underweight or a healthy weight, that they should lose - and WW and co doesnt target the underweight or healthy weight demographic.
Of course it would be stupid to promote weight loss to an anorexia recovery group or even to a healthy sports team - but is anyone doing that?????
people can die from obesity yes, but they can also die from being underweight, or even just by losing weight too quickly/malnutrition(regardless of what weight you are at). along with alot of other people i know, i have a considerable amount of heart conditions caused by dieting and food restriction. it is a very dangerous thing to do, and is often hard to know when to stop
In our particular moment, the average American is much more at risk from obesity and the risks associated with it than they are from being underweight and the risks associated with that.
I don't think that anyone is denying that being below a healthy body weight is dangerous. It's just when you look around us, what sets of risks is the average American more likely to be facing *right now*? There is a reason why we're focused on one over the other.
I'm sorry you know a lot of people with heart conditions associated with food restriction. But if the average American knows someone with a health condition associated with weight, it's going to be a safe bet that it is *excess* weight that is the issue.
There is a "we're" with regard to being focused on obesity. I am one of the "we're". I am not unconcerned about people who are suffering from being underweight from restriction and the health problems it causes. However, I can not be invested in every cause because if I tried my attention would be diluted to the point I could not actually serve any one cause effectively.
There should be a "we're" fighting for the people who are suffering from restriction related problems. That cause is also very important. I am not sure if it will be any easier to fix than obesity but the people who feel passionately about it should try. I know a woman that seems to know a good number of people who have suffered and even died from over-restriction. It is kind of odd how that happens. One person knows a good number and I am not sure I know of any.
Yes, I know many people who have struggled with disordered eating but I don't know anyone (that I know of) that has suffered from serious health consequences associated with restriction. On the other hand, I know multiple people -- just in my family -- who have suffered serious or even fatal consequences from illnesses associated with obesity and I know many other people are struggling with them.
I'm not trying to say that if someone feels the health consequences of restriction are important that they shouldn't focus on trying to help in that area. The world has so many problems that I think it is okay for people to focus on making something better if they feel passionate about it, there is no obligation to not focus on it just because something else might have a higher number of victims or people impacted.
It's just that I think arguing that we shouldn't "promote" weight loss because over-restriction has some risks isn't a good argument. Yes, over-restriction has risks and should be avoided. But over-indulgence resulting in obesity has serious risks that impact millions of Americans (and Westerners) and we can't justify ignoring that.
Weight loss has to be promoted. Obesity is a supporting player in millions of deaths a year. Unfortunately social distancing will not flatten the curve of this, far more prolific, killer.
The two causes should not be viewed as opposing at all.
im not talking about promoting weight loss to anorexics. but weight loss in people who are overweight can even be dangerous if not done right. i think its important to promote weight loss to an extent but there needs to be more out there on how to do it healthily
well, yes, both can be bad - but i dont see how that is an argument for not promoting weight loss.
Actually weight loss promotion that I see, both on an individual level ( eg a doctor to a patient) and group levels - eg government guidelines and commercial interests like Weight watchers, only promote weight loss to people who should be losing weight.
Doctors dont say to people who are underweight or a healthy weight, that they should lose - and WW and co doesnt target the underweight or healthy weight demographic.
Of course it would be stupid to promote weight loss to an anorexia recovery group or even to a healthy sports team - but is anyone doing that?????
Yes, they are.
Not here - or at least not for long, because it's against TOS and gets deleted.
The only people promoting it to those in anorexia recovery are the pro-ana sources, AFAIK, so not the groups you (paperpudding) seem to be talking about, since earlier in your post you mentiong government guidelines and commercial interests. (I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are some pro-ana commercial interests, at the fringe, but I don't know. I still think that would be not what you're talking about, as I think you mean mainstream ones.)
But on healthy sports teams? You bet that's happening. There are sports that reward low body weight, even have separate competitive classes for lightweights (men and women). Sensible coaches don't promote unhealthy behaviors intentionally, but not all coaches are sensible, and sadly some individuals over-respond (respond dysfunctionally, unhealthfully) to healthful, sensible messages about weight management that are given by coaches who are not explicitly or implicitly encouraging unhealthful weight loss.
In some cases, in some places, there is effectively an unhealthful sub-culture around things like gymnastics, ballet and some other dance forms, modeling, and a variety of sports that compete in weight classes. Not everywhere, maybe not even in most places. But it's happening more than it should be, still.
This is sadly true in my own sport of rowing, though the situation is better than it used to be - in terms of coaches actively encouraging weight loss beyond what's sensible - and it's not at all widespread. But, get the wrong coach at some prep level, and things can be pretty bad. Certainly, rowers (in any weight class) who are overweight are likely to be encouraged (by coach or teammates) to lose weight (in a healthy way) for the good of boat speed. Consider, especially, that coxswains are part of a team, and there are weight limits, expressed as minimums, around 110 pounds for women, 120 for men. Too light, and their boat must carry sandbags. Too heavy, and the boat is slower. You better believe that there's pressure for them to be very close to those minimums. Their muscle is completely irrelevant to the team's explicit goals: It takes little strength to steer and talk. Usually, very petite women take this role (sometimes even in men's boats), so that weight is not punitive to achieve (for some, staying over the minimum is more the issue). On good teams with good coaches, the coxswains are very fit, very active but quite tiny women who work out routinely with the rowers, including weight lifting, so they're good athletes themselves. Often, they're good rowers who simply aren't tall enough to be competitive at higher levels.
I agree with the overall thrust of your argument. But I think there are cases where - unfortunately - unhealthful weight loss is in fact promoted, either intentionally or by sensible advice badly influencing sensitive people.
Stepping back to the larger issue:
We humans tend to respond to the sub-culture around us with a belief that our sub-groups norms are widely/generally normal. We tend to bend toward the "approved" behaviors of our social environment.
It's a two-way thing: Simplistically, if my family and their friends are overweight and inactive, I'm more likely to become overweight and inactive, and to hear messages that imply that it's normal and fine to be overweight and inactive (both because the group reinforces its norms via its implicit messaging, and partly because of confirmation bias). On the other side, if I'm overweight and inactive, I'm more likely to gather similarly-oriented people around me, because we share interests, hobbies, and views about body and behavior.
It becomes easy not to understand that other, radically different sub-cultures exist, and maybe even are common.
IMO, it would be nice for advisors of both the overweight and the underweight to keep in mind that their messages reach some people in the opposite, non-intended extreme from their intended audience, and that inaccurate body image can lead the wrong people to follow otherwise good guidance.
No question in my mind that it's a good thing to promote healthy weight, whether that means encourage unhealthfully overweight people to lose weight, or unhealthfully underweight people to gain some.
im not talking about promoting weight loss to anorexics. but weight loss in people who are overweight can even be dangerous if not done right. i think its important to promote weight loss to an extent but there needs to be more out there on how to do it healthily
You seem to be new on here. I have been here 7 yrs and posters frequently tell an OP to talk to their doctor before doing any exercise or weight loss. That should not be something one should even have to say--it should be obvious to all. I realize that that is not so. That is why this site insists that people on MFP are 18 or older. Adults need to take responsibility for themselves.
I wonder if anyone who wants to take cues from human evolution would be so quick to do so if they had to survive somewhere harsh without clothing or tools.
I watched "Naked and Afraid" a few times and noped the hell out. I wouldn't last two days.
No question in my mind that it's a good thing to promote healthy weight, whether that means encourage unhealthfully overweight people to lose weight, or unhealthfully underweight people to gain some.
Perhaps this is the key phrase: instead of relating in terms of "weight loss" we rephrase the approach as "achieving a healthy weight"; surely this can incorporate both ends of the spectrum.
I know in our medical centre we dont actually promote weight loss - we promote weight management - which means doing what you need to do to be a healthy weight for you.
For most people this is either lose weight or maintain current weight. For a few, it is gain weight.
We probably should think of it as fat loss, not weight loss.
Not sure if that really changes much of the potential problems for underweight individuals, particularly not for women. There are levels of too little body fat for women which will cause amenorrhea, along with other hormonal issues, and that tends to lead to bone density loss.
In men, prolonged low body fat is generally going to cause low hormones too, though if not caused by rapid loss, it is probably less likely to induce sarcopenia, which would be the eventual bad weight loss.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
I'm afraid I disagree; there are many factors that come into play on what is the correct and healthy calorie level for a person as well as what is a healthy body weight for them. My sister is horribly obese to the point where its drastically affecting her health, and she's around 270 lbs; she is also 5'1" tall. with her height and sedentary lifestyle, she could eat less than 1500 and be perfectly fine. The bottom number for females is 1200.
And while a person can have healthy blood work returns while being "fat", the question is the long term - as they age and the obesity takes its affect on the body, will they continue to be "healthy"? Statistics say the probably is a high "no". Are there outliers? sure. Should people just assume they are an outlier? definitely not. What is considered a healthy range for the average person has been developed through years of data gathering, which is why its used as the starting point in discussions with patients; obesity is a warning sign of a higher risk of developing all sorts of conditions. It's not guaranteed, but I think, for example, I'd rather have a 15% chance of developing a serious medical problem than a 75% chance, especially if losing weight was all I had to do to make that gain.
And if genetics is what determined my weight, how did I manage to lose 137 lbs and counting?
what I CAN agree with is that making a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a difference over time; that's around a 1 lb a week loss and in many cases is a perfectly reasonable rate of loss, unless a person is down to trying to drop the last few pounds.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
No I dont agree with that.
yes, some people cut down too much but Less than1500 calories is quite appropriate fro many people - I lost slowly, steadily on 1460 and there would be women shorter, less active, older than me for whom less than that would be appropriate.
I dont think genetics causes your weight more than anything else - your body shape, your frame, height: yes but no, not your weight.
You can be fat and healthy is too simplistic.
and there are degrees, of course.
Some people can be slightly above their ideal weight and be healthy - but for almost everybody, general health will be better if one is not carrying excess fat.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
To the 2 bolded statements - no.
Being fat in the short run, maybe might not be too much of a health risk, but extra fat ALWAYS catches up with you in the long run. It means extra wear on your joints, extra wear on the internal organs, etc.
Genetics - nope. My father has been skinny his whole life (to the point that the Dr always tells him to eat more food every time he goes in). My mother was average. So given those genetics, explain why I am obese (I already know the answer to the question, I would just like for you to explain the genetics that make me obese).
I believe that blaming your weight on genetics is simply shifting the blame from your personal responsibility to something that is out of your control - "It's not my fault, it's my genetics!!".
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
As a sedentary person, I would need 1,460 calories a day to maintain my current weight.
Now as it happens, I'm not sedentary, so I eat more than that. But let's say something happened and I became sedentary. What harm do you think would come to me if I ate 1,460 a day and maintained my current body weight?
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
FYI- For someone on the short side, that isn't currently fat, and isn't moderately active → that's higher than maintenance.
(edit: typo)
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
FYI- For someone on the short side, that isn't currently fat, and isn't moderately active → that's higher than maintenance.
(edit: typo)
Yep, as a not-overweight person, if I was sedentary I'd need 1,460 a day to maintain. I don't think this would be harmful for me as I've been netting that for a few years now (that is, I eat back my exercise calories so that I net what I need to maintain).
I don't think promoting weight loss is dangerous and yes, I'd agree that our ideals of what was fat generations ago has changed in societal norms today (not for all but for many). I remember years ago when Kim Kardashian said she weighed 117 pounds and her sister felt like that was "too skinny." I disagreed. Whose business is it to judge anyway as long as she felt confident and healthy?! Generations ago, if Kim Kardashian had said she weighed 99 pounds, which would have been more typical for the times then, then the sister may have complained at that time too that her sister was "too skinny."
I have attributed genetics to being smaller. All females in my family, immediate and extended, are small with tallest being 5"2' and everyone hovers around 110 pounds. My grandmother was small. Her mother was small. I'm small. My aunts are small. Then I look at my husband's family and most of them are humongous, absolutely humongous. So do genetics play a role, maybe...but I definitely don't think genetics should be used as an excuse not to lose weight...
Joints and long term...if I gain 2 or 3 pounds, I can feel the struggle in a run. My speed decreases and it's difficult to power through it with even just a little bit of weight extra. I try to maintain my weight around 105 but it's more for performance and health as opposed to vanity and how cute I'll look in a sundress.
Calories: 1,500 calories per day would be way too many for my height.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
Genetics determine nothing, ever. That probably sounds excessively absolute, but it is true. All genes are dependent on environment for expression - I don't care what your genes say, if you're stepping in lava, your weight is going to 0 pretty fast, just to use the most extreme example.
Somewhat more realistic, if you somehow had some incredible kind of mitochondria with DNA that allowed them to produce 200 ATP per molecule of glucose (probably not chemically possible, but still), it wouldn't matter much if you lived in tundra with less than 1% of your calorie intake being carbohydrate.
We don't tend to see any obese and or even overweight BMI's in people living in pre-agricultural lifestyles - it seems most calories in that environment are too hard and unappetizing to be worth pursuing. In the modern environment, there's probably are a variety of genes that influence appetite and preference that trend towards various levels of weight. Such people can still be actively managed by altering the environments one spends a lot of time in. It generally takes something pretty severe like defects of leptin production or something like Prater-Willy to be what could be fairly called a genetic reason for being obese.
I'm no expert, but I believe some of the statements would be true if caloric intake would be drastically cut. I believe no one should ever eat less than 1500 calories even if it means weighing a little bit more. Some people tend to cut down too much, and I can see where that would do something to you mentally. I'm sure this statement won't be popular, but you can be fat and healthy. Genetics determine your weight more than anything else. This is a proven fact. That being said, I think it would be dangerous if you were extremely obese 300+ lbs or so. Just a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a big difference in your weight over time. This isn't drastic and I think anyone could live with that.
What is your source for this?
Growing up, my entire family was slim. I was a very skinny kid and a slim adult.
So, if genetics played a big role, I would expect to have a difficult time gaining weight. Yet in my late 50's, I had no trouble whatsoever blossoming myself right into the obese category. It was ridiculously easy. Too many calories, not enough activity.
Tl;dr: Genetics aren't a factor. How many calories you shove in your pie hole daily absolutely is.
Replies
Actually weight loss promotion that I see, both on an individual level ( eg a doctor to a patient) and group levels - eg government guidelines and commercial interests like Weight watchers, only promote weight loss to people who should be losing weight.
Doctors dont say to people who are underweight or a healthy weight, that they should lose - and WW and co doesnt target the underweight or healthy weight demographic.
Of course it would be stupid to promote weight loss to an anorexia recovery group or even to a healthy sports team - but is anyone doing that?????
Weight loss has to be promoted. Obesity is a supporting player in millions of deaths a year. Unfortunately social distancing will not flatten the curve of this, far more prolific, killer.
The two causes should not be viewed as opposing at all.
Yes, they are.
Not here - or at least not for long, because it's against TOS and gets deleted.
The only people promoting it to those in anorexia recovery are the pro-ana sources, AFAIK, so not the groups you (paperpudding) seem to be talking about, since earlier in your post you mentiong government guidelines and commercial interests. (I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are some pro-ana commercial interests, at the fringe, but I don't know. I still think that would be not what you're talking about, as I think you mean mainstream ones.)
But on healthy sports teams? You bet that's happening. There are sports that reward low body weight, even have separate competitive classes for lightweights (men and women). Sensible coaches don't promote unhealthy behaviors intentionally, but not all coaches are sensible, and sadly some individuals over-respond (respond dysfunctionally, unhealthfully) to healthful, sensible messages about weight management that are given by coaches who are not explicitly or implicitly encouraging unhealthful weight loss.
In some cases, in some places, there is effectively an unhealthful sub-culture around things like gymnastics, ballet and some other dance forms, modeling, and a variety of sports that compete in weight classes. Not everywhere, maybe not even in most places. But it's happening more than it should be, still.
This is sadly true in my own sport of rowing, though the situation is better than it used to be - in terms of coaches actively encouraging weight loss beyond what's sensible - and it's not at all widespread. But, get the wrong coach at some prep level, and things can be pretty bad. Certainly, rowers (in any weight class) who are overweight are likely to be encouraged (by coach or teammates) to lose weight (in a healthy way) for the good of boat speed. Consider, especially, that coxswains are part of a team, and there are weight limits, expressed as minimums, around 110 pounds for women, 120 for men. Too light, and their boat must carry sandbags. Too heavy, and the boat is slower. You better believe that there's pressure for them to be very close to those minimums. Their muscle is completely irrelevant to the team's explicit goals: It takes little strength to steer and talk. Usually, very petite women take this role (sometimes even in men's boats), so that weight is not punitive to achieve (for some, staying over the minimum is more the issue). On good teams with good coaches, the coxswains are very fit, very active but quite tiny women who work out routinely with the rowers, including weight lifting, so they're good athletes themselves. Often, they're good rowers who simply aren't tall enough to be competitive at higher levels.
I agree with the overall thrust of your argument. But I think there are cases where - unfortunately - unhealthful weight loss is in fact promoted, either intentionally or by sensible advice badly influencing sensitive people.
Stepping back to the larger issue:
We humans tend to respond to the sub-culture around us with a belief that our sub-groups norms are widely/generally normal. We tend to bend toward the "approved" behaviors of our social environment.
It's a two-way thing: Simplistically, if my family and their friends are overweight and inactive, I'm more likely to become overweight and inactive, and to hear messages that imply that it's normal and fine to be overweight and inactive (both because the group reinforces its norms via its implicit messaging, and partly because of confirmation bias). On the other side, if I'm overweight and inactive, I'm more likely to gather similarly-oriented people around me, because we share interests, hobbies, and views about body and behavior.
It becomes easy not to understand that other, radically different sub-cultures exist, and maybe even are common.
IMO, it would be nice for advisors of both the overweight and the underweight to keep in mind that their messages reach some people in the opposite, non-intended extreme from their intended audience, and that inaccurate body image can lead the wrong people to follow otherwise good guidance.
No question in my mind that it's a good thing to promote healthy weight, whether that means encourage unhealthfully overweight people to lose weight, or unhealthfully underweight people to gain some.
You seem to be new on here. I have been here 7 yrs and posters frequently tell an OP to talk to their doctor before doing any exercise or weight loss. That should not be something one should even have to say--it should be obvious to all. I realize that that is not so. That is why this site insists that people on MFP are 18 or older. Adults need to take responsibility for themselves.
I watched "Naked and Afraid" a few times and noped the hell out. I wouldn't last two days.
Perhaps this is the key phrase: instead of relating in terms of "weight loss" we rephrase the approach as "achieving a healthy weight"; surely this can incorporate both ends of the spectrum.
(apologies to Anne for clipping her post lol)
my own post from page 1......
I know in our medical centre we dont actually promote weight loss - we promote weight management - which means doing what you need to do to be a healthy weight for you.
For most people this is either lose weight or maintain current weight. For a few, it is gain weight.
Not sure if that really changes much of the potential problems for underweight individuals, particularly not for women. There are levels of too little body fat for women which will cause amenorrhea, along with other hormonal issues, and that tends to lead to bone density loss.
In men, prolonged low body fat is generally going to cause low hormones too, though if not caused by rapid loss, it is probably less likely to induce sarcopenia, which would be the eventual bad weight loss.
I'm afraid I disagree; there are many factors that come into play on what is the correct and healthy calorie level for a person as well as what is a healthy body weight for them. My sister is horribly obese to the point where its drastically affecting her health, and she's around 270 lbs; she is also 5'1" tall. with her height and sedentary lifestyle, she could eat less than 1500 and be perfectly fine. The bottom number for females is 1200.
And while a person can have healthy blood work returns while being "fat", the question is the long term - as they age and the obesity takes its affect on the body, will they continue to be "healthy"? Statistics say the probably is a high "no". Are there outliers? sure. Should people just assume they are an outlier? definitely not. What is considered a healthy range for the average person has been developed through years of data gathering, which is why its used as the starting point in discussions with patients; obesity is a warning sign of a higher risk of developing all sorts of conditions. It's not guaranteed, but I think, for example, I'd rather have a 15% chance of developing a serious medical problem than a 75% chance, especially if losing weight was all I had to do to make that gain.
And if genetics is what determined my weight, how did I manage to lose 137 lbs and counting?
what I CAN agree with is that making a 500 calorie a day reduction can make a difference over time; that's around a 1 lb a week loss and in many cases is a perfectly reasonable rate of loss, unless a person is down to trying to drop the last few pounds.
No I dont agree with that.
yes, some people cut down too much but Less than1500 calories is quite appropriate fro many people - I lost slowly, steadily on 1460 and there would be women shorter, less active, older than me for whom less than that would be appropriate.
I dont think genetics causes your weight more than anything else - your body shape, your frame, height: yes but no, not your weight.
You can be fat and healthy is too simplistic.
and there are degrees, of course.
Some people can be slightly above their ideal weight and be healthy - but for almost everybody, general health will be better if one is not carrying excess fat.
To the 2 bolded statements - no.
Being fat in the short run, maybe might not be too much of a health risk, but extra fat ALWAYS catches up with you in the long run. It means extra wear on your joints, extra wear on the internal organs, etc.
Genetics - nope. My father has been skinny his whole life (to the point that the Dr always tells him to eat more food every time he goes in). My mother was average. So given those genetics, explain why I am obese (I already know the answer to the question, I would just like for you to explain the genetics that make me obese).
I believe that blaming your weight on genetics is simply shifting the blame from your personal responsibility to something that is out of your control - "It's not my fault, it's my genetics!!".
As a sedentary person, I would need 1,460 calories a day to maintain my current weight.
Now as it happens, I'm not sedentary, so I eat more than that. But let's say something happened and I became sedentary. What harm do you think would come to me if I ate 1,460 a day and maintained my current body weight?
FYI- For someone on the short side, that isn't currently fat, and isn't moderately active → that's higher than maintenance.
(edit: typo)
Yep, as a not-overweight person, if I was sedentary I'd need 1,460 a day to maintain. I don't think this would be harmful for me as I've been netting that for a few years now (that is, I eat back my exercise calories so that I net what I need to maintain).
I have attributed genetics to being smaller. All females in my family, immediate and extended, are small with tallest being 5"2' and everyone hovers around 110 pounds. My grandmother was small. Her mother was small. I'm small. My aunts are small. Then I look at my husband's family and most of them are humongous, absolutely humongous. So do genetics play a role, maybe...but I definitely don't think genetics should be used as an excuse not to lose weight...
Joints and long term...if I gain 2 or 3 pounds, I can feel the struggle in a run. My speed decreases and it's difficult to power through it with even just a little bit of weight extra. I try to maintain my weight around 105 but it's more for performance and health as opposed to vanity and how cute I'll look in a sundress.
Calories: 1,500 calories per day would be way too many for my height.
Genetics determine nothing, ever. That probably sounds excessively absolute, but it is true. All genes are dependent on environment for expression - I don't care what your genes say, if you're stepping in lava, your weight is going to 0 pretty fast, just to use the most extreme example.
Somewhat more realistic, if you somehow had some incredible kind of mitochondria with DNA that allowed them to produce 200 ATP per molecule of glucose (probably not chemically possible, but still), it wouldn't matter much if you lived in tundra with less than 1% of your calorie intake being carbohydrate.
We don't tend to see any obese and or even overweight BMI's in people living in pre-agricultural lifestyles - it seems most calories in that environment are too hard and unappetizing to be worth pursuing. In the modern environment, there's probably are a variety of genes that influence appetite and preference that trend towards various levels of weight. Such people can still be actively managed by altering the environments one spends a lot of time in. It generally takes something pretty severe like defects of leptin production or something like Prater-Willy to be what could be fairly called a genetic reason for being obese.
Growing up, my entire family was slim. I was a very skinny kid and a slim adult.
So, if genetics played a big role, I would expect to have a difficult time gaining weight. Yet in my late 50's, I had no trouble whatsoever blossoming myself right into the obese category. It was ridiculously easy. Too many calories, not enough activity.
Tl;dr: Genetics aren't a factor. How many calories you shove in your pie hole daily absolutely is.