I don’t have hard numbers – this is just my opinion based on observations – but I believe everyone is eating more food compared to 50 years ago, or even 30. It doesn’t mean everyone is fat, obviously. But the numbers have shifted: percentage-wise, there are less people today with a normal BMI, and more fat and obese people, compared to yesteryear. I believe much of this has to do with the low cost and wide availability of food.
But there are other factors, obviously. Boredom and laziness will lead to overeating, which I believe explains why people who are chronically poor tend to be fat.
And there are yet other factors, like societal norms. I remember a time when being obese was considered shameful state. Today it’s acceptable; nowadays no one seems to care that they’re fat. But is this a primary cause or a secondary cause? I’m thinking it is secondary. It’s positive feedback… the more fat people there are, the more it becomes acceptable, which leads to more fat people.
I contend that that the most significant and primary reason for the skyrocketing obesity rate is the low cost and wide availability of food.
As the OP…the stunned OP, I am officially asking openly, and I will ask a mod via message, that this tangent be moved to Great Debates or stopped right now. Said tangent being, in case there’s any question: does poverty = laziness and does laziness = obesity.
In truth, this whole thread should probably have been shipped off to GD a long time ago, but THIS conversation for sure needs to be, and I really, really don’t want this here.
I’m also thinking it’s time to lock this behemoth [sic] – but don’t have time to deal with it now. Will look at the thread tomorrow morning, but if there are any elements of this discussion you’re not done with, think seriously about starting new threads in GD and linking to them.
>Diabetes is a medical condition that has skyrocketed in rates as obesity has increased.
>Obesity leads to medical conditions, such as diabetes.
Can we agree on this? Seriously… I am going to question all your sanity if we cannot accept even this. Deal?
Obesity can lead to all out insulin resistance. Okay, can we agree on this?
Obesity can lead to other complications, such as high BP, joint problems, and other ailments associated with the extra load on the body, such as shortness of breath… I mean, it’s a list that goes on and on.
Now, are all these ‘medical conditions’? Please tell me we can agree on this.
Okay, the whole goddam body is subject to the cons of obesity, such that a doctor should actually be involved to help you deal with everything from top to bottom. “Don’t do this. Take this insulin. Check your BP x times per day. Etc”
BUT… when it comes to the brain – the amazingly complex organ known as the brain… this wonderful chemical/electrical device – we are to just pretend that the brain (the very thing with possibly the most powerful influence over how we turn out) just IS NOT in play when one becomes obese and tried to lose weight. We are to simply WILL ourselves over ANY medical condition that affects the brain.
SERIOUSLY? REALLY? Because some incredible small percentage of people seemingly manage that (to conquer obesity thru sheer will)… that right there – sheer will – is THE prescription for just about all obese people?
Not with me. You can argue that the same things that lead to obesity lead to diabetes. They frequently occur together. Changes that result in weight loss also improve diabetes.
Yes. These things are direct results of actually carrying the fat on the body.
nah, I don’t. I just don’t want others to be scared off either. There’s a lot of folks in a lot of pain and looking for answers. Maybe they’ll find something helpful in all this.
There are people with eating disorders, but I don’t think that eating disorders are the only reason people are overweight. I would think that the percentage of eating disorders in the population is fairly constant, so the recent rise in obesity is probably due to something else. Maybe less time, lack of access to fresh food in some neighbourhoods, lack of cooking skills, and all the other things we have talked about in this and other threads.
That said, it seems to me like you are saying you need less stress, or a way to deal with stress, and you are eating as a way to manage that. That’s perfectly reasonable, I think, because eating something is convenient and effective. What I am saying is, that if you did decide you wanted to change that habit, trying to just stop eating those snacks would be very difficult, and a constant battle, because it’s not the food that is driving you, it is the stress. You’d have to figure out another way to manage the stress, and that would be really hard, and complicated and maybe turn your whole life upside down (if you had to quit your job, say, if it was just too stressful). If you fight the battle at the level of food, you will never win (or it will be very hard).
I want to second this. That’s quite an achievement. I can really relate to your struggles, Stoid, because I share a lot of them, so I’m happy to see your successes.
I posed a question in GQ about body fat and carbohydrate metabolism. If anyone in this thread who has a good biochemical understanding of the processes would like to hop over there to give it a gander, I’d really appreciate it. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13616828#post13616828
Uh huh. So, you can’t find even a single example of when you’ve changed your mind. (That’s how it works, dear–you make a claim, so you have to support it. You don’t get to make someone else prove that your claim is false.)
What do you think is more likely:
(a) You’re the smartest, most informed person on a site full of experts on every imaginable subject, such that you’ve never been wrong about anything; or
(b) You are incapable of listening to any evidence that contradicts the worldview you already have.
Uh, not to rain on the parade, but doesn’t everybody who starts a low-carb diet lose about 10 pounds of water weight in the beginning? That makes her current level of weight loss pretty meaningless.
Oooooh, a Bachelor’s! My god, why aren’t you out giving lectures? :rolleyes:
My $0.02: anyone who is tired of talking about this topic can simply stop posting. I don’t see why we should artificially cut the debate short.
No it’s not. It’d be an achievement if the OP started out at 170lbs. The OP weighed over 300lbs. Losing the first 10lbs - heck, probably the first 15-20lbs - is ridiculously easy.
As I posted earlier: the OP was overweight for the better part of 50 years, and then complained after not seeing results in just a few weeks. And seemed to think that the pre-diet average calorie intake was 2,200 calories, which is pretty much impossible, since a person burns around 1,800 calories or so if they never got off the couch. You don’t get to over 300 pounds eating 2,200 calories a day. Further evidence of significantly underestimating how much food is being consumed.
The OP says that they lost around 70 pounds at one point a few years ago (from 340 to 270). Why not just replicate what you did then?
I’m wondering why Stoid didn’t lose those pounds on her initial low-cal diet per the original post. I have always heard that the initial quick weight loss on any diet can be explained away as ‘water weight’. As I recall, she said she would go up a few, down a few throughout the month, but ended up with nothing as far as net loss. Does this mean there is no initial water weight loss on a standard low cal diet?
Has she been on the low carb long enough now, to cancel out initial ‘water weight’ fluctuations? I’m inclined to be in favor of low carb just from an evolutionary standpoint, but I would sure be interested in hearing if the initial loss is sustained or just regained the same as on low cal.
Really? Then what was the purpose of that remark? Seems very much intended to be rainy to me, can’t see any sunny reason…
Was this also not intended to rain on anyone’s parade?
If you believe I am so frequently guilty, you should be able to show me, and you’re welcome to in this thread. But apart from that I’m not going to escalate this into a debate about me personally. I don’t really participate on this board to publicly dissect others or to be publicly dissected myself, and I decline to be baited into going there, whether it is in this thread or any other. That’s not what I’m here for.
Taubes describes water weight loss in his book, it’s the first time I’ve ever encountered more than a casual, unexplained reference:
I realized that I was probably getting dehydrated early on because I didn’t have water I liked in the house and I was severely constipated. So I went out and bought ten gallons of water, some ice, some straws, and my freeze-cups (stick 'em in the freezer to get cold) and got serious about my water. I finished a gallon the first day and I’ve been religious ever since. Also started taking potassium, among other things. (the water supplies were about making it palatable. I really only like the taste of Evian and it’s very hard to drink a lot of any other water. But I can’t really afford Evian right now, not in quantity, so the best alternative is to make sure the water is very, very cold and to drink through a straw. That makes it very easy to get enough. I was also reminded what I realized a few years ago: many times what I might interpret as a food craving is actually thirst, especially when it comes to fruit.)
Since lowering calories also lowers carbohydrates and lowers insulin, it would seem logical that the reaction happens in any type of food restriction. Whether it happens to everyone, happens to the same degree, who knows?
However what’s clear is that it happens as a result of successfully changing the way one is eating, which makes it effective feedback that the person has successfully restricted carbohydrates and/or calories or both, and it seems that should be sufficient to warrant positive feedback to the individual making the effort. Some will disagree.
In any case, the goal for me and for anyone with significant weight to lose is to continue losing, and I am. (FWIW I think my water weight was probably around 5 pounds, since that’s what kept bouncing around. When I switched to low carb that first five disappeared and stayed gone at last, then I held steady for a bit, then another 6 came off. Now I’ve been back and forth with two pounds for a few days. That’s always the way it is with me. I don’t know about anyone else, but never in my entire life has it been a steady downward without a bounce back. Especially given my size… couple pounds is nuthin’. So it goes down 3, up 2, up 1, down 2, down 2, up 1, down 2, up 2, down 1, up 1…over ten days net loss will be 3 pounds. But over the 6 weeks of calorie restriction all that bouncing happened within 4 pounds and never progressed until I went low carb.
Why suggest doing anything other than what I’m doing right this minute, seeing as how I’ve reported that it’s working and I’m finding it very comfortable? Especially since I’m seeking a way to eat that will work for the rest of my life, and the only thing that seems remotely achievable to me is VLC?
And in any case, I didn’t do something specific and lose 70 pounds in one shot, I came down from my top of 340 over time without really making a concerted effort, and was then maintaining at around 300-305 for a very long time. As a result of ADD drugs and intense stress, I dropped from 305 or so down to 270. I still take the drugs but the weight loss effect is long past, and I’ll skip adding any stress just to lose weight.
