Is it possible to eat right and exercise and still be fat?

[badmajon]

Hello everyone, long time lurker, first time poster. Here's something I've been wondering lately...

Is it possible to eat right and exercise sufficiently, and still be fat? They say obesity is a problem, but I'm just not really convinced it is. Not a real problem like say, cancer is a problem.

As far as I understand it, it's a matter of simple physics- you get fat when you consume more energy than you expend. Of course metabolism comes into it, but at the end of the day, even someone with a horribly slow metabolism would lose weight if they were burning more calories than they were putting in, they would just have to work harder because their baseline burning rate at rest is much lower.

I'm 5'7" and I weigh 142 now, but I workout 4 times a week and run twice a week. A couple of years ago I only did light exercise 3 times a week (mostly calisthenics) and I ate like a hog. I would eat grits and bacon for breakfast, a dinner sized lunch, dinner, and snacks and port almost every night. I'm surprised I didn't develop gout and die. I went up to 170 and sheesh, yeah I was not in good shape at all- 170 is a lot for a short guy like myself. I lost weight when I cut the calories and started exercising more.

Back to the original question though- is it really possible to be powerless to lose weight? Can one do actually in reality do everything right and still be fat? Note the "in reality" part, I know people who swear they are trying their best but show up to work with McDonalds every morning.

:confused:

[Maastricht]

Time article. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066937,00.html)

[outlierrn]

When I worked PICU we had a teenage pt who was morbidly obese because of an inborn metabolic problem. She reached the point where there wasn't a scale in the hospital that could hold here, we were to the point that we'd wrap a b/p cough around her fore arm, pump it up and then manually feel for the return of the radial pulse at the wrist, that was our b/p, eventually we had to put a trach in here throat and mechanically assist her breathing. We were not over feeding her.

[Jragon]

It is possible on certain medication or with certain medical conditions (such as thyroid conditions) for it to be effectively (though not physically) impossible to lose weight. But such circumstances are rare.

That said, while it's simple it's not necessarily easy, due to factors ranging from psychological, to physical, to societal.

[Busy Scissors]

I would say no, barring a very small minority with unusual metabolic conditions. The emphasis is very much on the eating though - if that is right then weight will be lost. What right actually means is of course a big question - there's more to it than simple calories in / calories out.

You could have a great exercise regime and still be fat. Maybe not excessively fat, but I think we all know people who have good fitness but are a bit chubby. The war against fat is waged in the kitchen.

[spanna]

Depends what you mean by fat / obese

BMI is notoriously inaccurate for athletes

I also saw a program once where they had a very "round" looking man who had pretty much zero body fat and ran triathalons - but his shape would definitely make you class him as fat

[SanVito]

They say obesity is a problem, but I'm just not really convinced it is. Not a real problem like say, cancer is a problem.

Obesity is a HUUGE health problem. Are you saying it isn't? Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure to name a few results.

[Anaamika]

I don't agree at all that the war on fat is waged in the kitchen. Or maybe it is for some people but not for others.

Since February I have switched out two of my meals for healthy ones, five or six days a week. I eat oatmeal in the morning, and salads at lunch. Just salads, with a tiny bit of dressing, some cranberries, and walnuts. I haven't lost any weight.

It's all down to exercise, for me. And exercise three times a week doesn't do it. It needs to be vigorous exercise at least 5-6 times a week.

This is why I roll my eyes at people who say "just eat less and exercise", like it's a magic formula. It's more like "Eat a LOT less and exercise a LOT." That's fine, that's what we need to do, but people make it sound so easy - it's actually a major time and mental commitment - exercise every single day and change your food habits forever.

This is why people can't lose weight. Not because they can't just eat less and exercise. Because it's a huge commitment and it never stops. Not that I think they shouldn't try, but it's disingenuous and unhelpful to imply it's super easy.

(I also get pissed when I see the impression that all fat people eat is potato chips. I actually eat really healthy. I'm just lazy about the exercise!)

[Si Amigo]

Not because they can't just eat less and exercise. Because it's a huge commitment and it never stops.

It's called a lifestyle change and yes, it takes years to break old habits and form new ones. The key is to find an exercise that you like and make it part of your life. I never knew how to swim until I was 48 years old but found that working out in the water was enjoyable so I tried it; now I do it several times a week and feel bad if I can't make it to the pool. This from someone who was terrified of water before.

[Anaamika]

I love swimming and swim...moderately well. I actually could swim better if I had better breath control. And it seems to be the best exercise.

The problem then becomes getting there! The Y is a fifteen minute drive - no big deal now, but not so much in the summer.

[Derleth]

It's entirely possible to exercise like a fiend and still be fat.

It's impossible to actually reduce your caloric intake and still be fat unless you also reduce activity. You are not, despite some peoples' protestations, a Magical Mass-Energy Making Machine. Every calorie must be accounted for, in and out, and if you reduce intake your activity must be fueled by something.

You're free to disagree with me on this. Plenty of people believe idiotic things, why not you?

There is a lot of arguing at the edges about specific foods and, of course, you must maintain a baseline intake of everything, calories and nutrients (micro- and macro-), to not die.

So it comes down to definitions: If you define 'eating right' as 'going on a diet that reduces caloric intake' and 'exercise' as 'doing some exercise', then, no, you can't 'eat right and exercise' and still be fat. It is physically impossible.

[Mijin]

I think the OP is right, but this line of reasoning can be misleading because people then take it to mean that fat people simply lack willpower or are greedy.

Sure, that might be an apt description for some, but hunger responses vary a lot, and some people's bodies are far more "eager" to store surplus energy as bodyfat.

Put everyone on a low calorie diet and everyone will eventually be slim but some may be in a state of hunger far more often than others.
Put everyone on a high calorie low exercise diet, and some people will still remain in decent shape, within reason.

[John DiFool]

Relevant IMHO poll (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=637460).

[Waenara]

I think that many overweight and obese people don't eat right, but this is not always the case.

I note most people in this thread aren't defining "eat right". When answering questions like this, often people assume that "eat right" means (by definition), eating few enough calories to cause weight loss. This is a circular argument - if you define "eating right" as enough to lose weight, then if someone doesn't lose weight then you just say that obviously they weren't eating right.

I think that a better definition of "eating right" is eating healthful foods, ideally whole foods or more organic or local or less processed foods. The exact types of foods can vary between people - various cultures around the world eat relatively high carb/low carb, high fat/low fat, high protein/low protein, meat-based/vegetarian, etc... diets and they are all healthier than a "Western" highly processed diet.

I think that under this definition of "eating right" it is entirely possible to eat right and exercise and be "fat". And I think too many people conflate weight and health unnecessarily. People assume there is such thing as a "healthy weight" without taking lifestyle factors into account. So nearly all fat people assume they can't be healthy without losing weight, and many skinny people assume they are healthy regardless of their habits.

I do think that ideally eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly will lead to weight loss for people who are fat, but I think too often they get discouraged if they don't lose weight or if they regain it, and then they stop those healthy habits. This is because they are defining the goal of those habits as weight loss, and not health. People should be encouraged to follow healthy habits regardless of their weight, and not feel that there's no point to bothering with the habits if weight loss does not result (either temporarily or permanently).

Think of all the studies reported in the news that state that there are huge health benefits to starting healthy habits, even if you only lost 10% of your body weight. For any obese person, they will still be obese or overweight if they only lose 10% of their starting weight. And yet they still gain most of the health benefits from eating better and exercising, even if they only lose that 10%.

Scientific studies - such as thing one (http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9.abstract?etoc) (link to abstract, with free full text PDF available) indicate that overweight and even obese people who have healthy habits have the same mortality rate as "normal weight" people. I really recommend clicking on the full-text PDF, which has a great chart on page 13 showing the hazard ratio for mortality for normal vs. overweight vs. obese people who have 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 healthy habits (fruit and vegetable intake, don't use tobacco, regular exercise, moderate alcohol consumption). It shows that obese people with 0 habits are at much higher risk, but with 2, 3, or 4 habits there is virtually no difference in risk with different weights.

(My emphasis added in bold).Abstract

Background: Though the benefits of healthy lifestyle choices are well-established among the general population, less is known about how developing and adhering to healthy lifestyle habits benefits obese versus normal weight or overweight individuals. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between healthy lifestyle habits (eating 5 or more fruits and vegetables daily, exercising regularly, consuming alcohol in moderation, and not smoking) and mortality in a large, population-based sample stratified by body mass index (BMI).

Methods: We examined the association between healthy lifestyle habits and mortality in a sample of 11,761 men and women from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III; subjects were ages 21 and older and fell at various points along the BMI scale, from normal weight to obese. Subjects were enrolled between October 1988 and October 1994 and were followed for an average of 170 months.

Results: After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, race, education, and marital status, the hazard ratios (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality for individuals who adhered to 0, 1, 2, or 3 healthy habits were 3.27 (2.36–4.54), 2.59 (2.06–3.25), 1.74 (1.51–2.02), and 1.29 (1.09–1.53), respectively, relative to individuals who adhered to all 4 healthy habits. When stratified into normal weight, overweight, and obese groups, all groups benefited from the adoption of healthy habits, with the greatest benefit seen within the obese group.

Conclusions: Healthy lifestyle habits are associated with a significant decrease in mortality regardless of baseline body mass index.

[Quartz]

It's all down to exercise, for me. And exercise three times a week doesn't do it. It needs to be vigorous exercise at least 5-6 times a week.

I've read elsewhere that you shouldn't do this. I've read that after vigorous exercise you should give your body a day of relative rest. So vigorous exercise 3 days a week and mild exercise the rest of the week.

[Farmer Jane]

The Latino population seems to have an obesity problem but I read an article that said they were, as a group, still quite healthy. Now of course I can't find it. :smack:

Also, when I look at girls like Sara Ramirez (http://images.buddytv.com/articles/greys_anatomy/images/sara_ramirez_greys_anatomy.jpg), I think, hubidda hubidda, not moooo.

[Flyer]

Put everyone on a low calorie diet and everyone will eventually be slim but some may be in a state of hunger far more often than others.
Put everyone on a high calorie low exercise diet, and some people will still remain in decent shape, within reason.

To build on this--when I was in high school, I started gaining weight. I was old enough that I had gotten most of my full growth, so I tried dieting.

In many respects, it was the most miserable time of my entire life. For two weeks, I was almost constantly hungry. When I couldn't stand it any longer, I weighed myself again before starting to eat what my body demanded.

During that period of time---

I actually GAINED weight.

I said "never again."

I'm 5'6" and I currently weigh 206. I have managed to lose a little--my high was 218. But for the past several years, I go for an hour-long, vigorous hike 4 or 5 days a week. And by "vigorous," I mean that I have to stop every 10-15 minutes to catch my breath when on the uphill leg.

It's almost infinitely easier for me to stay active than it is for me to lose weight.

[Anaamika]

I've read elsewhere that you shouldn't do this. I've read that after vigorous exercise you should give your body a day of relative rest. So vigorous exercise 3 days a week and mild exercise the rest of the week.

Yes, well, laziness proclaims I do this anyway. No way could I get enough motivation to do that 6 times a week! :eek: I did though, for about six months, and during that time steadily lost a pound a week. However, it proved difficult to maintain. This is also what tells me that for me at least it's not about food but about exercise. During those six months I didn't change my diet at all...yet I lost weight just because I was active.

On the other hand, my cholesterol levels are all well within normal. My blood pressure, low. Etc. I've pretty much decided my reasons for eating right and exercising are not for losing weight, but just for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, as Waenara says.

Suffice it to say, while the general "eat less and exercise" is good and all, it's not nearly comprehensive enough. One needs to spend time and discover what works for them!

[Michael63129]

Yes, if by "eat right" you mean eat foods regarded as healthy, regardless of how much you eat; in the end, it is always about how many calories you consume, whether it is potato chips or vegetables. Of course, you may not get sufficient nutrients, and too much of others, if you only eat the former (actually, that goes for vegetables too, if not as bad, which is why a balanced diet is important), even if you didn't eat too many calories. Although as already mentioned, you can be active but overweight (as in more fat than usual, not just muscle, but that too) and be healthier than a normal-weight sedentary person who never exercises (mortality (http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm) is also lowest in people who would be considered overweight by current standards, before they lowered the BMI limit):

The graph shows that health hazard ( risk of death ) increases as fat increases, but risk diminishes dramatically as muscle mass increases. And body mass index has "U-shaped" curve that has its lowest risk at 27.3 kg/m2.

As you can see, increasing your muscle mass (by fitness, exercise, weight-lifting, etc) is the most effective way to become healthier. Dieting to reduce fat isn't as effective.

Of course, way too many Americans are over that limit, where risk increases dramatically and being fit (and most also aren't) likely can't offset the risk.

[pulykamell]

One needs to spend time and discover what works for them!

This is the key. Do what works for you. For me, it was a combination of diet and exercise when I dropped my 40 pounds several years ago. But, I'd break down my personal weight loss to about 75% improving my diet choices, and 25% the contribution of exercise. It really was mostly about paying more attention to the caloric loads of food that had me drop the weight steadily and efficiently. Keeping an honest and totally accurate food diary made me realize just how much a little bit of this here and little of that there adds up. And how many calories something that seems innocuous like a slice of bread or a handful of nuts has. While I enjoy the exercise, it's a heck of a lot easier to just not have that couple extra hundred calories at the end of the night than to run the extra two or three miles to make up for it.

[Wesley Clark]

Yes. If everyone ate healthy and exercised people would on the whole be thinner, but there'd still be fat people. Someone who never exercises and eats crap who is naturally thin would be stick thin with diet and exercise. Someone who is morbidly obese with poor lifestlye would probably have a BMI of 35-39 instead of 40+ if they ate better and exercised more.

Exercise alone doesn't really affect weight.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914974,00.html

According to this meta analysis of vegetarians, vegetarians are 3-20% lighter than non-vegetarians.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/vegetarian_weight_loss.html

The new review, compiling data from 87 previous studies, shows the weight-loss effect does not depend on exercise or calorie-counting, and it occurs at a rate of approximately 1 pound per week.......The authors found that the body weight of both male and female vegetarians is, on average, 3 percent to 20 percent lower than that of meat-eaters. Vegetarian and vegan diets have also been put to the test in clinical studies, as the review notes.


Which is nice, but if you weigh 280 pounds and lose 10% of your body weight (which is near the middle of 3-20%) you still weigh 252 pounds.

[DSeid]

Is it possible to eat right and exercise sufficiently, and still be fat? ...

... is it really possible to be powerless to lose weight? Can one do actually in reality do everything right and still be fat? ...

"Right" is indeed a poor term for this sort of discussion.

Of course it is not ever literally impossible to lose weight. But for those who are obese adults it is impossible to become a normal weight by just doing what for those of normal weight is eating right and exercising sufficiently. The body defends its set point with metabolic and neurologic signaling. The drive to eat more goes up dramatically, the metabolism slows down. And if weight loss to "normal" BMI is achieved maintaining it requires far more than what would be for any average person considered anything like just "eating right and exercising sufficiently."

Fortunately the health benefits gained by weight loss among the obese are greatest with in the first 5 to 10% off. That is generally achievable by what most would "normal" BMIs would consider eating right and exercising sufficiently, meaning healthy choices with total calories less than the average person eats and regular exercise of at least 150 minutes a week of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes a week of vigorous aerobic activity (or some combination thereof) along with some resistance exercise of some sort. (The official Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.) An obese person who does that IS eating right and exercising sufficiently, will lose a modest amount of weight, will gain huge health benefits, and will still be quite fat.

Waenara's link is fascinating not only because it provides such solid evidence of that point, that the issue is much more the habits than the BMI per se, that a markedly elevated BMI is best thought of as a screening flag, a risk indicator, for the lack of good lifestyle habits, but also by providing (in this chart (http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9/T1.expansion.html)) a direct answer to the op. Of those with a BMI over 30 (by definition "obese") 16.2% had four out of four healthy habits, "defined as engaging in physical activity >12 times a month, being a nonsmoker, consuming ≥5 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, and drinking alcohol in moderation." And again, that group had about the same mortality rate as did both the "normal" and "overweight" BMI groups who met all four healthy habits. (The biggest risk (http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9/T3.expansion.html) was in those who were obese with none of the healthy habits, three times the mortality risk as "normal" BMI with none of the healthy habits. Obese with just one healthy habit halved the risk and two halved it again, to about the same as "normal" BMI with the same two out of four healthy habits.)

For those who are obese becoming non-obese is not a reasonable or a necessary goal from a health related perspective. Setting that as a goal is counterproductive as it sets people up for failure and frustration more often than not. The goal is establishing the healthy habits and maintaining them which will, as an aside really, result in a modest amount of weight loss maintained long term. But not make them thin.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Fairly surprised by the moderate answers thus far, but with respect to the most vocal of sdmb posters, the answer is yes, always yes. Don't you know about all those metabolic disorders that violate the laws of physics?

[Derleth]

Fairly surprised by the moderate answers thus far, but with respect to the most vocal of sdmb posters, the answer is yes, always yes. Don't you know about all those metabolic disorders that violate the laws of physics?With as much as I get riled up about such nonsense (and woo about nutrition in general), I really haven't seen much of it here. I see more of it out in the general populace, which contains plenty of people who believe HFCS, GM food, and bread are all absolutely toxic and must be purged with fire before the human race can be cleansed and rendered ritually pure again.

[DrDeth]

This thread is on point:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=655064

[Crafter_Man]

We’ve been through this many times before. To recap,

1. For just about anyone who wants to lose weight, weight loss is primarily achieved through a modification of the diet, not through exercise. Exercise is still a great thing to do, obviously.

2. It really doesn't matter how "slow" your metabolism is, or what disease you may have (real or imaginary) – you can and will lose weight via a modification of your diet. Anyone can lose weight. The amount of calories you consume is the most important variable.

3. Permanently keeping the weight off requires a permanent change in your diet.

[DSeid]

Crafter Man,

Accepted that some people are wanting to lose more than the 5 to 10% that brings the bulk of the health benefits, if just for reasons of vanity, and that losing the weight is primarily a function of decreased calories, your "recap" still excessively discounts the importance of exercise to meeting the goal.

1) Doing both actually does (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n10/abs/0803015a.html) result in more weight loss than does diet alone.Diet associated with exercise produced a 20% greater initial weight loss. (13 kg vs 9.9 kg; z=1.86—p=0.063, 95%CI). The combined intervention also resulted in a 20% greater sustained weight loss after 1 y (6.7 kg vs 4.5 kg; z=1.89—p=0.058, 95%CI) than diet alone.
2) Exercise and adequate protein will help make sure that the weight loss is mostly fat mass rather than muscle mass. (See here (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/8/1903.short) for example.) Vanity as well as health is served by decreased fat mass more than losing more weight by way of lost muscle mass.

3) Regular exercise helps keep the weight lost (see here (http://www.ajcn.org/content/82/1/222S.short) for example - those relatively few who succeed in maintaining loss long term generally report exercising at least an hour a day) and not mostly by way of calories directly burned in the process: it alters the metabolic drives to regain (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/297/3/R793.abstract) and by altering the brain's reward circuits (http://jap.physiology.org/content/112/9/1612.abstract). Diet change alone is not as successful in keeping it off.

[DrDeth]

With as much as I get riled up about such nonsense (and woo about nutrition in general), I really haven't seen much of it here. I see more of it out in the general populace, which contains plenty of people who believe HFCS, GM food, and bread are all absolutely toxic and must be purged with fire before the human race can be cleansed and rendered ritually pure again.

Some studies have shown that HFCS has a very low satiety rating as opposed to cane sugar. This would mean that you can drink a lot and still not feel "full". But other than that, HFCS is pretty much identical to sucrose or "fruit sugar" or honey, etc. Same calories, lack of any other nutrients, etc.

Thus maybe HFCS is why dudes are drinking such gigantic sodas.

White bread doesn't have hardly any fiber. It's not bad for you, it's just that real whole-grain bread has a lot more fiber and more micronutrients. More fiber means you can eat less and feel as full.

Crafter_Man I think a better wording is "Permanently keeping the weight off requires a permanent change in your lifestyle, which includes diet."

Dudes, it's not that hard. Stop eating fast food. Don't eat junk food. Eat more fruits, veggies and whole grain. Nothing wrong with meat- in moderation- so eat less of better meat. Yes, have that 8oz Prime New York once a week, but skip that 35% fat cheap hamburger.

Sub out cookies & candy for fruit. It's summer now, that's easy. Grapes, cherries, etc.

Quick fixes? Two: drop sugared sodas (ice tea? Diet sodas? ). Drink a glass of water with a tablespoon of that orange powder fiber stuff every nite before you eat dinner. Gets you more fiber, and makes you feel full.

Baked or boiled taters are very good- they have a extremely high satiety rating. Stop eating them fried.

[Ambivalid]

Dudes, it's not that hard. Stop eating fast food. Don't eat junk food. Eat more fruits, veggies and whole grain. Nothing wrong with meat- in moderation- so eat less of better meat. Yes, have that 8oz Prime New York once a week, but skip that 35% fat cheap hamburger.

Sub out cookies & candy for fruit. It's summer now, that's easy. Grapes, cherries, etc.

Quick fixes? Two: drop sugared sodas (ice tea? Diet sodas? ). Drink a glass of water with a tablespoon of that orange powder fiber stuff every nite before you eat dinner. Gets you more fiber, and makes you feel full.

Baked or boiled taters are very good- they have a extremely high satiety rating. Stop eating them fried.



Yep. Small, relatively easy-to-do everyday changes to one's lifestyle, when taken in aggregate, are effecttve weapons in the battle of the bulge.

[rat avatar]

Not that this is true in this case but I find that a lot of the pretty active but significantly overweight people I know tend to "reward" themselves for small, healthy meals or exercise. Those extra slices of cheese and "recovery drinks" add up fast and people misjudge how often they "reward" themselves.

This is not a fault just human nature but can be adjusted for

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/normal-weight-men-and-women-overestimate-energy-expenditure-research-review.html

Obviously people can have medical conditions that limit their ability to exercise and promote weight gain but I think over estimating calorie expenditure and underestimating intake is the crux of the issue.

[Mijin]

Some studies have shown that HFCS has a very low satiety rating as opposed to cane sugar. This would mean that you can drink a lot and still not feel "full". But other than that, HFCS is pretty much identical to sucrose or "fruit sugar" or honey, etc. Same calories, lack of any other nutrients, etc.

Even if there was a consensus on this, it still wouldn't justify all the rage against HFCS.

I doubt that anyone would care about HFCS specifically if it weren't an acronym (ok, initialism).


Dudes, it's not that hard. Stop eating fast food. Don't eat junk food. Eat more fruits, veggies and whole grain.

This is the position I was trying to warn against upthread.
You don't know that it's "not that hard" for others.

Certainly there are hormonal and neurological conditions where people are at starvation-like hunger levels almost all the time and of course such people are usually morbidly obese.
Now, of course most fat people don't have such conditions, but perhaps they lie somewhere else on the spectrum of hunger levels to you? It would be odd if there was no variation in this biological property, no?

I myself am in good shape, so I have no axe to grind here. But for my shape I have to at least credit the assist to having manageable appetite levels.

[aaelghat]

Obesity is a HUUGE health problem. Are you saying it isn't? Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure to name a few results.

In addition to the studies linked to by Waenera, Freakonomics did a good podcast detailing why people shouldn't blindly assume there is a causal relationship between obesity and the maladies you mentioned. Here is a link to a description of the podcast (http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/02/26/freakonomics-radio-fat-edition-is-the-obesity-epidemic-for-real/).

One of the valid points, was that the BMI ratios and categories are somewhat arbitrary and skew lots of "normal" people into the overweight category, so the BMI numbers make us think there is an epidemic when there isn't one. Also, science has been hard pressed to show that although there is a relationship between obesity and various diseases, it's not a causal relationship.

[HMS Irruncible]

Not that this is true in this case but I find that a lot of the pretty active but significantly overweight people I know tend to "reward" themselves for small, healthy meals or exercise. Those extra slices of cheese and "recovery drinks" add up fast and people misjudge how often they "reward" themselves.
This was a big obstacle for me. I found it very easy to ramp up my exercise level, but that also ramped up my appetite (and sense of entitlement). For me, exercising 40 minutes instead of 60 minutes enabled me to avoid "reward & recovery eating". Lost 15% of my body mass that way.

I found that it is possible to replace calorie reduction with exercise, but only by running like 90 minutes 3 times a week. It takes a LOT of exercise to do it that way.

[DSeid]

One of the valid points, was that the BMI ratios and categories are somewhat arbitrary and skew lots of "normal" people into the overweight category,So far so good. so the BMI numbers make us think there is an epidemic when there isn't one.Not true. Does not follow.

The numbers are arbitrary but they are the same arbitrary numbers. "Overweight" may indeed overlabel a fair number of people but "obesity" overlabels very very and "morbid obesity" overlabels hardly any. As pointed out in the other thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15175626&postcount=63) that DrDeth linked to, "while defining 13+% of a normative population as "obese" was perhaps excessive (the top 5% would probably make more sense) the fact that by 2005 that number went up over 35% and that the number of Americans morbidly obese, BMI over 40, went from less than 1% to over 6% (!) is notable."

It is unclear whether or not the healthiest outcomes are associated with high "normal" BMI or low "overweight" BMI (and indeed the data in this article (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055643) tease out that it varies according to gender and smoking status), and placing the edge of normal at 27ish instead of 25 might make more sense from both a statistical and a health outcome perspective, but the epidemic is not most notable in those "mildly overweight" with BMIs of 25 to 27. It is most notable in the quantities of of those clearly obese and morbidly so. The overlabel of overweight does not inform about the tremendous increase in obese and morbidly obese.

... although there is a relationship between obesity and various diseases, it's not a causal relationship.Not quite sure how you can state that. We can state that it is not the only factor, and that healthy habits can offset the risk (and that a greater emphasis on the habits and less on the scale would be a good idea), but while given a lack of healthy habits those with normal BMI have roughly twice the mortality rate as those with four of four, the obese with the same lack have six, almost seven times the mortality risk. The epidemiologic evidence is very strong and animal models also demonstrate that causing obesity by diet causes a host of health problems, even including an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in the next generation (http://endo.endojournals.org/content/151/8/3475.full).

[Crafter_Man]

Dudes, it's not that hard. Stop eating fast food. Don't eat junk food. Eat more fruits, veggies and whole grain. Nothing wrong with meat- in moderation- so eat less of better meat. Yes, have that 8oz Prime New York once a week, but skip that 35% fat cheap hamburger.
Agree. It seems whenever we discuss this topic, people over-think it and feel the need to overcomplicate the issue with second and third-degree effects.

The bottom line is that anyone can lose weight, and it is primarily achieved by a reduction in calories.

[Rich G7subs]

It's entirely possible to exercise like a fiend and still be fat.

You are not, despite some peoples' protestations, a Magical Mass-Energy Making Machine. Every calorie must be accounted for, in and out, and if you reduce intake your activity must be fueled by something.

[/b]

Yup, First law of thermodynamics here, and that's EXACTLY what a calorie is...energy.

[DSeid]

The bottom line is that anyone can lose weight, and it is primarily achieved by a reduction in calories.
No argument from anyone I think, just the recognition by some that such is a trivial statement that while true implies much more than it states, much that is patently false.

Yup, First law of thermodynamics here...And another non sequitur often offered up as if it actually means something in this context. And also implying much that is plain untrue.

[Zulema]

It there's enough variation in people's metabolism that there can be really skinny people who eat huge amounts of unhealthy calories every day and get little or no exercise then of course there can be people who eat a healthy and balanced diet, exercise, and have extra fat on their bodies.

Most people can lose weight and be thin but for some it is a larger amount of calorie debt than they're comfortable doing or it's to the point they feel hungry all the time. People who have always been skinny but get to eat whenever they're hungry think that it's easy to lose weight and that everyone has the same hunger drive as them. Not everyone can be skinny through diet and exercise and eat enough to not feel hungry.

[Derleth]

And another non sequitur often offered up as if it actually means something in this context. And also implying much that is plain untrue.OK, provide an article from a peer-reviewed journal that says the human body is exempt from following the laws of physics, please and thank you.

[fluiddruid]

OK, provide an article from a peer-reviewed journal that says the human body is exempt from following the laws of physics, please and thank you.You're arguing a strawman. Nobody is claiming that some human beings can survive without food energy. The problem is that the human body is not a fire; it is a complex system.

Posit two people of the same weight, gender and body fat percentage. Both reduce their calorie consumption by 10% while maintaining their gym schedule (a moderate workout 3x/week). One loses 5 pounds of fat in a given time; would the other necessarily lose five pounds in a given time? No.

One person's metabolism may adjust more quickly, making them feel sluggish. Without realizing it, they move around less during ambient activity. They have less stamina during workouts. They sleep a bit more. All in all they may not lose any weight at all, despite doing the same thing as the successful person.

That is what I believe DSeid is trying to get across. Saying "calories in, calories out" or "First law of thermodynamics!" doesn't really mean much in the context of actually losing weight and maintaining that loss in an actual real world situation. Just because any human can starve to death eventually doesn't really help. Sure, there are steps that we can do -- certainly cutting calories helps more than increasing them, we can notice fat losses over long periods through looking at long term trends of body weight or measurements, et cetera -- doesn't change that it's not simple, it's complicated.

[Derleth]

fluiddruid: Well, of course if you change the preconditions you change the result. If someone reduces their activity level on a calorie restriction, of course they aren't going to lose weight as effectively. That's implied by what I said, which means it can't be a counterexample to it.

My point is that it's always possible to lose weight simply by the laws of physics. If you wish to dispute that, demonstrate how the human body is not subject to those laws.

[Crafter_Man]

Saying "calories in, calories out" or "First law of thermodynamics!" doesn't really mean much in the context of actually losing weight and maintaining that loss in an actual real world situation.
Yes it does.

Let's say I'm obese. I thus need to reduce my caloric intake in order to lose weight. Over a six month period I decide to reduce my caloric intake by 20%. I lose weight, but not as much as I wanted. Does this mean reducing my caloric intake did not work? No. It means I need to reduce my caloric intake even more. I need to gradually reduce my caloric intake (over the course of many months) until I reach my desired weight.

Once I reach my desired weight, I am in servo mode: if I see my weight go up, I cut back on calories. If I see my weight go down, I increase my caloric intake.

[Crafter_Man]

...it's always possible to lose weight simply by the laws of physics. If you wish to dispute that, demonstrate how the human body is not subject to those laws.
Yep.

From a physical viewpoint, anyone can lose weight. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

The problem isn't physical. It's mental.

[fluiddruid]

I think we're talking past each other here. Of course it's always physically possible to lose weight. I never argued otherwise.

However, the problem being mental rather than physical I don't wholly agree with. Obviously there is a significant mental component -- some people don't know how to count calories well, how to weigh foods, measure portions, log foods and other methods to keep track of their intake. They may have unreasonably lofty goals that become unsustainable, they may have high expectations that they can't possibly meet and get discouraged. They might not want to change because it's too hard. They might have psychological dependencies on self-medicating emotional problems by overeating. Many issues can be there. However, there are physical problems involved with obesity. The extra fat cells in an obese person never go away when you lose weight; you can't ever make a fat person into a person who's always been skinny, they'll always be ex-fat, they will always have physiological differences that affect things like hunger and metabolism. There are people with lower metabolisms than others, who have greater trouble losing weight. There are strong correlations with genetics, and with upbringing (obese youth generally become obese adults). There are clearly many factors that are not mental. Can all of these be overcome -- are there success stories of people losing hundreds of pounds and keeping it off for life? Sure, there are outliers. A guy with no legs just climbed Kilimanjaro, but that really doesn't speak to the needs or abilities of most people with disabilities, either.

This is all not to say that a person shouldn't do what they can to eat healthy, exercise, and work to lose weight. Even if no weight is lost, these things have proven health benefits. I just object to the notion that it's just a matter of putting your mind to it (which categorizes being overweight/obese as a purely personal/moral failing). As DSeid indicated, even losing 5% of your body weight has incredible improvements. Cutting out a ton of sugar in your diet, starting to exercise, getting in more fruits and vegetables, swapping for whole grains, these are all great ways to improve your health and wellness. All that said, there are significant problems with the Western diet and the Western lifestyle that are making people less successful at maintaining healthy weights, and as a society we haven't really worked out how to fix obesity in a population of people. We haven't really worked out a way for people who are very obese to lose all of the weight and keep it off sustainably indefinitely just through diet and exercise (again, as a population -- obviously it has worked for some small number of individuals despite the difficulties involved). Those are things we should work on, I argue.

A useful analogy might be dealing with poverty. If you're poor, the answer is to gain more money. That's simple, but that doesn't really deal with the actual issues. I can say, well, it's simple: you either need to earn more money or spend less money. That's true, for an individual, but it doesn't tell you how to accomplish those things in the real world. It doesn't deal with the real issues of poverty; it's oversimplified. I find this a frustrating and dangerous attitude because it doesn't encourage us to look at the big picture of why the problem exists.

[Shodan]

These threads always run the same way.

It is difficult to lose weight and keep it off. It is not impossible. There are no metabolic disorders that mean that someone who takes in fewer calories than they burn up will not lose weight. None of the inmates in Dachau gained weight, no matter how slow their metabolism.

Obese people find it difficult to stop themselves from taking in more calories than they burn off. This is quite true. I find this a frustrating and dangerous attitude because it doesn't encourage us to look at the big picture of why the problem exists.What is equally frustrating is people who say "I eat right and exercise but I don't lose weight" because, by definition, they are not eating right. Because "eating right" when your goal is to lose weight means "taking in fewer calories than you burn" by definition is "eating right".

Because you cannot lose weight without taking in fewer calories than you burn off.

It is never a question as to "how can I lose weight?" The question is "how can I take in fewer calories than I burn off until I lose the weight I need, and especially how can I stop from taking in more calories than I burn off after that - for the rest of my life?" I just object to the notion that it's just a matter of putting your mind to it (which categorizes being overweight/obese as a purely personal/moral failing).No, saying "I can't lose weight" is not a moral failing - it is a mistake.

Regards,
Shodan

[Surreal]

OK, provide an article from a peer-reviewed journal that says the human body is exempt from following the laws of physics, please and thank you.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is relevant only for fat/muscle gain (not weight gain as it's possible to gain water weight), not weight loss. It puts and upper limit on the amount of fat or muscle that one can accumulate for a given number calories ingested but tells us nothing about weight loss.

[elfkin477]

Certainly there are hormonal and neurological conditions where people are at starvation-like hunger levels almost all the time and of course such people are usually morbidly obese. Conditions such as...what? Prader–Willi syndrome fits the bill but only 1 in 10,000 to 25,000 people have that.

[Mijin]

Conditions such as...what? Prader–Willi syndrome fits the bill but only 1 in 10,000 to 25,000 people have that.

The very next thing I said after the line you quoted: "Now, of course most fat people don't have such conditions, but perhaps they lie somewhere else on the spectrum of hunger levels to you?"

My point was not that many fat people have a specific, known appetite disorder.
It's that we know that satiety disorders exist and they generally cause morbid obesity when such people are not under care / supervision.
And further to this, given the genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity)associated with obesity, it is probably the case that many more people without a known disorder are somewhere on the spectrum between the extreme of hunger always and always storing excess calories as fat and, say, your appetite levels and body type.

Point being, you shouldn't just look at your own experiences and extrapolate "It's not hard to stay slim" -- it might be much more difficult for others than it is for you.

[Derleth]

The First Law of Thermodynamics is relevant only for fat/muscle gain (not weight gain as it's possible to gain water weight), not weight loss. It puts and upper limit on the amount of fat or muscle that one can accumulate for a given number calories ingested but tells us nothing about weight loss.Everyone has a basal metabolism. In extremis, if you consume less than what your basal metabolism burns, your body has to dig into something to make up for it. Now, what your body does in this kind of starvation scenario isn't healthy for you, and it isn't something you want to provoke, but it will cause weight loss.

I think we're talking past each other here. Of course it's always physically possible to lose weight. I never argued otherwise.I think Surreal might have a disagreement here, if I read their post correctly.

However, there are physical problems involved with obesity. The extra fat cells in an obese person never go away when you lose weight; you can't ever make a fat person into a person who's always been skinny, they'll always be ex-fat, they will always have physiological differences that affect things like hunger and metabolism.Right. None of my posts addressed this. They were all focused on the immediate-term problem of diet modification to lose weight, and the fact it's always possible to do that. Keeping it off is another topic, which delves into a much more complex interaction of psychology and physiology, even though the laws of physics still apply.

I just object to the notion that it's just a matter of putting your mind to it (which categorizes being overweight/obese as a purely personal/moral failing).And here I think you're putting words in my mouth. I never called obesity a personal failing; if anything, I only implied that spouting nonsense that contradicts basic physical laws is a personal failing. It's entirely possible to be obese because you genuinely have bigger problems to work on than your weight, which is rarely an immediate concern for most of a person's life. Frankly, the laws of physics work the other way, too: You can be fairly active (or, as I said above, "exercise like a fiend") and still be fat if your diet is just a little bit worse, all told, than a thin person's is, especially if you're genetically more prone to being fat. And the fix might be psychologically difficult, but it is, as I keep stating, always possible.

the Western diet and the Western lifestyleI think this is rather sweeping, and neglects obesity in, say, Qatar, which has the highest incidence of Type II Diabetes.

A useful analogy might be dealing with poverty.No. Poverty isn't ruled by the laws of physics. It's ruled by sovereign and near-sovereign actors setting policy, which means it's a bunch of variously-moral corporate entities (governments, NGOs, etc.) acting in an anarchic void only barely moderated by international agreements which only exist at the sufferance of those aforesaid actors.

[Surreal]

I think Surreal might have a disagreement here, if I read their post correctly.


You did not.

[even sven]

It there's enough variation in people's metabolism that there can be really skinny people who eat huge amounts of unhealthy calories every day and get little or no exercise then of course there can be people who eat a healthy and balanced diet, exercise, and have extra fat on their bodies.

Most people can lose weight and be thin but for some it is a larger amount of calorie debt than they're comfortable doing or it's to the point they feel hungry all the time. People who have always been skinny but get to eat whenever they're hungry think that it's easy to lose weight and that everyone has the same hunger drive as them. Not everyone can be skinny through diet and exercise and eat enough to not feel hungry.

Can you tell me how to become one of those slim people who can eat whatever they want and never feel hungry? Because I'm a slim person who needs to actively make an effort to keep from gaining weight. My body is perfectly capable of packing on the pounds, and maintaining my target weight takes active effort every day to eat filling, healthy, appropriately portioned meals. For example, I recently gained about seven pounds from transitioning to a desk job, and so I've really had to strategize about how to make up for the energy I'm no longer expending at work.

Nobody can expect to never be hungry. Hunger is one of the many, many discomforts you can expect to encounter in a day. In the course of a normal day most people will feel tired, pressed to urinate, bored, too hot, too cold, sore-footed, and at times, hungry. It's normal to spend parts of the day with an awareness of hunger, and it's possible to manage those feelings, much like managing the wave of tiredness that hits me in the mornings at work. I am very uncomfortable and very unhappy, but I know that I can't just go to sleep or I'll lose my job. Likewise I get hungry in the afternoons, but I know that if I grab something unhealthy to eat I will gain weight.

There are people who seem to eat nothing but junk food, but usually these people are either young and still expending a lot of energy on brain development, or have weird eating habits that give the illusion that they overeat, such as eating one large junk-food meal rather than spreading out your calories over several small meals.

[Ambivalid]

Nobody can expect to never be hungry. Hunger is one of the many, many discomforts you can expect to encounter in a day. In the course of a normal day most people will feel tired, pressed to urinate, bored, too hot, too cold, sore-footed, and at times, hungry. It's normal to spend parts of the day with an awareness of hunger, and it's possible to manage those feelings, much like managing the wave of tiredness that hits me in the mornings at work. I am very uncomfortable and very unhappy, but I know that I can't just go to sleep or I'll lose my job.

And most people do not know the difference between hunger and craving. Really our collective relationship with eating and food in general is so complex and involves many needs outside of the purely physical that trying to map out why a person may or may not have difficulty losing/gaining weight is a really difficult task.

[DSeid]

OK, provide an article from a peer-reviewed journal that says the human body is exempt from following the laws of physics, please and thank you.
Sigh.

No, I am not saying the human body is exempt from physics. I am saying that invoking "The First Law ..." as if that was all there was to the physics of complex machines, let alone biological systems is hugely ignorant. And I do not mean to say that in a snarky way - just that it comes from a lack of knowledge.

Let us start off with a relatively simple machine - a car.

Is "a calorie a calorie" to a car? Does it matter if a fuel that contains a certain number of calories is in the form of gasoline of one octane or another or in diesel or ethanol or wood? Machines, even static ones that do not alter themselves and their function in response to changes, utilize different calorie sources to differing degrees of inefficiency.

Does a car use the fuel differently depending on whether it is tuned up one way or the other or is warmed up or not? Even cars are dynamic in how many calories it takes to produce a certain amount of work.

Now enter the world of biological machines. Think of a car that is designed to function dynamically in a way that preserves very little less than a certain amount of gas in the tank. As it gets close to that level it self tunes to run much more efficiently and maybe starts turning itself off instead of idling at stops. Go below and it runs even more efficiently and triggers a system that refuses to let the driver accelerate quickly at all or to exceed 45. As it approaches that point it does not just flash a warning light to the driver to get more gas, it starts dinging and then as it hits the point and goes below a siren starts going off going off, louder and more high pitched as the gas tank goes lower yet, that does not stop until the gas tank is filled back beyond that set point.

That car can still run out of gas. It is possible to still run it hard enough and long enough and to ignore that siren and make it run out of gas. But it will likely not happen too often, not while there are gas stations nearby.

Biologic systems work pretty much just like that. An obese adult has a very well defended set point and like that hypothetical car it defends that amount of gas in the tank. It tunes itself to burn less. It sets off that siren. A host of messengers are involved both peripherally and in the brain. And the biologic version of a gas station on every block. Offering cheap gas.

Nothing about how biologic systems work break the laws of physics, they just need a lot more than a simplistic understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics to apply the physics.

Yes it is literally possible for someone to ignore that set point by strength of will, to lower the calories in below the new efficiency and to suffer through a louder and louder siren forever and ever. Literally possible but not practically possible for most. Those who do succeed in becoming thin (or at least "normal" BMI) from a long standing obese point mainly do so by all of extreme effort, great discipline, wonderful support systems, and by doing things that have been shown to change the set point, such as large amounts of exercise. It can be done.

And kudos to those who have done that. But once again, if the concern is health then a tactic that has the obese losing a more modest amount of weight and maintaining a healthy diet and regular exercise will succeed much more often and garner the vast majority of the health benefits.

And that was the op's GQ. IF one defines "eating right" as the amount that will cause weight loss, as does Shodan, then as a simple tautology "eating right" will cause weight loss. A trivial statement at best. If one defines eating right as eating an amount of calories that leaves one no longer hungry but not full and that consists of the food balance associated with good health outcomes (argue amongst yourselves what that woud be) then "eating right" will lead to improved health outcomes and modest weight loss for most which will leave most still "fat."

The fact that reality is more complex than the sound bite of "Physics!" is unfortunate.

[Rich G7subs]

Sigh.

No, I am not saying the human body is exempt from physics. I am saying that invoking "The First Law ..." as if that was all there was to the physics of complex machines, let alone biological systems is hugely ignorant. And I do not mean to say that in a snarky way - just that it comes from a lack of knowledge.

Let us start off with a relatively simple machine - a car.

Is "a calorie a calorie" to a car? Does it matter if a fuel that contains a certain number of calories is in the form of gasoline of one octane or another or in diesel or ethanol or wood? Machines, even static ones that do not alter themselves and their function in response to changes, utilize different calorie sources to differing degrees of inefficiency.

Does a car use the fuel differently depending on whether it is tuned up one way or the other or is warmed up or not? Even cars are dynamic in how many calories it takes to produce a certain amount of work.

Now enter the world of biological machines. Think of a car that is designed to function dynamically in a way that preserves very little less than a certain amount of gas in the tank. As it gets close to that level it self tunes to run much more efficiently and maybe starts turning itself off instead of idling at stops. Go below and it runs even more efficiently and triggers a system that refuses to let the driver accelerate quickly at all or to exceed 45. As it approaches that point it does not just flash a warning light to the driver to get more gas, it starts dinging and then as it hits the point and goes below a siren starts going off going off, louder and more high pitched as the gas tank goes lower yet, that does not stop until the gas tank is filled back beyond that set point.

That car can still run out of gas. It is possible to still run it hard enough and long enough and to ignore that siren and make it run out of gas. But it will likely not happen too often, not while there are gas stations nearby.

Biologic systems work pretty much just like that. An obese adult has a very well defended set point and like that hypothetical car it defends that amount of gas in the tank. It tunes itself to burn less. It sets off that siren. A host of messengers are involved both peripherally and in the brain. And the biologic version of a gas station on every block. Offering cheap gas.

Nothing about how biologic systems work break the laws of physics, they just need a lot more than a simplistic understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics to apply the physics.



It doesn't MATTER if your hypothetical car tunes itself to near perfect fuel economy. You'd STILL run out of gas if you never put any in. (all bells ,whistles, sirens and interlocks aside). The car would have to COMPLETELY shut down to not burn any fuel and I highly doubt anyones bodys metabolism EVER shuts down! You're still burning calories(Fuel) sitting in a chair breathing. Physics DO apply... to EVERYTHING.

[Rich G7subs]

The Bells and whistles you describe are analogies to hunger pangs, I'm assuming. The gas stations with cheap gas on every corner are fast food restaurants, correct? That ain't physics...it's willpower.

[Derleth]

DSeid: If my simplistic understanding is so wrong, how does anyone lose weight?

[DSeid]

Rich G7,

Yes. Explicitly stated. It is physically possible to still ignore a hugely amplified warning siren and keep driving long and hard enough to push that increasingly gas efficient car to empty even. That statement is true, and it is very very trite.

The op has been answered long back. "Is it possible to eat right and exercise sufficiently, and still be fat?" Defining "eating right" and "exercising sufficiently" as most guidelines would define them, yes it is possible to be fat while doing both. Such does not violate any rules of physics.

The alternative question not actually asked in the op that some seem to insist on answering: "Is it literally impossible for a fat person to lose weight, no matter how little they ate and how much they exercised?" is "no." And what a boring question.

The implied question: "Could someone who is obese be thin if they had the same willpower as those with 'normal' BMI have?" is also answerable as a matter of GQ: "No." Once obese for a prolonged period of time as an adult the body has set points that it defends by altering its metabolism and by setting off drives. To become thin from there requires much more than a typical normal BMI individual's willpower and discipline, so much more that relatively few accomplish the goal and fewer still maintain that level of weight loss once achieved. Few is not zero, Derleth.

And then there is the subject of what, given that circumstance and the fact that the lion's share of the health benefits of weight loss are gained with only a modest weight loss coupled with maintained healthy habits, should be the goal for someone who is obese? That is perhaps more a subject for debate and I've expressed my thoughts on it already.

[Busy Scissors]

It's not wrong to state that at some fundamental level calories in v calories out must be the controlling factor - it's just not a particularly interesting or helpful viewpoint to the weight loss question.

I mean, say two identical people want to lose weight and you give them 1500 calories a day to play with. Do you think that they would lose the same amount of weight if they rigorously stuck to the 1500, but distributed it across wildly differing food groups. Like one person ate 1000 fat and 250 protein and 250 carbs, whilst the other did 1000 carbohydrate and 250 protein and 250 fat?
I would say that they would not lose the same amount of weight, as the complexities of how each energy source is metabolised result in differing amounts of energy being harnessed for living / storage etc. The body is not a simple furnace where you burn things, it's a highly complex organism with distinct pathways for processing the various primary metabolites we eat - (DSeid and fluiddruid have already made this point).

So there's calories in v calories out as far as the laws of physics go, yes. How the calories on your dinner plate translate to this basic calorific balance, though, is a big question and the crux of current good calorie / bad calorie thinking in nutrition.

[Mijin]

I mean, say two identical people want to lose weight and you give them 1500 calories a day to play with. Do you think that they would lose the same amount of weight if they rigorously stuck to the 1500, but distributed it across wildly differing food groups. Like one person ate 1000 fat and 250 protein and 250 carbs, whilst the other did 1000 carbohydrate and 250 protein and 250 fat?

That's very true but of course people aren't identical, and in practice even two people with the same height and weight, eating the same things and doing the same exercise might get very different results. One person might lose much more weight than the other, or one person may lose just fat while the other loses a little fat and a little muscle mass.
Or one person might find the programme no problem and only rarely have hunger pangs, while the other might describe themselves as always extremely hungry.

[Tarwater]

Once obese for a prolonged period of time as an adult the body has set points that it defends by altering its metabolism and by setting off drives.

This is an important statement, and it touches on the common misunderstanding (displayed in this thread as well as previous threads on the topic) that losing weight boils down to eating less and exercising frequently, and that it's impossible not to lose weight under those conditions.

The human body doesn't function like that, though. It's not a simple matter of eating less (= giving your body less fuel) and exercising (= burning fat to create energy). The equation that governs how the body stores, maintains, and uses food as energy is complex and manifold.

I mean, it's important to understand that fat exists for a reason. It's not this horrid, blubbery thing -- a sign of our appetites and our weaknesses, there to make us look unflattering, or whatever. The body isn't carrying it without a purpose. It's there for a reason, and the body isn't going to give it up unless the correct circumstances present themselves in a purposeful way. And those circumstances are myriad, and they vary from person to person, and indeed, it can be nearly impossible for some people to lose weight because of them. When those people start to exercise and eat less, their body responds with a resounding, "Oh fuck no, you are not spending this hard-earned fat so that you can run on a treadmill. This shit is a matter of life and death."

Hunger pangs are an obvious sign that the body is unwilling to part with this source of energy. A swollen appetite. An almost overwhelming craving for certain kinds of food. No joke, I was cutting last month and my carbohydrate intake was severely limited. I had a throbbing desire for carbs, especially sugar. And when I ate carbohydrates, I could actually sense the carbs themselves,and it was a sensation beyond recognizing their smell or taste. It was an acute feeling, eating a meal with a higher concentration of carbs, some part of my interior self saying, "This has carbs, and they are fucking good."

The body can also outright refuse to derive energy from fat. It's very easy for the body to enter a state of torpor when it's going through a diet; people may exercise and eat less, but the body will compensate for this loss of fuel by causing the person to become slow and sluggish, unreasonably tired. They may sleep longer, stay stationary more often than they had in the past. Those moments of minor sloth will compound over time, so that at the end of the week, the person may find that they're eating less but actually gaining weight. And they don't realize that although they're ingesting less and hitting the gym for an hour or so, they're more inactive than they were before they started their regimen.

The body has hundreds of ways to sabotage a diet, and it can use them to amazing effect. For some people, it really is "possible to eat right and exercise and still be fat." Not because they're lying to themselves about how many calories they need, how much they eat, or how often and rigorously they exercise, but because their body has grown accustomed to a certain level of fat.

[Surreal]

I mean, say two identical people want to lose weight and you give them 1500 calories a day to play with. Do you think that they would lose the same amount of weight if they rigorously stuck to the 1500, but distributed it across wildly differing food groups. Like one person ate 1000 fat and 250 protein and 250 carbs, whilst the other did 1000 carbohydrate and 250 protein and 250 fat?
I would say that they would not lose the same amount of weight, as the complexities of how each energy source is metabolised result in differing amounts of energy being harnessed for living / storage etc. The body is not a simple furnace where you burn things, it's a highly complex organism with distinct pathways for processing the various primary metabolites we eat - (DSeid and fluiddruid have already made this point).

Agreed. All calories are not equal. If I were advising someone to lose weight given a fixed caloric intake, I would recommend that they increase their protein intake since protein:

1) Has a higher TEF (Thermic Effect of Food), making fewer of the calories consumed bioavailable for energy storage.

2) Is more satiating than other macronutrients, causing less hunger.

3) Causes less insulin to be released than carbohydrate (insulin is an anabolic hormone).

4) Would likely inhibit loss of LBM (Lean Body Mass) that normally occurs during dieting.

[Anaamika]

Dudes, it's not that hard. Stop eating fast food. Don't eat junk food. Eat more fruits, veggies and whole grain. Nothing wrong with meat- in moderation- so eat less of better meat. Yes, have that 8oz Prime New York once a week, but skip that 35% fat cheap hamburger.

Sub out cookies & candy for fruit. It's summer now, that's easy. Grapes, cherries, etc.

Quick fixes? Two: drop sugared sodas (ice tea? Diet sodas? ). Drink a glass of water with a tablespoon of that orange powder fiber stuff every nite before you eat dinner. Gets you more fiber, and makes you feel full.

Baked or boiled taters are very good- they have a extremely high satiety rating. Stop eating them fried.

This doesn't help. Because, a) you believe that all fat people are just scarfing down the potato chips, and b) I already do this.

I never eat potato chips.
I almost never drink soda.
I do drink a glass of fruit sangria daily in the summer.
I drink 4-6 24 oz bottles of water a day.
I eat fruit almost every day in the afternoons.

I eat tofu at least once a week.
Chicken 2x a week.
Pork once a week.
Beef once a week.

These are all dinners. For breakfast I have either an english muffin with yogurt butter, and a glass of 2% milk, or a packet of oatmeal. Lunch? Salad, with cranberries, walnuts, and a little bit of low-fat dressing.

Dinner I eat properly, and my SO makes dinner. I do have a dessert later on. Sometimes this is ice cream. Sometimes it is a big bowl of strawberries with a few slices of gouda. Sometimes it's a few cookies.

And this is pretty much my routine, day in and day out. I really don't like all those fatty foods, and you can bet your ass I'm not shoveling them into my throat. I like small portions.

But I only lose weight when I exercise. That's just how it goes. I can demonstrate this once again. I started swimming a couple of weeks ago. I weighed myself this morning. Lost three pounds, just from swimming.

It's different for everyone, and all I'm saying is, a quick fix does not work and does not help. Each person has to find out what works for them.

[Crafter_Man]

For some people, it really is "possible to eat right and exercise and still be fat."
This is completely untrue. Any fat or obese person can safely lose weight by permanently adopting an alternative diet that requires a (safe) reduction in calories consumed.

Whether or not a person has the discipline to stick to the alternative diet is a completely different subject.

[Sicks Ate]

This doesn't help. Because, a) you believe that all fat people are just scarfing down the potato chips, and b) I already do this.

I never eat potato chips.
I almost never drink soda.
I do drink a glass of fruit sangria daily in the summer.
I drink 4-6 24 oz bottles of water a day.
I eat fruit almost every day in the afternoons.

I eat tofu at least once a week.
Chicken 2x a week.
Pork once a week.
Beef once a week.

These are all dinners. For breakfast I have either an english muffin with yogurt butter, and a glass of 2% milk, or a packet of oatmeal. Lunch? Salad, with cranberries, walnuts, and a little bit of low-fat dressing.

Dinner I eat properly, and my SO makes dinner. I do have a dessert later on. Sometimes this is ice cream. Sometimes it is a big bowl of strawberries with a few slices of gouda. Sometimes it's a few cookies.

And this is pretty much my routine, day in and day out. I really don't like all those fatty foods, and you can bet your ass I'm not shoveling them into my throat. I like small portions.

But I only lose weight when I exercise. That's just how it goes. I can demonstrate this once again. I started swimming a couple of weeks ago. I weighed myself this morning. Lost three pounds, just from swimming.

It's different for everyone, and all I'm saying is, a quick fix does not work and does not help. Each person has to find out what works for them.

I didn't do the math, but it still seems like you are probably getting close to 1800-2000 calories here...so while it's not an unreasonable diet, you wouldn't expect to lose weight without exercise.

[Crafter_Man]

But I only lose weight when I exercise.
You can also lose weight by consuming fewer calories. I'm not saying this is what you should do. I'm simply saying that it is a fact that you can lose weight by consuming fewer calories.

[DSeid]

Crafter Man, so you subscribe to the definition of "eating right" as whatever calorie level reduction is required to lose weight (so long as it remains within a safe level). So no duh with that definition "eating right" forever equals its definition. Brilliant that.

Can you not comprehend that Tarwater and some others are instead subscribing to the definition of "eating right" as meaning following standard recommended nutritional guidelines and eating in a manner that is associated with good long term health outcomes? That to some the goal of "thin" (or "normal" BMI) is not the most meaningful metric to define "right" by, current functional capacity and long term health outcomes are? Or do you just stick your fingers in your ears and go tralala?

You (and a few others) keep imagining that someone here is claiming that there is no level of calorie reduction that will cause weight loss. No one has said that. Really, stop and actually comprehend what is being stated and respond to it or not, but not to something that no one has said.

[DSeid]

I didn't do the math, but it still seems like you are probably getting close to 1800-2000 calories here....You may be right but given that we do not know the portion sizes there is no basis for that estimate.

[Sicks Ate]

Crafter Man, so you subscribe to the definition of "eating right" as whatever calorie level reduction is required to lose weight (so long as it remains within a safe level). So no duh with that definition "eating right" forever equals its definition. Brilliant that.

Can you not comprehend that Tarwater and some others are instead subscribing to the definition of "eating right" as meaning following standard recommended nutritional guidelines and eating in a manner that is associated with good long term health outcomes? That to some the goal of "thin" (or "normal" BMI) is not the most meaningful metric to define "right" by, current functional capacity and long term health outcomes are? Or do you just stick your fingers in your ears and go tralala?

You (and a few others) keep imagining that someone here is claiming that there is no level of calorie reduction that will cause weight loss. No one has said that. Really, stop and actually comprehend what is being stated and respond to it or not, but not to something that no one has said.

Well then it's kind of a pointless argument, isn't it? The short answer is obviously 'yes.'

So really, the correct title for the thread would be "Is is possible to eat 'X' amount of calories, from foods that are generally accepted to be healthy, where 'X' is at least the number of calories needed to sustain a persons daily activities and offset potential deficits from regular exercise?"

Again, short answer: Yes.

[Sicks Ate]

You may be right but given that we do not know the portion sizes there is no basis for that estimate.

Would you say that, assuming 'sensble' portion sizes, that it is more likely that that daily intake is closer to 1200 or 2000 calories?

[pulykamell]

You may be right but given that we do not know the portion sizes there is no basis for that estimate.

True, but that's also the problem with Anaamika's rundown of what she eats. It means little (except for overall nutritional balance) in terms of how many calories she's consuming. I could be eating nothing but a McDonald's double cheeseburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and be losing weight at a fast clip. (In fact, when I did lose my weight, a McDonald's McDouble was a normal "on-the-go" lunch for me.)

[Sicks Ate]

True, but that's also the problem with Anaamika's rundown of what she eats. It means little (except for overall nutritional balance) in terms of how many calories she's consuming. I could be eating nothing but a McDonald's double cheeseburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and be losing weight at a fast clip. (In fact, when I did lose my weight, a McDonald's McDouble was a normal "on-the-go" lunch for me.)

Ha! Me too :D Small fries and Diet Coke, please.

[pulykamell]

Ha! Me too :D Small fries and Diet Coke, please.

Oh, I skip the fries myself. That's a heap of calories (230) that (for me) takes a reasonable lunch (McDouble clocks in at 390 calories) into heavy lunch territory. I'm no longer actively reducing, having stabilized several years ago at around 165-170 lbs, but "no fries with fast food" has really stuck with me. If I'm going to have fast food, I'm going to keep it under 500 calories if I can. I'll cheat on vacation, but that's about it.

The other thing is rice and pasta. I'm always confounded at how calorie dense those foods are for being so easy to eat. I have to really watch my rice and pasta portions and be careful not to make more than necessary, because I will easily consume 600+ calories in those alone if left unchecked.

[DSeid]

This doesn't help. Because, a) you believe that all fat people are just scarfing down the potato chips, ...I don't get that as the impression of what is being said. More another endorsement of the habits as being the prime focus rather than the scale. I doubt DrDeth would object to including exercise on that list.

Sicks Ate "sensible" means different things to different people. I would not hazard a guess. Which of course is pulykmell's point. And as has been pointed out here correctly in the past, people generally stink at estimating how many calories they eat.

[Derleth]

OK, here is my entire point: There is a caloric intake level at which every living person will lose weight. It may take a lot of willpower for you to get there. It may be damn near impossible for you to get there without external help. But once you do, you're there. That's it. You will be losing weight. No further bullshit is needed. The laws of physics say so, and everyone else can shut their damned mouths.

It's a response to Food Demonization, and you do know what that is: Mixing foods is bad. No, natural foods are unwholesome and indigestible. No, red meat is the culprit. No, grains are the evil factor. No, meat is good and vegetables are not the true path. No... No, really, shut the fuck up. Any field that can contain both Taubes and Ornish as respected members to be heeded and obeyed is a field ripe for one of Kellogg's twelve-gallon enemas.

Taubes and Ornish can choke on each other. A coronary on both their houses.

[DSeid]

Well I think lots here, myself included, will agree with your frustration over the Black Magic and dogma that dominates media nutrition reporting. And that might be a good place to leave it.