low carb or not?

There are fat horses, pigs, dogs, cats, most anything that we domesticate and overfeed. In the wild they have to work for it. If we had to work for our food we probably wouldn't be fat either.

Overfeed with what? Food they aren't adapted to eat. My cat doesn't have to work for the raw meat and doesn't gorge on it.

Again, thermodynamics tells us that if we "overfeed" an animal, that animal should burn off the excess. The equation needs to be balanced. If I were to force-feed my cat more meat that it needs, you can sure as heck bet he's going to either be more active or eat less over the next day or two, despite there being a constant source of food.

If I gave my dog enough meat to fill her up. She'd beg for more. And she'd eat it. This would continue until she was sure I wasn't giving her anymore. Then she'd go curl up on couch or porch swing. She might get up if the cat from next door wandered into the yard, but after that she'd just lay back down. We live a rural area where she's free to roam, but she's pretty lazy most of the time. And a little overweight, though she wasn't when she was younger.

I'm not sure where all this is going though. What does this have to do with carbs and fat babies?

I don't know, this has gotten way off track. The point being, why are we storing excessive amounts of fat instead of burning off the excess energy? The first law of thermodynamics must apply for maintaining our weight, too.

I think that's the sloth (i.e. lazy) part. We know we should get up and move. We just don't. How many inventions and inovations in the past few decades have been made for no other reason than to prevent us from having to move?

I think that's the sloth (i.e. lazy) part. We know we should get up and move. We just don't. How many inventions and inovations in the past few decades have been made for no other reason than to prevent us from having to move?

We shouldn't have a choice in the matter. We've taken in more than we need, it must go -- caloric balance must apply. Why don't our metabolisms speed up? Why don't we fidget more? Why don't we naturally eat less the next meal?

Free will?

I think that's the sloth (i.e. lazy) part. We know we should get up and move. We just don't. How many inventions and inovations in the past few decades have been made for no other reason than to prevent us from having to move?

We shouldn't have a choice in the matter. We've taken in more than we need, it must go -- caloric balance must apply. Why don't our metabolisms speed up? Why don't we fidget more? Why don't we naturally eat less the next meal?

Free will?

I wasn't aware that free will can override the laws of physics. :happy:

If I want to lie on the sofa overeating all day long there is no law to stop me, whether I'm eating meat or carbs or some man-made food type substance. I don't even have to get up to change the channel or answer the phone. Gluttony and sloth.

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

Good point. Is formula exactly the same as it was then?

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

If you can lose better by avoiding the food, then absolutely you should do that, whatever the food is. But it is still you who lack the self control, not the food.

(you = general "you", not any specific person).

And that's a bunch of BS. If carbs don't negatively effect you, congratulations. But don't speak for the rest of us. Throughout my 30's and 40's, I kept gaining weight on a low-fat/high-carb diet as promoted to me by both a dietitian and the contemporary thinking about what healthy eating was. And I was not a glutton or a sloth. I have years of food diaries showing that I rarely ate more than 1500 calories a day and, many days, much less. I also exercised regularly. I have only been able to lose weight if I also cut my carbs, no matter how much exercise I do.

Another point is that when eating low-fat/high-carb, even though I didn't eat a lot, I was starving all the time. I never felt satisfied, I would start thinking about my next meal before I had the dishes washed from what I just ate, and I was totally and completely miserable over it. This was all odd to me because, before my pregnancies, I had always been thin and a light eater and was never hungry. Now I was fat, a light eater, and always hungry. What the heck?

It wasn't until I cut the carbs down dramatically that I could lose weight (a total of 54# from my highest) and eat light without being hungry. In fact, these days, I often have to remember to eat as I could go all day without eating as long as breakfast is more protein-based. If I slip and have a bowl of cereal, I'm starving in an hour, even if it's something extremely healthy like All-Bran.

My overall calories eaten per day have not necessarily decreased as I have always eaten light even as a child and, unfortunately, believe I do have a damaged metabolism because of it. So I do have to eat less than many other folks here at MFP in order to lose which is a bummer. But the fact remains that I could eat the same calorie level with carbs and gain weight and starve or eat that same calorie level without many carbs and lose weight and not be hungry.

As for your sloth accusations, eating lots of carbs didn't prevent me from exercising but it did make me sleepy and I would often have to nap often after meals, even a small meal of only about 300 calories total. Without the carbs, I never have to nap because of a meal because my blood sugar doesn't spike. Maybe you're observing people who are carb-sensitive and having these same reactions and that is making you think they are sloths? But if they are, it's not intentional or a choice but a by-product of the carbs in their diet. At least based on my own experience.

I just find your statement extremely offensive. It doesn't reflect my reality at all. And I'm sure it doesn't reflect the reality of all overweight people. I'm not saying that it might not apply to some but you can't make an assumption that it applies to all. In fact, what you're saying sounds like ignorance based on a stereotype which is just another form of bigotry.

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

If you can lose better by avoiding the food, then absolutely you should do that, whatever the food is. But it is still you who lack the self control, not the food.

(you = general "you", not any specific person).

And that's a bunch of BS. If carbs don't negatively effect you, congratulations. But don't speak for the rest of us. Throughout my 30's and 40's, I kept gaining weight on a low-fat/high-carb diet as promoted to me by both a dietitian and the contemporary thinking about what healthy eating was. And I was not a glutton or a sloth. I have years of food diaries showing that I rarely ate more than 1500 calories a day and, many days, much less. I also exercised regularly. I have only been able to lose weight if I also cut my carbs, no matter how much exercise I do.

Another point is that when eating low-fat/high-carb, even though I didn't eat a lot, I was starving all the time. I never felt satisfied, I would start thinking about my next meal before I had the dishes washed from what I just ate, and I was totally and completely miserable over it. This was all odd to me because, before my pregnancies, I had always been thin and a light eater and was never hungry. Now I was fat, a light eater, and always hungry. What the heck?

It wasn't until I cut the carbs down dramatically that I could lose weight (a total of 54# from my highest) and eat light without being hungry. In fact, these days, I often have to remember to eat as I could go all day without eating as long as breakfast is more protein-based. If I slip and have a bowl of cereal, I'm starving in an hour, even if it's something extremely healthy like All-Bran.

My overall calories eaten per day have not necessarily decreased as I have always eaten light even as a child and, unfortunately, believe I do have a damaged metabolism because of it. So I do have to eat less than many other folks here at MFP in order to lose which is a bummer. But the fact remains that I could eat the same calorie level with carbs and gain weight and starve or eat that same calorie level without many carbs and lose weight and not be hungry.

As for your sloth accusations, eating lots of carbs didn't prevent me from exercising but it did make me sleepy and I would often have to nap often after meals, even a small meal of only about 300 calories total. Without the carbs, I never have to nap because of a meal because my blood sugar doesn't spike. Maybe you're observing people who are carb-sensitive and having these same reactions and that is making you think they are sloths? But if they are, it's not intentional or a choice but a by-product of the carbs in their diet. At least based on my own experience.

I just find your statement extremely offensive. It doesn't reflect my reality at all. And I'm sure it doesn't reflect the reality of all overweight people. I'm not saying that it might not apply to some but you can't make an assumption that it applies to all. In fact, what you're saying sounds like ignorance based on a stereotype which is just another form of bigotry.

LOL So sorry. I'm sure I'm 100% wrong and the carbs you ate were at fault and not the person who ate them.