The "Truth" About Obesity

[JAZ]

The reason a marathon runner does not store calories as fat is because they burn them through extended cardiovascular exercise. They are not thin because they run; they run because they are thin. Their bodies are primed to burn glucose. It is the same reason the obese are normally sedentary. It is not that they get fat because they don't exercise, but rather their fat tissue hoards energy that they now can no longer expend. A sort of reversed causality to the conventional way of thinking, if you will.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that only thin people run? Or that no fat people exercise? That's simply not true.

[rotuts]

Im not. nature is here now.

you cant imagine the number of babies ive treated in neonatal nurseries over the years from diabetic mothers.

they are called "IDMs" Infants of diabetic mothers. they are large, fat and have several critical medical problems that do not really go away, some of which are life threatening right then.

but please dont try to tell me we dont live in the natural world. its just a lot different now. and much more lethal.

[mm84321]

The reason a marathon runner does not store calories as fat is because they burn them through extended cardiovascular exercise. They are not thin because they run; they run because they are thin. Their bodies are primed to burn glucose. It is the same reason the obese are normally sedentary. It is not that they get fat because they don't exercise, but rather their fat tissue hoards energy that they now can no longer expend. A sort of reversed causality to the conventional way of thinking, if you will.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that only thin people run? Or that no fat people exercise? That's simply not true.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I've seen the analogy drawn using Lance Armstrong as an example. He is someone who can eat whatever he wants--I believe a large bowl of fettucini in the mornings--yet does not gain any fat. An the reason is not that he's thin because he rides his bike, but that he rides his bike because he is thin. The hormones regulating his fat tissue do not want to store those calories as fat; his body wants to burn the excess glucose that's floating around as fuel.

Fat people can exercise all they want. Though I probably wouldn't recommend it if they are trying to lose weight. We've all heard of the idea of "working up an appetite".

[rotuts]

I guess this topic has gotten fast and furious. Ive missed several very interesting points, well taken that i have not included in my thoughts.

Im sorry.

I dont know how to copy and paste.

[mm84321]

but please dont try to tell me we dont live in the natural world. its just a lot different now. and much more lethal.

I have lived in nature. And I have also lived in society. The two are most definitely not one and the same.

[rotuts]

'high energy' athletes are thin because they metabolize the energy they consume.

marathoners are not thin because thin makes them excesice. they are thin because they have trained themselves to use massive caloric intake very very efficiently. hence pasta for glycogen loading. and they use it up in training. day in and day out.

fat would take too long to be converted to be used for muscular metabolism which they need instantaneously. but it can be converted to energy just too slowly for athletic right now energy.

its very good for 'Mass" think NFL linemen that average 375 lbs a good portion fat, with a touch of HGH for more mass. they are very strong just so long at its not too often.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[rotuts]

I have lived in nature. And I have also lived in society. The two are most definitely not one and the same.

really? no humans ive ever seen all over the world do not live in both their own society in nature.

it might not be 'organic' but its natural and carbon based.

the distinction you make is interesting but artificial.

its sort of like the 19th century enamoration with the 'noble savage'

there were never any of these. ever.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

'high energy' athletes are thin because they metabolize the energy they consume.

marathoners are not thin because thin makes them excesice. they are thin because they have trained themselves to use massive caloric intake very very efficiently. hence pasta for glycogen loading. and they use it up in training. day in and day out.

fat would take too long to be converted to be used for muscular metabolism which they need instantaneously. but it can be converted to energy just too slowly for athletic right now energy.

its very good for 'Mass" think NFL linemen that average 375 lbs a good portion fat, with a touch of HGH for more mass. they are very strong just so long at its not too often.

The bolded I agree with, and you are basically agreeing with me as well. But there needs to be a distinction made between professional athletes and the general public, which is who we are talking about here. In the case of the latter, it is the same simple carbohydrates that athletes use for quick energy that are making them fat and sick.

[mm84321]

I have lived in nature. And I have also lived in society. The two are most definitely not one and the same.

really? no humans ive ever seen all over the world do not live in both their own society in nature.

it might not be 'organic' but its natural and carbon based.

the distinction you make is interesting but artificial.

its sort of like the 19th century enamoration with the 'noble savage'

there were never any of these. ever.

I guess by nature, I meant the "wild". Areas of land, such as the desert, and islands that are inhabited by no one other than me, the flora, and the fauna. It tends to give one a new perspective on things.

[rotuts]

yes and no. nobody goes to macdonalds for simple carobs.

they go for Fat, Salt and Sugar, hot and tasty. they go for the simple carbos with 2-liters of CocaCola when they are thirsty

i think our disagreements come from the fact that the "Fat" have a metabolism that is very different from the "thin" once your fat, life becomes very very difficult. but not impossible.

Alton Brown did lose over 50 lbs and has kept it off. because he chose to do so and had the economic means to do it easily.

As Michael Pollan has said: Eat Food, not too much, mostly vegetables.

"Food Rules" he explains what "food" is, etc. this is not available at any fast or cheap caloric outlet,

his previous books have suggested Why so many of us Are Fat.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[rotuts]

I guess by nature, I meant the "wild". Areas of land, such as the desert, and islands that are inhabited by no one other than me, the flora, and the fauna. It tends to give one a new perspective on things.

just you? yourve very lucky. what did you eat by your self? and where did you get it?.

and im not being flippant

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

yes and no. nobody goes to macdonalds for simple carobs.

they go for Fat, Salt and Sugar, hot and tasty. they go for the simple carbos with 2-liters of CocaCola when they are thirsty

i think our disagreements come from the fact that the "Fat" have a metabolism that is very different from the "thin" once your fat, life becomes very very difficult. but not impossible.

Alton Brown did lose over 50 lbs and has kept it off. because he chose to do so and had the economic means to do it easily.

As Michael Pollan has said: Eat Food, not too much, mostly vegetables.

"Food Rules" he explains what "food" is, etc. this is not available at any fast or cheap caloric outlet,

his previous books have suggested Why so many of us Are Fat.

They may not go to McDonalds for simple carbs, but it's precisely the simple carbs that are responsible for making them fat from doing so.

Read Gary Taubes.

[rotuts]

yes and no.

excessive calories of any kind make you fat.

[mm84321]

yes and no.

excessive calories of any kind make you fat.

This is untrue. In the 1950′s twenty overweight DuPont executives ate a high-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet and averaged a loss of 2 pounds per week without reported hunger between meals. Several experiments confirm that caloric intake does not inhibit weight loss if carbohydrate intake is low.

[Honkman]

yes and no. nobody goes to macdonalds for simple carobs.

they go for Fat, Salt and Sugar, hot and tasty. they go for the simple carbos with 2-liters of CocaCola when they are thirsty

i think our disagreements come from the fact that the "Fat" have a metabolism that is very different from the "thin" once your fat, life becomes very very difficult. but not impossible.

Alton Brown did lose over 50 lbs and has kept it off. because he chose to do so and had the economic means to do it easily.

As Michael Pollan has said: Eat Food, not too much, mostly vegetables.

"Food Rules" he explains what "food" is, etc. this is not available at any fast or cheap caloric outlet,

his previous books have suggested Why so many of us Are Fat.

They may not go to McDonalds for simple carbs, but it's precisely the simple carbs that are responsible for making them fat from doing so.

Read Gary Taubes.

Gary Taubes is a good salesman but not a good scientist.

[Mjx]

The reason a marathon runner does not store calories as fat is because they burn them through extended cardiovascular exercise. They are not thin because they run; they run because they are thin. Their bodies are primed to burn glucose. It is the same reason the obese are normally sedentary. It is not that they get fat because they don't exercise, but rather their fat tissue hoards energy that they now can no longer expend. A sort of reversed causality to the conventional way of thinking, if you will.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that only thin people run? Or that no fat people exercise? That's simply not true.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I've seen the analogy drawn using Lance Armstrong as an example. He is someone who can eat whatever he wants--I believe a large bowl of fettucini in the mornings--yet does not gain any fat. An the reason is not that he's thin because he rides his bike, but that he rides his bike because he is thin. The hormones regulating his fat tissue do not want to store those calories as fat; his body wants to burn the excess glucose that's floating around as fuel.

Fat people can exercise all they want. Though I probably wouldn't recommend it if they are trying to lose weight. We've all heard of the idea of "working up an appetite".

That's a substantially incorrect generalization, as anyone who's seen retired athletes knows.

I've seen it in myself: When I'm active (read: the equivalent of two or more hours of intensive exercise, or walking 2x60 blocks, with 10+ hours of doing deep tissue work in between), I can eat three times a day, maybe even five. The rest of the time, I'm asking for trouble if I eat more than one modest meal a day.

I'm generally a bit fluffy about the middle when I find my activity level stepped up; it doesn't last long. And, when my busy season begins I'm generally quite fit, because I build fast, and muscle tend to burn calories, but the weight piles on quickly, too, if I don't abruptly shift my eating pattern.

And, the first things to be aggressively cut are the carbs, since they function almost exclusively as fuel, and if I spend ten hours a day at the computer, I'm just not burning much, the caloric demand is low. The protein, fat, and various vitamins and minerals (supplemented), are in demand by the body, even when if you're barely moving.

In practical terms, the real problems are that, a) people are pretty much indoctrinated in a mythology of food, and b) most of us like to eat.

With regard to the first point, most people seem to have very inaccurate ideas of how often/much healthy but more or less sedentary adult humans need to eat. When I tell people I only eat once a day, they tend to be disturbed, and say things like 'You can't do that, it's unhealthy'. If I ask Why, they can't answer. It's 'just bad for you'. But it isn't: I get a reasonable number of calories per day, given my activity level.

As for liking to eat, if we try to ignore or fight our enjoyment of food, we will either eat too much, or make ourselves miserable (often both, with the result that we end up fat and unhappy). Here again, instead of wallowing in lousy replacements or a sea of measurements, it's simpler to simply decide to only eat between, say, 18.00 and 21.00, and eat what one likes.

yes and no.

excessive calories of any kind make you fat.

This is untrue. In the 1950′s twenty overweight DuPont executives ate a high-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet and averaged a loss of 2 pounds per week without reported hunger between meals. Several experiments confirm that caloric intake does not inhibit weight loss if carbohydrate intake is low.

My recollection of this study is that although what was on their plates made for a relatively high calories count for someone attempting to lose weight, the study participants were seldom able to eat all that was on their plates. Some couldn't even come close.

I don't have any immediate access to the original study, however; anyone else able to get their hands on it?

[Lisa Shock]

Here's a link to an article about eight unusual scientific findings about weight gain and obesity.

Air pollution, viral infections, lack of sleep and other seemingly innocuous facts of modern life may have a hand in weight problems.

[Karri]

I think that there might be an evolutionary incentive involved as well. A candy bar that packs a 300kCal punch, something that small and that high in energy can be found nowhere in nature.

On a personal note I took a job in a foreign country and I know no one here, before I used to eat chocolate and it was a snack while watching a movie or some such. Here a few months back I started buying more and more chocolate because when I ate it, it activated my pleasure centers. I believe the chocolate was replacing my brains need for stimulation. This is ofcourse all pseudo-scientific nonsense and I base it all entirely on absolutely nothing, except my own experiences.

So I replaced this stimulation by jogging home every night and baking bread.

I also went cold turkey after amoking for 14 years, so it might as well be that I was switching one addiction to another.

This is the way to do it right.

[Shelby]

it can be any thing at all. it just cant be more calories than you need and use every day. that being said it has to "provide temporary 'fullness' " then when that passes just do it again.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong here.

I agree. I have spent a lifetime of study in the area. "Calories in versus calories out" is too simplistic. I know many women who have sustained significant weight loss for years and they have had to recognize that they are not like "normal" people. They have to be constantly vigilant and eat far fewer calories than one would expect. They exercise and are nutrition savvy. Many will tell you their "full switch" is broken.

If you look at our topic Cooking for Weight Loss, an underlying theme is decreased starchy carbs and vastly increased vegetables. Many many of the nutrition plans touted as break-throughs in the recent years basically mimic that. What kills the deal and screws up the stats is that it is not a short term solution- it has to be, for most, continued forever.

I saw the news hype about the article and just thought "well duh". There is nothing simple or easy about weight loss if one wants to maintain the loss for a lifetime.

Yes! I've said that since, well, forever. My husband eats a teeny tiny bit and says "I'm full". Not me. I can eat twice what he does--I try not to, but I could.

I will go to my grave swearing that my brain doesn't make enough of what ever chemical tells the stomach it's full.

[Darienne]

Here's a link to an article about eight unusual scientific findings about weight gain and obesity.

Air pollution, viral infections, lack of sleep and other seemingly innocuous facts of modern life may have a hand in weight problems.

There is a very interesting book on sleep Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival. It may shed some light on why we gain weight because of the effect of our living for an unnatural length of time in the light.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Darienne (log)

[mm84321]

That's a substantially incorrect generalization, as anyone who's seen retired athletes knows.

I've seen it in myself: When I'm active (read: the equivalent of two or more hours of intensive exercise, or walking 2x60 blocks, with 10+ hours of doing deep tissue work in between), I can eat three times a day, maybe even five. The rest of the time, I'm asking for trouble if I eat more than one modest meal a day.

I'm generally a bit fluffy about the middle when I find my activity level stepped up; it doesn't last long. And, when my busy season begins I'm generally quite fit, because I build fast, and muscle tend to burn calories, but the weight piles on quickly, too, if I don't abruptly shift my eating pattern.

And, the first things to be aggressively cut are the carbs, since they function almost exclusively as fuel, and if I spend ten hours a day at the computer, I'm just not burning much, the caloric demand is low. The protein, fat, and various vitamins and minerals (supplemented), are in demand by the body, even when if you're barely moving.

Right, but the point I was trying to make was that you're not active because you're eating, you're eating because you're active. When we exercise, say walking 60 blocks, we are burning mostly glucose and reserved glycogen. Our bodies, in the interest of maintaining homeostatic balance, will try to replace those calories expended by asking you to eat. I can elaborate more on this if you'd like.

In practical terms, the real problems are that, a) people are pretty much indoctrinated in a mythology of food, and b) most of us like to eat.

With regard to the first point, most people seem to have very inaccurate ideas of how often/much healthy but more or less sedentary adult humans need to eat. When I tell people I only eat once a day, they tend to be disturbed, and say things like 'You can't do that, it's unhealthy'. If I ask Why, they can't answer. It's 'just bad for you'. But it isn't: I get a reasonable number of calories per day, given my activity level.

As for liking to eat, if we try to ignore or fight our enjoyment of food, we will either eat too much, or make ourselves miserable (often both, with the result that we end up fat and unhappy). Here again, instead of wallowing in lousy replacements or a sea of measurements, it's simpler to simply decide to only eat between, say, 18.00 and 21.00, and eat what one likes.

It's difficult to give everyone the same recommendation. Of course, one way may work for you, while it just doesn't jive with another. But, at the end of the day, we are all human, and our bodies, more or less, work the same way. So, implementing a diet that can control the hormonal regulation of fat tissue is something that I would probably recommend to most people who struggle losing weight. I would probably also recommend supplementation for certain things. We can't forget how stress plays a role in both gaining weight, and the inability to lose it, so that needs to be accounted for as well. But, at the crux of this issue, I believe, is sugar and refined carbohydrates.

I think our food culture certainly plays a role in why people are constantly eating all the time, or are obsessed with food. The issue is both psychological as well as physiological, and it can be a vicious cycle for some. And as easy as it might be for me to recommend someone to abstain from carbohydrates for weight loss, the truth is that it may not be so easy for some to do. For some because of cost, for others, physical and psychological dependence. Though, I don't believe this is the fault of those who can't help themselves. Placing blame on the individual does nothing but ignore the real issue at hand. It is simply society's way of disregarding its own failings.

My recollection of this study is that although what was on their plates made for a relatively high calories count for someone attempting to lose weight, the study participants were seldom able to eat all that was on their plates. Some couldn't even come close.

I don't have any immediate access to the original study, however; anyone else able to get their hands on it?

I have the study somewhere. I will try to find it later and post back more in detail.

[dcarch]

I am not an expert on body weight issues. I have always been curious on the following:

1. If you have a quart of ice cream, which way your body will gain more if you eat the ice cream all at once or if you eat the ice cream four separate times, in four days?

2. If you have one pound of beef, which way will your body absorb more, if you chew the beef very thoroughly, or if you swallow the beef in very large chunks?

I can’t seem to find scientific information on the above.

Thanks.

dcarch

[Edward J]

Ah, I see. You are of the thought that it's someones choice to be overweight, and that it's somehow a matter of a lack of self control. Blame the individual? It's a pretty tired and ignorant thought.

I for one have a real issue with that statement.

Are people being forcefed McD's burgers? 2 l bottles of pop being shoved into their grocery carts with death threats not to remove? Forced at gunpoint to consume hot chocolate with whipped cream at Stawbucks? Who, then can we blame?

Society on the whole?

Advertisers?

The Senate who just recently allowed that Pizza is indeed healthy and french fries are a serving of vegetables for school hot lunch program?

Blame anybody, just not ourselves.

We have nothing to do with what we put in our mouths and how we use our bodies...

[rotuts]

its a fact that you will absorb all of the protein. then again, how big is big? that is if you are 'healthy' there are no myofibrils in a healthy persons stools.

cant say much for ice cream. but there is no fat in a healthy persons stools. its mostly intestinal flora living large.

then again there are many and varied enteropathies, myofibrils being an indicator of some as it fat in the stool.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rotuts (log)

[mm84321]

Ah, I see. You are of the thought that it's someones choice to be overweight, and that it's somehow a matter of a lack of self control. Blame the individual? It's a pretty tired and ignorant thought.

I for one have a real issue with that statement.

Are people being forcefed McD's burgers? 2 l bottles of pop being shoved into their grocery carts with death threats not to remove? Forced at gunpoint to consume hot chocolate with whipped cream at Stawbucks? Who, then can we blame?

Society on the whole?

Advertisers?

The Senate who just recently allowed that Pizza is indeed healthy and french fries are a serving of vegetables for school hot lunch program?

Blame anybody, just not ourselves.

We have nothing to do with what we put in our mouths and how we use our bodies...

It's reasonable to say that, to a degree, we are all responsible for our actions. The problem with this is that while it is quite simple for us to place the blame on the individual for a lack of willpower or self control, it is not so easy for us to understand why anyone would actively chose to be sick and overweight, or over consume in the first place. It really is not about willpower, and choice is often not a part of the equation. The war on drugs is an example I like to provoke in comparison. Nancy Reagan told us to "just say no" and we've all seen how wonderfully that worked. If it were just as simple as saying "no", or telling someone to put down the Milky Way, we might not have a population of sick and overweight Americans. The problem goes much deeper, and in order to solve anything, one must go to the root. We can trim the hedges all we want, but until we pull the root, the weed will just keep growing back, and people will just keep gaining back the pounds.