I can speculate wildly if you like:
Suppose that it changes the proportion of their intake that goes to fat - rather than sustaining metabolism first, it packs x% of it into fat first. So, starve the fat, starve the body.
</WAG>
So the claim is that some folks would in effect starve to death and die if they are not allowed to grow increasingly fat over time? :eek:
WAG, man, WAG! Like a hyperkinetic chiwawa’s tail, WAG! I was just postulating one method that would keep it in the laws of physics - I don’t actually know anything about it! Yikes!
Heh, I was just thinking what a truly horrifying fate that would be - to keep growing or to starve. 
Because very low calorie diets are harmful for all humans, and you would have to reduce to starvation levels to try to prevent weight gain in this case. When you are food-deprived you can have heart failure and/or acute malnutrition, and still retain excess body fat (in fact many fat people who are subsisting mainly on cheap grains/tubers with nearly no vitamins or essential fats in their diet, do have malnutrition) especially in this case when the fat retention is entirely hormonally driven rather than a case of excess calories being stored.
Doctors will not endanger the general health of their patients for a useless attempt to prevent what is known to be inevitable weight gain during treatment with these medications.
Not really. It’s more the type of food you eat. People who are overfat (by which I mean high body fat percentage - this has little to do with BMI) eat a lot of foods that have no nutrients - carbs, especially fructose, sucrose, white flour and potatoes. They crave these foods because of the insulin response it creates in their body, and they are often very hungry because their body is crying out for sufficient vitamins, minerals, and essential fats, which very few of us in America get enough of.
Additionally, it is being discovered that fructose in particular creates a unique fat-storing response in the body, quite different from that of glucose and sucrose. Please watch ‘Sugar: The Bitter Truth’ on youtube for a pediatric endocrinologist’s findings and opinions on the matter.
Wait, what? Does this mean fruit is fattening??
[note: I’m not in a position to watch videos at the moment.]
The video is nearly 2 hours long, heh.
Fruit: less so than other sources of fructose, because it has less fructose in it for the mass. But yeah, I would recommend not eating a ton of fruit if you’re trying to lose fat. And no juice, it has as many calories as soda, sometimes more. I wouldn’t say cut fruit completely, it tastes good and has some vitamins and can satisfy sugar cravings for less damage, but no more than 2-3 pieces per day.
For the record, high-fructose corn syrup is chemically about 45% sucrose (table sugar), 55% fructose. Sucrose itself is formed by one molecule of glucose (blood sugar), one molecule of fructose (sucrose is a disaccharide, which means the two sugar molecules are fused).
This is why HFCS is implicated as being even worse than other sugars - it has more fructose.
Purely for my information, what’s that in grapes?
Nobody knows for sure exactly what the mechanism is for the extreme weight gain with the atypical antipsychotics. Part of it is that they usually increase people’s appetites to a point that I don’t think anyone could understand unless you’ve taken the meds or worked with those who have; it’s like they’re possessed by hunger. But that’s only a small part of the picture. Lipid and glucose metabolism are changed dramatically. Weight gain even happens with reduced appetites for many people who take some of the SSRI’s and the older antidepressants (tricyclics and MAOI’s, which are the only ones which work for some people.) Most people will gain weight on lithium and valproate no matter what they do because of the effect those drugs have on insulin in the body.
When you consider that we’re talking about medications which are prescribed for depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and even epilepsy, a large proportion of the population is on a weight gain-promoting drug at any given time. And except for epilepsy, this is only considering psychiatric drugs! There are such a miniscule number of medications which actually tend to encourage weight loss rather than gain in long-term clinical practice, and these cannot be taken safely by anybody if the actual goal was weight loss to begin with (and the longer I see people on these meds, the more I’m starting to think that the same thing is true of meds that are are truly even weight-neutral.) I can honestly think of only two. One (amphetamines and their derivatives) can’t be taken safely in the long term by the overwhelming majority of adults, and the other (topiramate) has side effects which can be so terrible that I really think it should be kept for its main purpose, which is intractable epilepsy. (It has some experimental purposes too-- but in those cases, people know what they’re getting into.)
So well over 20 million people in America take some form of psychiatric medication, and virtually all of these medications either promote or outright cause weight gain to some degree. It runs the gamut. Some of them raise the chances of weight gain; some of them guarantee that unless you are the rare exception to the rule, you will be gaining that 50-100 pounds. This is a huge problem, partly because it reduces compliance. Solutions need to be found.( And again, this does not count any other type of medication for any other condition.) But in the meantime, it doesn’t help anything to blame these people for gaining weight.
So, someone on the antipsychotic drug, who has the insatiable hunger, doesn’t have to control his/her hunger? We’re letting this person off the hook? But for me, because I’M hungry all the time, all I should do is control myself?
Unfortunately, begbert2 did exactly what I expected him to. I was obviously mistaken in thinking it would be a good idea to take the time to write a decent post, with actual citations. It’s not like he’s shown any signs of learning anything from what other people have said in the pages and pages of garbage he’s spewed. I shouldn’t have expected that my post would be an exception.
I think it’s hilarious that he’s calling me incoherent when he hasn’t provided a single fact to back up his opinions. I’ve provided multiple citations and have been polite, unlike his posturing and dismissiveness. I’m done responding to anything further from him.
Depends on what level of performance you want. As I said, I wouldn’t recommend my workouts for someone who just wants to be casually active. I have to work 6 days a week, average of 50 hours or more. I don’t have time to do two-hour long runs like the marathon people, or spend an hour and a half doing cable pulldowns and wrist curls like the bodybuilding crowd. So I do high intensity work that is more than moderately unpleasant. Again, as I said earlier, if you want better results in a shorter time, you have to work harder, and it’s probably not going to be much fun while you’re doing it.
I was an athletic kid. I did gymnastics, swimming, springboard diving, and other sports. Obviously, I’m also fairly gifted genetically. Didn’t keep me from getting fat, eventually. I could be a couch potato and still beat most people in a race, but I’d also be courting a heart attack or injury because my mental performance and my physical capabilities wouldn’t match. And it doesn’t help that I’m getting older. When I got fat, it was a wakeup call. I realized that I couldn’t take that level of ability without much effort for granted like I could in my 20s. I don’t have the time I used to, so I can’t maintain the level of fitness I want by just going out and doing the kind of active things I like to do.
I work out like that so that when I actually have free time a couple of times a year I can go do anything I feel like doing. I like hiking, rock climbing, and martial arts. All of those demand higher levels of fitness than most people are willing to work for. That’s my priority. Other people have other priorities, and that’s fine for them.
I was mostly commenting about my own exercise, that what I was doing wasn’t particularly fun, and was in fact way more unpleasant than anything begbert2 was so assiduously avoiding. I also made the point that I didn’t expect someone who was overweight and out of shape to jump right into doing work at that level.
Everyone should start slow and ramp up, just like you did. But especially at first, it’s probably going to be a bit painful. You’re going to be sore, guaranteed. If you aren’t used to walking far, even walking will make you sore. I’m absolutely certain you had some assorted aches and pains when you first started out, and if you were doing something like Couch to 2k, you were hot sweaty and out of breath for the higher-intensity cycles. As you found, it does get better. Soon, a distance or speed that would have been a bit painful isn’t that hard, and even starts to get fun. As long as you’re not performing at a significant fraction of your best effort all the time, exercise isn’t all that unpleasant.
However, for someone who is overweight and unconditioned, walking a half-mile is a significant effort. I recognize that the scale of effort is very different relative to someone who is already somewhat athletic. I’m not going to sugar-coat it by saying that getting in better shape is going to be no problem and even kind of fun from day one. That would be misleading.
The common advice, to do an activity you like, doesn’t apply well to people who are habitually sedentary. For them, doing any kind of physical activity is just not fun. Period. It can easily become fun if they make exercise a habit — and hopefully find an activity they actually enjoy so that they’re doing whatever it is just for the sake of doing it, rather than for exercise purposes. But that’s basically graduating from sedentary to active. It takes time, and especially at first, it takes effort.
I would avoid grapes (and bananas) altogether. They have a higher fructose content than any other fruit. If you really love grapes, I would spread them out throughout the day rather than eating a full serving at one time.
I believe a serving of grapes is 1 cup (whole grapes in a cup measure). So not many!
Overall, though higher in calories than most veggies, fruit is still not fattening. They need to be raw, though, for the following numbers to apply*.
Strawberries: 1 cup 46 calories (Sugars 6.7g 2% dv)
Blueberries: 1 cup 83 calories (Sugars 14.4g 5% dv)
Raspberries: 1 cup 64 calories (Sugars 5.4g 2% dv)
Plums: 1 cup 76 calories (Sugars 16.4g 5% dv)
Pineapple: 1 cup 74 calories (Sugars 14.4g 5% dv)
Peaches: 1 cup 66 calories (Sugars 14.3g 5% dv)
Oranges: 1 cup 85 calories (Sugars 16.8g 6% dv)
Grapes: 1 cup 62 calories (Sugars 15g 5% dv)
Apples, with skin: 1 cup 64 calories (Sugars 11.4g 4%)
Pears: 1 cup 96 calories (Sugars 16.2g 5% dv)
Watermelon: 1 cup 46 calories (Sugars 9.4g 3% dv)
Grapefruit: 1 cup 96 calories
Bananas, however, are fattening compared to the others.
1 cup 134 calories (Sugars 18.3g 6% dv)
Even with bananas being slightly higher in calories, we can compare them to other relatively healthy foods plainly cooked in the same amounts:
Yellow corn: 1 cup 177 calories (Sugars 5.2g 2% dv)
Sweet Potato: 1 cup 180 calories (Sugars 16.9g 6% dv)
Black Beans (cooked in water, no salt): 1 cup 227 calories
Kidney Beans (cooked in water, no salt): 1 cup 225 calories
Chickpeas (cooked in water, no salt): 1 cup 269 calories (Sugars 7.9g 3% dv)
White Rice: 1 cup 169 calories
Brown Rice (long grain): 1 cup 216 calories
- note, the measurement of a “cup” in each case is one of volume, not weight.
elfkin, I am operating under the assumption that fructose consumption is inherently fattening. Obviously fruit is low in total calories compared to most foods.
Looks like Sleel’s unable to answer my post. Unsurprising. I shall take that as tactless concession on his part that, yes, diet management is an effective weight loss strategy, even if you completely throw exercise in the crapper.
To the others, thanks for the info on the fruit/fructose business - though I gotta say it’s still not quite clear as to wether grapes are evil or not. 
I had a diabetes counselor tell me once that grapes are like little “sugar bombs.” I think because they don’t have a lot of fiber compared to other fruits (fiber slows down glucose absorption, which flattens your post-meal glucose spike). That said, I eat grapes but I try to hold the quantity to 20 or fewer at a time, and I have some protein along with them. (Cheese or whatnot.) That’s just me, though. Individual diabetics can vary wildly in what foods they tolerate well and what foods they don’t.
Fruit has the advantages of being full of water, fiber, and vitamins. It has the disadvantage of having most of its calories come from sugar. If you look at a selection from **elfkin’**s list, you’ll see the bulk of the calories come from sugar. It is hard to overeat fruit since the calorie per gram is so low due to the fiber and water content, but it is something to think about
Strawberries: 1 cup 46 calories (Sugars 6.7g 2% dv) 26 cals from sugar, over 50%
Blueberries: 1 cup 83 calories (Sugars 14.4g 5% dv) 57 cals from sugar, over 50%
Raspberries: 1 cup 64 calories (Sugars 5.4g 2% dv) 21 cals from sugar, ~33%
Plums: 1 cup 76 calories (Sugars 16.4g 5% dv) 65 cals from sugar, over 85%
Pineapple: 1 cup 74 calories (Sugars 14.4g 5% dv) 57 cals from sugar, over 75%
Peaches: 1 cup 66 calories (Sugars 14.3g 5% dv) 57 cals from sugar, over 85%
Mangoes are really killer 107 calories, 97 from sugar, for over 90%
Oh, and I just wanted to correct this - I’m assiduously avoiding all the way more unpleasant stuff too. 
From my perspective, you’re not avoiding the unpleasant stuff - you’re just pushing it down the road where it lies waiting. The ailments of old age are often the price you pay for not taking care of yourself in middle age, and though you can get away with an unhealthy lifestyle today, and probably tomorrow, it’s really hard to see the totality of what is taken from you one step at a time.
I think it’s great that you’re improving your diet, but to completely dismiss exercise to the point of whatever point you’re of seems very shortsighted to me. Your body is a complex, efficient machine - it reconfigures itself to do what you ask of it. But if you never ask it to do much - well, it can be really efficient at that too. And if you ask it to do more than it’s used to, then yes, it will take you out of your comfort zone. But it also changes what your comfort zone is - and with life remaining the same difficulty, well, it seems to take the edge off the whole thing, and that’s just lovely.