I’m curious as to why you continue to trot out these studies when it’s been pointed out that “famine like” starvation, even that which consists of 1570 calories a day, isn’t reflective of what a reduced calorie diet will produce that contains significant amounts of protein and adequate amounts of fat. A diet of 1500 calories that is nothing but carbohydrate, which is actually the only macronutrient that the human body doesn’t absolutely need for survival, is going to cause the body to self-cannibalize it’s own muscle to get the protein and calories it needs. But that is not what ANY reduced calorie diet does. A high protein diet keeps lean body mass while reducing calories to burn fat. This is not news.
Let’s avoid euphemisms. “Normal modern” might as well read “maximally sedentary.”
No, that’s why. What mysterious motive do you imagine I have?
Millions “chose to reach” from where did they start? If it wasn’t from obesity, then it doesn’t mean anything.
Now why would you say things you know are not true, brazil? I have lost and kept off for 5-10 years more weight than just about anyone participating in this thread. (total around 70, 40 for about 10 years, the rest lost over the last 5) But I’m still obese. I’m very much like the vast majority of people who have been genuinely obese for a significant period of time in their lives, I can and have lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off for years.
Reaching and remaining at a healthy weight is not impossible, just profoundly difficult, particularly if one attempts to do it by simple calorie restriction. But, as you know, simply being obese in an of itself alters the way the body fat-regulation system operates, from the brain, to the gut, to the fat cells themselves.
Not necessarily, since it is impossible to measure the metabolic energy expenditures of the obese group from before they were obese.
Of course, you could compare the skinnies – after they were fattened up and then slimmed down – with the fatties – after they were slimmed down. But it doesn’t seem like the study did that. I read through it and could not find any kind of comparison like that.
Why don’t we do this: Quote the part of the study which shows that there was no fundamental (i.e. pre weight gain) metabolic difference between the fatties and the skinnies.
I don’t know. For purposes of thinking about diet, exercise, and health, the most important difference is probably that the skinnies have a better internal feedback loop for feeling that they have eaten enough food. But there are likely to be other differences too. For example consistent over-eating probably affects one’s metabolism in various ways.
I doubt that such a study exists. If I were aware of one, then of course I would have prefaced my comment with a different qualification. If you prefer not to discuss it, that it is of course your choice.
By the way, do you have a study to back up your claim that "Most overeaters find that they have the greatest success on a diet that includes as few starch-based foodstuffs as possible, as these foods are among the most difficult to moderate one’s consumption of. "
I basically agree with this. It follows that that there is a potential cure for obesity: As John Walker puts it, lifelong permanent attention to what you eat.
I also think that it’s a bit misleading to compare this to anorexia since (as you seem to agree) the problem with anorexics is other issues than attention to what they eat. The attention is merely a vehicle for accomplishing self-harm.
Last, I also think that lifelong permanent attention to what you eat is probably a good idea for everyone and not just people with weight problems.
No need for them to close up shop, but they do need to think of ways to better assess dieting success.
By the way, you never answered my question.
If a person substitutes healthy food for junk food; eats healthy food until he feels full; does modest exercise and loses weight as a result, would you count it as “starvation”?
I didn’t say you were a total failure; I simply said that you’ve had a lot of failure. That is correct based on your self-reporting.
I don’t know that such an alteration makes controlling what one eats substantially more difficult. If you have evidence or argument which says otherwise, feel free to present it.
No point in continuing to offer cites that you choose to ignore.
Stop acting like I’m making up definitions. Or continue, but don’t expect me to play along.
Backwards. Metabolic changes drive consistent overeating.
Because "Medical science does not blame the melanoma earned by a sun worshipped a “genetic propensity towards skin cancer”, the emphysema earned by a lifetime of smoking on a “genetic propensity towards lung disease” or the cirrhosis earned by years or alcohol abuse on a “genetic propensity towards liver disease”
Your way removes all responsibility from the chronic overeater, replaces the hackneyed claim to a “slow metabolism”. We don’t blame diseases caused by the patient’s repeated exposure to a toxin or environmental hazard on the toxin or hazard itself because it isn’t correct to do so and it would be an extremely irresponsible move for the medical community to do so. I can sit beside a pack of cigarettes all day, won’t get lung cancer that way. Cirrhosis isn’t caused by brewing alcohol, or thinking about alcohol.I can work in a grocery store all day, won’t get fat merely because I see and handle food, right? The food has to be willfully ingested to terrific excess in order to “cause” morbid obesity.
You can attempt to spin this anyway you like in Stoid-world, and I’ll never deny that addiction is a bitch no matter what the substance is called which controls your life. I have a tremendous amount of empathy for any addict, though I’ll admit much less sympathy for caregivers and parents who plant the seed of addiction in a child and enable the disease to flourish. But the morbidly obese adult with a BMI above 40 is entirely to blame for reaching that condition just as two pack per day smoker and the heroin junkie is.
Ah, so you’ve stepped down from “never feels full” to “greatly diminished”. How reasonable of you to concede.
And you, as well as any other readers who a bothering to chew through this thread, will not find that I have said anything of the sort. I have repeatedly insisted that healthier substitutions can be made to cut back empty calories without depriving oneself of fatty, tasty food. It is entirely possible to eat fast food regularly without reaching a BMI of 40, to enjoy dessert and skip salads for the rest of one’s natural life without reaching a BMI of 40+. It isn’t the persons of reasonable weight or the persons who have provided testimony of successful diets who are crowing about unrealistic and outlandish starvation experiments. It’s entirely possible to be fat and happy, fat and healthy, fat and productive, fat and satisfied without being so fat that one is socially limited, immobile, and riddled with obesity related disease and complications.
Please show me where I asked you for a cite; you offered it; and I ignored it. Please quote where it happened. Failing that, please admit that no such thing happened and apologize. TIA
You offered a definition of “starvation” which is different from “starvation” in common parlance. I’m just trying to figure out the limits of your definition.
Again my question:
If a person substitutes healthy food for junk food; eats healthy food until he feels full; does modest exercise and loses weight as a result, would you count it as “starvation”?
It’s a simple, reasonable, yes or no question which will help me understand the definition you are using of “starvation.” Please answer it.
Gosh what an amazing coincidence that peoples’ metabolisms start to change when cheap junk food becomes readily available. :rolleyes:
Please do. And please quote the part of the study which asserts that the metabolic parameters of an obese person holding his weight are the same as someone who is literally starving to death. Because I couldn’t find anything like that in the two links you provided.
Jesus God, Troppus, are you even capable of crafting a post that does not contain counterfactual information? There are several people in this thread who have said that they have successfully sustained significant amounts of weight loss who are telling you that your opinions about how it’s to be done are completely dumb.
Well the opposite of substituting healthier choices for soda, Doritos and other nutritionally worthless crap is to continue eating it, right? What, pray tell, will be the results of a diet rich in highly processed food, high in carbs and low in protein? No cites needed, an experienced guess will suffice thank you.
Sorry I still haven’t found the study I’m looking for (damn you, PubMed!), but this one is informative.http://www.jci.org/articles/view/36284.
Note in particular these two sentences: “Caloric restriction is a logical strategy for weight reduction, but cannot be sustained in the long term partly because of increased hunger and reduction in metabolic rate, which promote energy conservation and regain of weight.” and “Interestingly, restoration of leptin to pre–weight loss levels reversed the changes in brain activity while preventing weight regain.”
Bottom line is that chronically obese people have abnormal leptin and ghrelin levels - and these do NOT correct with weight loss.
I find these studies interesting but difficult to correlate to my own experiences.
The reason is that the studies I have read seem to have a pretty straightforward approach to why people eat - they are motivated to eat because they are hungry. Which is sensible enough.
So, if the thesis in the article is is correct, losing weight can’t be sustained (put very simply) because chemicals in the brain make the person losing weight that way hungrier, meaning they soon eat more and gain the weight they lost back; moreover, the same chemicals regulate metabolism.
This is all very well, but for this: I’m very sure I did not eat more than I ought because I was hungry. I ate more than I ought because I loved the process of eating. The typical scenario: sitting in front of the TV watching an action flick, with a bag of Doritos; or going out for (high calorie) drinks.
The actual "hungry"part had little to do with it. Sure, I get hungry just like anyone else, but it isn’t the major factor in my own over eating - my diet intake, now that I’m used to it, deals pretty well with “being hungry”. What I loved was doing the eating, not relief from the pangs of hunger: sweet, salty snacks particularly.
But then, I am of course open to the notion that different folks are motivated by different things. I have no doubt this paper is correct as far as it goes, but I simply don’t think it tells the whole story for human eating choices.
I guess you are giving up on the claim that the metabolic parameters of an obese person holding his weight are the same as someone who is literally starving to death?
I don’t dispute that. Probably the reason they got obese in the first place was their internal system for deciding how much food to eat was out of whack. And leptin and ghrelin probably play important roles in that internal system.