Yes, both issues are interrelated. Nevertheless, as I said, they can be conceptually separated.
Yes they can, and it’s easy to demonstrate. If they were inseparable, then diet foods, especially diet soda, would be very effective in helping people lose weight. They aren’t, as far as I know.
Then why doesn’t it work to consume a lot of diet Coke? Or, if you believe the carbohydrates are the problem, why doesn’t it work to eat a lot of bacon?
(By “work,” I mean allows most people to achieve long-term significant fat loss without expending a lot of mental energy)
I will not be engaging the discussion/debate on any basis that involves you defining “Successful weight loss” with long term maintenance of the lower weight, as endlessly gone over earlier in the thread.
Obviously not, because that would involve using reasonable definitions that normal people would agree to, and (not coincidentally) you being utterly wrong.
Suit yourself, but the semantics of the situation make no difference to my underlying argument.
The fact is that diet soda has no calories and essentially no nutritional value at all. And yet it tastes pretty good. So if food impacted weight loss in the way you describe, i.e. food having an effect on fat metabolism which in turn affects the brain, diet soda ought to be pretty effective in promoting weight loss. Which it is not, as far as I know.
By the way, you will note that I said “fat loss” not “weight loss.” The reason for this is that a lot of diets result in weight loss through water loss.
Yes, I agree. My sense is that Stoid wants to redefine terms so that her years of yo-yo dieting (which most people would see as “failure”) can be considered a success.
I’m not sure what your point is here . . . I’m not the one insisting that everyone use an unreasonable and self-serving definition of “successful weight loss.” I simply defined a phrase for the sake of my own point.
Not exactly . . . I started the thread to beat up on Stoid a bit over her unjustified arrogance. And also because I was genuinely curious about how her diet worked out and whether her thinking had changed again.
I have not followed this thread closely but what in that blog post (or the linked article) undermines the claim about how many fat cells can be removed with liposuction? Removing a larger volume of fat mass, as the authors of the linked study did than is apparently standard, informs little on what percent of total fat cells (adipocytes) are removed. To make any kind of comment about that you need to know the size of fat cells in each body region and whether the response to fat gain and loss (being either increase in size - hypertrophy, or increase in number - hyperplasia) is the same or divergent in different regions.
Pertinent to that issue is this article. (UBSQ = upper body subcutaneous.)
Nothing conclusive but cw Roderick’s hypothesis.
Meanwhile the significance of your cite is high: where fat is, or alternatively perhaps, how it is lost, matters. Just pulling out a significant amount of subcutaneous fat (including at least some number of cells) does not make any significant health impact. Losing less fat but through improved nutrition habits and exercise, thereby losing more from visceral fat stores, has a major impact on health outcomes. Metrics that take into account the distribution of fat are better predictors of health outcomes than BMI or percent body fat alone. One newer one is called ABSI (A Body Shape Index) which is waist circumference adjusted for height and weight.
[quote]
ABSI had little correlation with height, weight, or BMI. Death rates increased approximately exponentially with above average baseline ABSI … The association of death rate with ABSI held even when adjusted for other known risk factors including smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, and serum cholesterol. ABSI correlation with mortality hazard held across the range of age, sex, and BMI, and for both white and black ethnicities (but not for Mexican ethnicity), and was not weakened by excluding deaths from the first 3 yr of follow-up.