Fat gene [Archive] - JREF Forum

Prospero

30th September 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yet another study which points to genetic factors in weight gain.

And yet, so many opinionated idiots say "it's simple, just eat less and/or exercise more".

If only it were that simple.

But it is. Genetics don't represent a death sentence or testament of your fate. It just means that you, unfortunately, are required to work harder to accomplish what is easier for others. Just because someone might be genetically predisposed to obesity doesn't mean they have to weigh 300+ pounds and be lathargic and eat excessively. Behavior can influence biology just like biology can influence bahavior. Your opinion is too fatalistic.

Eos of the Eons

30th September 2003, 09:05 PM

After seeing that episode of Dr. Phil (yes, I actually watched a few) where we got to see what people were eating, I no longer wonder why some people are fat. The fried food alone made me queasy. Then all the chips and crap. I didn't see anyone eat an apple. It was a frying pan full of oil and breaded chicken swimming in it. I don't eat in a day what those people ate for a snack. I wondered how they could say they they didn't eat more than anyone else.

My kids get dessert after supper. That's the only junk food they get. We don't have kool-aid in the house, and no white bread.

My kids eat bananas like they are going out of style, and we keep the fridge stocked with other fruit. We have vegetables at every supper meal. We don't have fast food more than once a week ever, and usually twice a month at the most. The kids also love wheat thins, not chips.

Supper is usually baked or boiled. Stir fry is not soaked in oil, and I only use like a teaspoon of Olive oil. Spaghetti sauces and chili are made with lean beef.

I only over eat on the holidays, and can get away with it without gaining five pounds.

And yes, take the stairs instead of the elevator (but we don't have any buildings over 15 storys in this city). Park so that you have to walk a bit.

You know? Maybe it's less of a fat gene and more what gets passed down in a family as a regular diet. My eating habits would be dieting to most, but just normal for me. I don't even like milk shakes. I'll take something from Booster Juice over that. I hate chips (too salty). I rarely drink pop (give me water).

That's what is was like when I was kid. That's how I feed my kids. I also chew a lot of gum.

So there's a fat gene. From what I saw-there also seems to be what a family traditionally eats compared to another. Maybe throw in some denial about how much a person eats. I know some people have a bigger appetite...but there is a reason why.

I've rambled on enough. I didn't always feel this way, but after seeing what a family called 'normal' eating, I was blown away.

Dr. Imago

1st October 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
You know? Maybe it's less of a fat gene and more what gets passed down in a family as a regular diet. My eating habits would be dieting to most, but just normal for me.

Could be right. I think that we are trying too hard to genetically explain away obesity. Clearly, in times of famine there are no fat people. And, the obesity epidemic seems to be a relatively new phenomenon explained, at least in part, to huge portions and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, as you suggest. But, the question remains as to why repetitive overeating seems to "kindle" an insatiable appetite. Many people want to lose weight and indeed can lose weight, it's just keeping it off in the long run that seems to be problematic. I definitely agree that habit and lifestyle plays a huge role in this, probably far more than genetics. The former is where the focus should be. As it stands, the latter only provides a psychological cop-out for those struggling with their weight (i.e., "I can't help it... it's genetic") when it is far from even close to being proven that this is the predominating factor.

-TT

RSLancastr

1st October 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Prospero
But it is (that simple).No, it is not. While consuming fewer, and expending more calories will lead to weight loss, for many of us, doing so is anything but simple.

Personally, I have no idea how large a role genetics has in weight gain, and weight retention, but I would guess that for some, the role it plays is significant.

And yes, family eating habits obviously play a large role as well. But there have been studies of twins adopted to seperate families, which had similar weight problems (or lack of same) regardless of the eating habits of the adoptive families.

I believe that genetics makes it easier for some to gain weight, and for others to stay slim.

I am not being "fatalistic" about it at all. I do not believe that, at least with obesity, that genetics = destiny. But to ignore the role
that genetics (and/or mental health) plays in obesity is to do a disservice to many.

Genetics don't represent a death sentence or testament of your fate. It just means that you, unfortunately, are required to work harder to accomplish what is easier for others.Yes. Thus proving my point. For many, it is NOT that simple. It is difficult. Extremely difficult.

RSLancastr

1st October 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I know some people have a bigger appetite...but there is a reason why.Yes. Sometimes that reason is genetic. Sometimes it is emotional. Sometimes it is learned. I wuold imagine that usually, it is a combination of these.

RSLancastr

1st October 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Clearly, in times of famine there are no fat people.Yes, but I would guess that in times of famine, there are some who lose weight at a slower rate than others.

Many people want to lose weight and indeed can lose weight, it's just keeping it off in the long run that seems to be problematic.

[QUOTE][B]I definitely agree that habit and lifestyle plays a huge role in this, probably far more than genetics.But how much of those habits and that lifestyle were genetically influenced?

Nature/nurture aside, once a person is morbidly obese, VERY few ever get back to a healthy weight and stay there, and from what I have heard, most of the ones who get there and stay there do so by means of bariatric surgery.

As simple as eating less and exercising more? :rolleyes:

Chanileslie

1st October 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Prospero

But it is. Genetics don't represent a death sentence or testament of your fate. It just means that you, unfortunately, are required to work harder to accomplish what is easier for others. Just because someone might be genetically predisposed to obesity doesn't mean they have to weigh 300+ pounds and be lathargic and eat excessively. Behavior can influence biology just like biology can influence bahavior. Your opinion is too fatalistic.

And just because someone is overweight does not mean that that person is lethargic or eats excessively. Behavior can influence biology, and sometimes biology just does what it's going to do. It isn't for many people a case of eat less and exercise more because for many of us, it doesn't seem to matter. I suggest rather than the run for being thin (and many times excessively so), try being healthy at whatever weight you may be at. Eat right and healthy, exercise regularly, and learn to love yourself for yourself. If you loose weight, great, if not, then you are just fine as is.

Chanileslie

1st October 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
After seeing that episode of Dr. Phil (yes, I actually watched a few) where we got to see what people were eating, I no longer wonder why some people are fat. The fried food alone made me queasy. Then all the chips and crap. I didn't see anyone eat an apple. It was a frying pan full of oil and breaded chicken swimming in it. I don't eat in a day what those people ate for a snack. I wondered how they could say they they didn't eat more than anyone else.

My kids get dessert after supper. That's the only junk food they get. We don't have kool-aid in the house, and no white bread.

My kids eat bananas like they are going out of style, and we keep the fridge stocked with other fruit. We have vegetables at every supper meal. We don't have fast food more than once a week ever, and usually twice a month at the most. The kids also love wheat thins, not chips.

Supper is usually baked or boiled. Stir fry is not soaked in oil, and I only use like a teaspoon of Olive oil. Spaghetti sauces and chili are made with lean beef.

I only over eat on the holidays, and can get away with it without gaining five pounds.

And yes, take the stairs instead of the elevator (but we don't have any buildings over 15 storys in this city). Park so that you have to walk a bit.

You know? Maybe it's less of a fat gene and more what gets passed down in a family as a regular diet. My eating habits would be dieting to most, but just normal for me. I don't even like milk shakes. I'll take something from Booster Juice over that. I hate chips (too salty). I rarely drink pop (give me water).

That's what is was like when I was kid. That's how I feed my kids. I also chew a lot of gum.

So there's a fat gene. From what I saw-there also seems to be what a family traditionally eats compared to another. Maybe throw in some denial about how much a person eats. I know some people have a bigger appetite...but there is a reason why.

I've rambled on enough. I didn't always feel this way, but after seeing what a family called 'normal' eating, I was blown away.

I find what you wrote interesting because for the most part that is the same way my family eats, except for the fact that I rarely have desert as well. I don't buy chips, junk food or soda pop. I don't normally eat any of the above either. And I was raised this same way. My kids eat so much fruit, I am afraid they are fruit bats in disguise. I can't keep fruit in the house, and it rarely goes bad. We keep it in a big bowel in the middle of a table in the livingroom so that it is easily accessible. And yet, some members of my family are overweight.

Some overweight people do overeat; some underweight people do starve themselves. Some overweight people are just the way they were made biologically, and some underweight people are just the way they were made biologicially.

Chanileslie

1st October 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yet another study which points to genetic factors in weight gain.

And yet, so many opinionated idiots say "it's simple, just eat less and/or exercise more".

If only it were that simple.

Yeah, if only it were that simple. The only time I have ever lost weight with ease was when I was literally starving myself because I couldn't afford to feed my children and myself on a regular basis, so I made a choice, and my kids' got plenty of food, and I did without much of the time. I lost weight, quite a bit in fact. Once my income got to a point where I could afford to begin eating on a regular basis, I put the weight right back on.

Segnosaur

1st October 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

We keep it in a big bowel in the middle of a table in the livingroom so that it is easily accessible. And yet, some members of my family are overweight.

You know, I usually try to avoid pointing out typos in other people's posts (I know I make enough of them myself). But, I'm supprised that anyone has an appetite in your family, what with the bowel you have in the living room. (That would really gross me out.)

Nyarlathotep

1st October 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

You know, I usually try to avoid pointing out typos in other people's posts (I know I make enough of them myself). But, I'm supprised that anyone has an appetite in your family, what with the bowel you have in the living room. (That would really gross me out.)

Hey, that Bowel is the component that brings the whole "Inside the human Body" decorating scheme of our living room together. We also have an enormous liver hanging on a wall. a pancreas serves as the centerpiece for our dining room table.

In case you are wondering why I am answering for Chanileslie, I should point out that she is my wife.

athon

1st October 2003, 05:28 PM

I'm always a little concerned when they bring out these genetic discoveries. They get hyped as 'gene for blah found', while the majority of the population have little understanding (and for that matter, most scientists) of how some genes interact with a) other genes and b) the environment to produce a phenotype.

All of these discoveries are based on looking at a heap of people who show the phenotype and comparing them genetically with a heap of people who don't. With the information from the genome project freely available, it's becoming more common. But research into the mechanisms behind genetics is at an all time low level (I assume this is because the overall funding normally granted towards genetic research has shifted slightly towards 'find the gene responsible for...' type studies rather than 'find how genes work...' type studies).

Athon

Wyvern

1st October 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Hey, that Bowel is the component that brings the whole "Inside the human Body" decorating scheme of our living room together. We also have an enormous liver hanging on a wall. a pancreas serves as the centerpiece for our dining room table.

You're teaching the little ones all about science and human anatomy. You ROCK!

Chanileslie

2nd October 2003, 11:24 AM

Chanileslie

2nd October 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Hey, that Bowel is the component that brings the whole "Inside the human Body" decorating scheme of our living room together. We also have an enormous liver hanging on a wall. a pancreas serves as the centerpiece for our dining room table.

In case you are wondering why I am answering for Chanileslie, I should point out that she is my wife.

Yes, I am. And a fine wife I am too!! :-)

Dr. Imago

2nd October 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yes, but I would guess that in times of famine, there are some who lose weight at a slower rate than others.

Well, now we're talking about physiology, pure and simple. It would depend, of course, on basal metabolic rate, how much the person weighed was before the famine started, what they were actually doing during the famine (sitting around waiting for someone to bring them food vs. out looking for food), etc.

Originally posted by RSLancastr
As simple as eating less and exercising more? :rolleyes:

Did I say that? I don't think so. In fact, I think I argued the exact opposite (if you'll re-read what I wrote).

Originally posted by Chanileslie
The only time I have ever lost weight with ease was when I was literally starving myself because I couldn't afford to feed my children and myself on a regular basis, so I made a choice, and my kids' got plenty of food, and I did without much of the time.

You felt like you were starving because of your appetite drive. This is the key to weight loss. Figuring out a way to get aberrant (i.e., not "in-tune" with the body's true metabolic needs) appetites under control. This is where the bulk of the science is focused.

-TT

Diogenes

2nd October 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20030930/od_uk_nm/oukoe_health_iceland_obesity

So if you're fat, sue your parents.

What is more astounding, is that the role of this gene has become dramatically more visible in the last 50 years or so; and particularly in the U.S.

I thought evolution worked a lot slower than that..:confused:

RSLancastr

2nd October 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Well, now we're talking about physiology, pure and simple.And a person's physiology, such as their metabolic rate, depend in part on their genes, correct?

Did I say that? I don't think so. In fact, I think I argued the exact opposite (if you'll re-read what I wrote).I don't see you "weighing in" on either side of that particular statement.

However, you say that "I can't help it, it is in my genes" is a copout. True. My point was, so is "Just eat less and exercise more". They are both oversimplifications of a process that is far more complex than most people realize.

And I have heard far more non-obese people say the latter than I have heard obese people say the former.

Eos of the Eons

2nd October 2003, 07:20 PM

LOL! I loved the bowel jokes!

The gene might not be a 'fat' gene simply for low metabolism, or is it for a big appetite, or is it big bones? We don't really know what they mean by "fat gene"

RSLancastr

3rd October 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
The gene might not be a 'fat' gene simply for low metabolism, or is it for a big appetite, or is it big bones? We don't really know what they mean by "fat gene" Personally, I'm just glad my name isn't "Gene"...

Dr. Imago

3rd October 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
And a person's physiology, such as their metabolic rate, depend in part on their genes, correct?

Perhaps. For example, there may be certain subtle differences between levels of key enzymes involved in metabolism, or genetic preponderances to produce more "fast twitch" rather than "slow twitch" fibers, or differences in hunger drive (which would be moot during a famine). But, on the whole, I think the genetic case is far overstated and environmental factors play a FAR greater role.

Originally posted by RSLancastr
I don't see you "weighing in" on either side of that particular statement.

However, you say that "I can't help it, it is in my genes" is a copout. True. My point was, so is "Just eat less and exercise more". They are both oversimplifications of a process that is far more complex than most people realize.

Agreed. No argument. That's why this is a hot area of research that is yielding some interesting new data.

Originally posted by RSLancastr
And I have heard far more non-obese people say the latter than I have heard obese people say the former.

Well, this is why we need to stop expecting quick fixes and instead adopt a long-term, biopsychosocial approach to weight loss addressing as many contributing factors as possible. It is a very complex problem, and (unfortunately) eating less and exercising more is a necessary part, if not the only focus, of the solution.

-TT

tracer

3rd October 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
My kids get dessert after supper. That's the only junk food they get. We don't have kool-aid in the house, and no white bread.
You ever tried making Aspartame Kool-Aid? It's not bad! You get the kind of Kool-Aid that you have to add your own sugar too (in the cheap little packets), but then instead of adding a cup of sugar, you add 26 packets of Equal. Voila! Kool-Aid without the calories.

Eos of the Eons

3rd October 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by tracer

You ever tried making Aspartame Kool-Aid? It's not bad! You get the kind of Kool-Aid that you have to add your own sugar too (in the cheap little packets), but then instead of adding a cup of sugar, you add 26 packets of Equal. Voila! Kool-Aid without the calories.

Meh, fruit juice tastes better. I get the stuff without sugar added, but fruit sugar is probably just as bad as any other sugar, but they don't drink it all day, only at meals, so it's not like they are downing sugar all day.

Kool Aid just has no vitamins or anything, so why bother? If I don''t fill them up with Kool Aid I can give them something like popsicles

tracer

6th October 2003, 03:42 PM

Aspartame popsicles?

Terry

6th October 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yet another study which points to genetic factors in weight gain.

And yet, so many opinionated idiots say "it's simple, just eat less and/or exercise more".

If only it were that simple.

I don't get it. I'm overweight, and I'm working on bringing my weight down first into the healthy zone, then towards the athletic zone. This is difficult. It's taking a lot of determination, and involves putting up with feeling hungry.

But it really is a simple process, and it really does boil down to eat less and exercise more.

Before I started, I worked out how many calories per day I was taking in to maintain my (too high) weight. Now I make sure I take in about 1000 calories per day less than that, and have upped my exercise some too. I track the moving average of my daily weight (because there is some randomness in daily weights due to hydration levels (guess)), and man, that thing is like I drew it with a ruler.

It sure does seem like 1 lb of weight loss happens when I eat 3500 calories less than I expend. Simple as that. What's the complication that I'm missing, opinionated idiot that I am?

--Terry

Eos of the Eons

6th October 2003, 08:57 PM

Good to hear Terry

Originally posted by tracer
Aspartame popsicles?

Blech, no. That's their dessert, normal popsicles. All good things in moderation. I wouldn't deny my kids some great things I remember from my childhood. I only got pop on my Birthday, and popsicles when I managed to make enough money by collecting bottles to get them. Freezies are cool too. If I don't stuff my kids full of Kool-Aid, then a popsicle or freezie is fine.

Course, there are the healthy popsicles made from fruit juice, but they're more expensive and have tons of sugar too.

RSLancastr

7th October 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Terry
But it really is a simple process, and it really does boil down to eat less and exercise more.Have you actually read this thread?

It sure does seem like 1 lb of weight loss happens when I eat 3500 calories less than I expend. Simple as that.Thank you, Nancy Reagan.

I'm glad for you that you find it simple. There are a hell of a lot of others who do not.

Terry

7th October 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Have you actually read this thread?

Thank you, Nancy Reagan.

I'm glad for you that you find it simple. There are a hell of a lot of others who do not.

Yes, I've read the thread. I'm not trying to claim losing weight is easy. On the contrary, I'm finding it very challenging, as I already said.

What I still don't understand is what makes this a complex problem. Is the suggestion being made that some people lose less than a pound when they have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories (in the long term)? I've not seen any evidence to support that. (The link at the head of the thread was very light on details.) Well, actually, I did read something anecdotal about very small daily deficits being "worked-around" by one's metabolism.

So one more time. I'm not trying to pick on anyone; I'm not trying to put down fat people (I are one); I'm not saying losing weight is easy; but can someone point me to somthing that explains why this isn't a simple subtraction sum?

--Terry "just say know" H.

RSLancastr

7th October 2003, 03:47 PM

I find it easy to believe that there is a genetic component to weight loss.

Rephrased, I find it difficult to believe that there is NOT a genetic component to it.

But even if there were NO genetic component to it, saying that "losing wait is as simple as eating less and exercising more" is useless, and is insulting/patronizing to those for whom eating less and exercising more is anything BUT simple.

Semantically, the statement is accurate. In reality, where the majority of us live, it is useless.

Here are some other equally true-but-useless statements:

"Becoming a billionaire is simple: obtain a billion dollars."

"Being healthy is simple: don't get sick."

"Reaching outer space is simple: escape earth's gravity."

... all true, but all totally useless to anyone trying to obtain those goals.

As to your question about calories: I do not know. There are others here more qualified to answer.

Terry

7th October 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
But even if there were NO genetic component to it, saying that "losing wait is as simple as eating less and exercising more" is useless, and is insulting/patronizing to those for whom eating less and exercising more is anything BUT simple.

Semantically, the statement is accurate. In reality, where the majority of us live, it is useless.
[...]

I disagree that it's a useless statement. What I see presented in the media is "Losing weight is complicated, you have to follow all the rules in <random diet book>. But if you do that, it's easy. A few weeks, and you're done".

Whereas I think the reality is the exact reverse. Losing weight is really easy to understand but really hard to do I think we do people a dis-service by pretending there is something magic you can do for a few weeks, when the truth is that you need to commit to a permanent lifestyle change - at least if you plan to keep the weight off. And by pretending that it is such a complex thing that you need a book about it.

--Terry.

RSLancastr

7th October 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Terry
... And by pretending that it is such a complex thing that you need a book about it.I understand your point, but that isn't what I am talking about.

Most severely/morbidly obese people I have spoken to about the subject ALREADY KNOW exactly how to eat healthy, and how to lose weight.

EvilYeti

7th October 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Terry

So one more time. I'm not trying to pick on anyone; I'm not trying to put down fat people (I are one); I'm not saying losing weight is easy; but can someone point me to somthing that explains why this isn't a simple subtraction sum?

Its a more difficult discussion when someone like RSL is involved. I've tangled with him before on this issue and discovered he's a morbidly obese food addict, not simply overweight.

The difference is largely psychological. To an addict, its impossible to imagine life without their chosen addiction. They will rationalize their habit, i.e. creating a belief system that genetics, not lifestyle choices, is responsible for their current situation. Read RSL's contributions to this thread for an example of how important this sort of mythology is. It allows them to continue their self-destructive behavior without all the unpleasant depression and self-loathing of facing reality.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of addictive behavior. Although of course, ultimately, the course of action is fairly simple. Stop indulging the addiction. Whether its food or heroin, the only cure is for the individual to make their number one priority in life kicking their addiction. In practice, that can be quite difficult. If the addict has convinced himself he's not responsible for his addiction, like RSL has, its impossible.

RSLancastr

7th October 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Its a more difficult discussion when someone like RSL is involved. I've tangled with him before on this issue and discovered he's a morbidly obese food addict, not simply overweight.You "discovered" this, did you?

Did you "discover" I was morbidly obese in the thread where I said I was morbidly obese, and I posted my height and weight? Good work, Sherlock!

Did you discover I was a food addict when I posted a typical day's intake for me? Holmes, you astound me!

The difference is largely psychological.For many, yes. I have spoken of this here and elsewhere.

They will rationalize their habit, i.e. creating a belief system that genetics, not lifestyle choices, is responsible for their current situation. Read RSL's contributions to this thread for an example of how important this sort of mythology is.Oh really? If you actually read this thread, you would have noticed that I've said more than once that I have no idea how much a role genetics plays. You dismiss as "mythology" studies which indicate a possible genetic factor?

Not to make you cry and run away again, but you don't sound like a scientist.

It allows them to continue their self-destructive behavior without all the unpleasant depression and self-loathing of facing reality.On the contrary: I have my full share of both. But perhaps that is because I don't put the blame on genetics, as you seem to think I do.

If the addict has convinced himself he's not responsible for his addiction, like RSL has, its impossible.How many times can you use the same strawman, Yeti? I know I'm fully responsible for my behavior. Genetics may play a role in how strongly that behavior impacts me, but I am fully responsible for everything I eat, and every exercise I don't do.

So, let us all know when you apply for the million dollar challenge, based on your professed ability to read my mind. So far, you are batting zero.

EvilYeti

7th October 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr

Did you discover I was a food addict when I posted a typical day's intake for me? Holmes, you astound me!

The forum should note irrational aggression when confronted is a common trait among addicts.

For the record, I did discover you were a food addict when you posted an example of your daily diet. If I remember correctly, you then asked "Now, is that what you think an obese person would eat?". The example you gave contained about three times the recommended caloric intake of someone with your lifestyle (sedentary). Your inability to rationally examine the scale of your problem is another hallmark of addiction. Much like the alcoholic whom doesn't see a problem with having a few beers every night, meaning a twelve pack of course.

Oh really? If you actually read this thread, you would have noticed that I've said more than once that I have no idea how much a role genetics plays. You dismiss as "mythology" studies which indicate a possible genetic factor?

You haven't read any of the studies, so you are not qualified to comment on what they contain. Reading articles written by journalists eager to sell papers to obese junk-food addicts like yourself results in junk-science conclusions.
Read this if you are interested in the reality of genetics and obesity:
Don't Buy the 'Fat Gene' Myth (http://www.fumento.com/julyfat.html)

Not to make you cry and run away again, but you don't sound like a scientist.

The last person who said that thinks astrology is science, so you are in poor company for questioning my credentials.

On the contrary: I have my full share of both. But perhaps that is because I don't put the blame on genetics, as you seem to think I do.

It's clear from your posts you feel genetics play a signifigant role in your inability to lose weight. Anyone can scroll back and read that.

How many times can you use the same strawman, Yeti? I know I'm fully responsible for my behavior. Genetics may play a role in how strongly that behavior impacts me, but I am fully responsible for everything I eat, and every exercise I don't do.

Then why do you persist in compulsive self-destructive behavior? I've said many times now its not hard to make first step, like cut out sugar drinks from your diet. You drink more calories per day then I eat in any of my meals!
If you can't do that the only logical conclusion is that you are either an addict or suicidal (or maybe both).

So, let us all know when you apply for the million dollar challenge, based on your professed ability to read my mind. So far, you are batting zero.

Fine, you are deliberately eating yourself to an early grave. Thats much better than being a food addict.

Just remember to leave enough in your will so your family can super-size your coffin.

Eos of the Eons

7th October 2003, 09:08 PM

Hey kids, stop throwing mud around...yer making this place all dirty! :p

RSLancastr

7th October 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The forum should note irrational aggression when confronted is a common trait among addicts."The forum should note?" :rolleyes:

For the record, I did discover you were a food addict when you posted an example of your daily diet. If I remember correctly, you then asked "Now, is that what you think an obese person would eat?".Which, as you should know, was in response to the thread originator (Genghis, in one of his first threads), who seemed to be of the opinion that obese people sit down and eat entire pizzas, or entire buckets of chicken, in one sitting. I was showing him that he was wrong, that while I eat far too much, I eat far less than what he was describing. This was before he had made himself known as a troll, or I wouldn't have bothered trying to explain.

Your inability to rationally examine the scale of your problem is another hallmark of addiction. Much like the alcoholic whom doesn't see a problem with having a few beers every night, meaning a twelve pack of course.Once again, you set up the same strawman. I never said, nor implied, any of that. But nice try.

You haven't read any of the studies, so you are not qualified to comment on what they contain.True. Hey, you finally got one of your mind-reading attempts correct! That's what, one out of ten or so?

Read this if you are interested in the reality of genetics and obesity:It doesn't load, I will try again later (although I believe you showed it to me in another thread). And what makes this any more reliable than what you think I have read? Or is it only because you agree with it?

The last person who said that thinks astrology is science, so you are in poor company for questioning my credentials.Telling you that you are not sounding like a scientist is "questioning your credentials?" Then again, I forgot how tender your feelings are on that point. I really have no opinion whether you are one or not.

It's clear from your posts you feel genetics play a signifigant role in your inability to lose weight. Anyone can scroll back and read that.If "anyone" can do that, why don't you take a second and quote even ONE thing I've said which indicates that? Because I haven't, and you know it. Yet another fun example of trying to speak for me. It isn't working.

Then why do you persist in compulsive self-destructive behavior?Because, as I believe I have said before, my eating is mostly psychological/emotional/mental/whatever. Depression. Downward spiral, all that crap. Yes, I am responsible for it, and I am responsible for getting myself out of it.

I've said many times now its not hard to make first step, like cut out sugar drinks from your diet. You drink more calories per day then I eat in any of my meals!Again, you are making assumptions, but at least this one is based on something I actually said. However, my drinking habits have changed somewhat since I posted those "average days" a few months back. I drink far fewer sugared drinks now, and when I do, they are non-caffeinated.

If you can't do that the only logical conclusion is that you are either an addict or suicidal (or maybe both).I have never said otherwise.

Earthborn

8th October 2003, 12:24 AM

Your inability to rationally examine the scale of your problem is another hallmark of addiction. Much like the alcoholic whom doesn't see a problem with having a few beers every night, meaning a twelve pack of course.You now see over-eating as an addiction? I think we are making progress.

You do realize that not all people are equally likely to become addicted and that the difference lies most likely in a genetic predisposition?You haven't read any of the studies, so you are not qualified to comment on what they contain. Reading articles written by journalists eager to sell papers to obese junk-food addicts like yourself results in junk-science conclusions.
Read this if you are interested in the reality of genetics and obesity:
Don't Buy the 'Fat Gene' Myth (http://www.fumento.com/julyfat.html)You have now dimished the crediblity of your own source: it is from a journalist, eager to sell papers.

I think you would do better citing an expert in human metabolism. If you can find one that supports your view...

EvilYeti

8th October 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
You now see over-eating as an addiction? I think we are making progress.

Ha. You must not have read my addiction threads.

You do realize that not all people are equally likely to become addicted and that the difference lies most likely in a genetic predisposition?You have now dimished the crediblity of your own source: it is from a journalist, eager to sell papers.

More mythology. Very little is known regarding the role of genetics play in human behavior. On the other hand much is known regarding the role of human behavior and weight gain.

Fumentko is a skeptic first and a journalist second, most of what he writes is critical of other journalists. What he says is in line with the research, I know as I've read it. Have you?

I think you would do better citing an expert in human metabolism. If you can find one that supports your view...

Funny. Point me to an expert in human metabolism that says obese people don't overeat. As I, Eos and RSL even have pointed out, metabolism doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with this. Fat people just eat way too much food. If I ate as much as RSL and didn't exercise, I would be morbidly obese as well. Genetics and metabolism have nothing to do with it.

I know you have some personal issues regarding this topic, might I suggest putting some of the energy you spend criticizing me exercising instead? You could even get nice and thin for TAM2 then rub my face in it.

Wouldn't that feel good? :D

Earthborn

8th October 2003, 04:41 AM

More mythology. Very little is known regarding the role of genetics play in human behavior.Irrelevant. While it is true that little is known about the exact mechanisms, this does not mean it can't be known that genetics and early childhood experiences have an important influence. For instance, the mechanisms for left-handedness (or right-handedness) are not well understood, but that does not mean that there isn't any proof that it isn't innate.Fumentko is a skeptic first and a journalist second, most of what he writes is critical of other journalists.So? That does not make what he writes more true or a more accurate reflection of the current state of research.What he says is in line with the research, I know as I've read it. Have you?No, I haven't. Maybe you should point to some research that shows he or you are right.Point me to an expert in human metabolism that says obese people don't overeat.I won't, because such an expert doesn't exist. It isn't the point at all.

The point is that an expert in human metabolism will agree that obese people are not the only ones who overeat. A lot more people do that, but those that are the most sensitive to obesity are the ones who get the fattest.Fat people just eat way too much food.But they are not the only ones who do! Pretty much everyone in the Western world does!If I ate as much as RSL and didn't exercise, I would be morbidly obese as well.No, you wouldn't. Unless you have the same predisposition to obesity.

And suppose you do manage to eat as much as he does, and exercise as little and gain the same amount of weight... Do you honestly think you could lose it just as quickly as you gained by going back to your old eating and exercizing habits? Could you even go back?I know you have some personal issues regarding this topicI have no personal issues regarding this topic.You could even get nice and thin for TAM2 then rub my face in it.You mean fly halfway across the globe, just to show you that after a lot of exercize I got so strong that I can win armwrestling you, while at the same time weighing roughly the same as I did before?Wouldn't that feel good? :DGetting thin will leave me ill-prepared for the winter, and flying to Vegas will bust my finances, so no.

Terry

8th October 2003, 07:16 AM

EvilYetiii said (I'm paraphrasing) ... eat as much as RSL => weigh as much
Originally posted by Earthborn
No, you wouldn't. Unless you have the same predisposition to obesity.

If that is true, then my claim that weight control is literally an input vs output energy balance would seem to be incorrect. Please could you point me to a study which supports this? The only physiology book I have (sorry, I'm an engineer) doesn't mention anything like this.

--Terry.

Earthborn

8th October 2003, 08:17 AM

Sure, Terry. Knock yourself out:
CDC on Obesity (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm)

Eos of the Eons

8th October 2003, 07:52 PM

A relatively small proportion of obesity in the population can be explained by mutations in single genes. However, significant understanding of how fat stores are regulated has been gained from studying the biology and clinical presentations of these rare individuals and families and the animal models of these conditions.

Yep, heard of hypothyroidism and stuff. These and other folks definitely can blame their fat on more than eating.

Then you see these folks who eat tons and tons of food (seems like) and they are scrawny (I always see that they are usually men who are quite active, and when their activity level is down they do start putton on some padding).

We have to realize our metabolism slows as we get older, but our appetite doesn't change on its own to compensate. I see tons of guys who were able to eat whatever they wanted in their twenties get padding within their thirties.

I know a fat kid that eats tons and never exercises. His parents are idiots though too, and feed him tons of crap (like 3 pizza pops for lunch plus tons of other junk).

Our appetite is under our control if we are lucky. It seems some folks have a huge appetite, and I did when I went on this one type of medication. I was darn well starving all the time, and ate way more than usual. I have slimmed down some after that fiasco, but I'm sure many of the fat cells are hanging around waiting for me to fill them up.

Did you know that once you have a fat cell it doesn't go away. They just grow or shrink, or bust out into two if it gets overly filled. lipase...damn things are impossible to destroy by dieting.

So if you gain the weight, then those cells are only happy to keep telling you to eat more if they are getting low on fuel? I don't know, but it sure seems like they fill up fast when I go crazy on the junk. At least my appetite is normal now, and I don't eat too much. That much I am grateful for.

Eos of the Eons

8th October 2003, 07:52 PM

Earthborn

8th October 2003, 10:51 PM

Yep, heard of hypothyroidism and stuff. These and other folks definitely can blame their fat on more than eating.True, but I hope you have noticed that the CDC site doesn't only talk about them when it speaks of genetic influences to obesity. The fact that someone hasn't a single gene almost solely responsible doesn't mean that his/her genes don't have an influence.I always see that they are usually men who are quite active, and when their activity level is down they do start putton on some paddingBut they usually don't become morbidly obese, do they? I mean in the 400 pound range.

That there is a very strong correlation between how much someone eats and how much someone moves is not in dispute, as it is very obviously true. I even read about a study once that found a correlation between how much someone gesticulates and weight. People who tend to gesticulate very much are generally thinner: even such small movements can make a measurable difference in how much energy someone uses.We have to realize our metabolism slows as we get older, but our appetite doesn't change on its own to compensate. I see tons of guys who were able to eat whatever they wanted in their twenties get padding within their thirties.This is also obviously true.I know a fat kid that eats tons and never exercises. His parents are idiots though too, and feed him tons of crap (like 3 pizza pops for lunch plus tons of other junk).The fact that there are parents who are teaching their kids irresponsible eating habits is also something that I won't dispute.

But the solution to this a bit counter-intuitive to most parents. Many parents teach their children to finish their plates, but are also giving them portions that are too large. Even if the portions is only a little too large, it means that children are learning to overeat. The solution is to teach children from early on that they can eat as much or as little as they like: this will make them eat on average less. They learn to stop eating when they feel full. Most parents who try to control their children's eating habits however do so by restrictions, which causes a 'forbidden fruit effect' and will make the children eat more.

Watch PBS Online (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1110/video/watchonline.htm) (click on 'Obesity Begins at Home' for the research on children's eating habits. The other parts are interesting too though)

Here is the Human Obesity Gene Map (http://www.obesity.chair.ulaval.ca/Genes.html), which shows that there isn't one obesity gene, there are hundreds. Some influence appetite, others how 'lazy' someone is, others regulate how efficient someone stores fat, some regulate how well the fat is burned, etc etc...

And genetic factors are not the only things that are hard to escape from. Here (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/1/R271) is some research that shows that the mother's eating habits during pregnancy have a influence on how active the child will become later in life. Less active will mean less exercize and thus a higher risk of obesity.
It seems as if a fetus adapts to the environment it will grow up in. If the mother is undernourished, it makes evolutionary sense to become energy efficient (conserving energy and storing it efficiently).

The more researchers discover about human metabolism, the more complex it seems to become. And why would it be simple anyway? It is the one function of our bodies that has been evolving the longest.

Eos of the Eons

8th October 2003, 11:07 PM

Good points, and all the stuff I couldn't articulate.

Here is the Human Obesity Gene Map, which shows that there isn't one obesity gene, there are hundreds. Some influence appetite, others how 'lazy' someone is, others regulate how efficient someone stores fat, some regulate how well the fat is burned, etc etc...

I saw a show on a population (I think native) in the US now that historically came from an area where food was not exactly abundant. Now that food is abundant, 90% are like humongous. But when they started to watch what they eat, and excersized more, they lived longer and had a healthier weight (still not slim by any means though).

If food ever becomes scarce again, they will prevail very well.

We may hate our fat, but it's the reason humanity has survived hardships.

We are geared to love food and seek it out whenever we can. We are geared to store this energy source as fat.

I think the overly glorified stick thin bodies of the few most sought after models and such needs to be looked at. Our aversion to fat is seriously overly done. Women look better without bones jutting out everywhere. If they didn't attempt to diet they wouldn't mess up their metabolisms.

The morbidly obese have a problem we could never understand.
I'm just looking at those who say they don't eat much, and then we see they do. With the population getter fatter and fatter, we need to look at what we are eating. Not just the amount either. It can't all be genetics. The overeaters are making the people with genetic contributions indistinguishable. So of course a person will jump to conclusions until they know the person.

So yeah, don't ever expect everyone to be skinny, the human population depends on their fat in hard times. I'm just asking that people at least try to eat healthy and live healthy for health, not for body size.

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I saw a show on a population (I think native) in the US now that historically came from an area where food was not exactly abundant. Now that food is abundant, 90% are like humongous. But when they started to watch what they eat, and excersized more, they lived longer and had a healthier weight (still not slim by any means though).Sounds like you saw 'The Desert's Perfect Foods'. Check the PBS link above, if you want to see it again. Helps if you have broadband though. Here (http://www.pbs.org/saf/previous.htm) is the 'parent' page. It also gives a links to transcripts. The obesity episode is called 'Fat and Happy', but the others are worth watching too.We may hate our fat, but it's the reason humanity has survived hardships.That's exactly it. The people who become obese today are the ones who are best adapted to the conditions that existed until very recently. Humankind has changed their environment so dramatically that now they die earlier than the people who are skinnier. At 80 instead of 90...I'm just looking at those who say they don't eat much, and then we see they do.But again, they are not the only ones who do. Practically the whole society is overeating, some people of course more than others. (There are undoubtedly also many genetic, early childhood and prenatal enviromental factors influencing appetite). Only those who are most susceptible to obesity are becoming morbidly obese. This means that if we want to prevent this altered eating habits, we will have to ask of some people much more self-control than we ask of others. EvilYeti's approach of blaming and shaming is counterproductive.

But just imagine how hard this can become. Suppose you have a few children, one of them is much more susceptible to obesity than the others (perhaps it is adopted from obese parents). Could you deny this child the french fries, the other kids are allowed? This sort of thing can be emotionally very hard.With the population getter fatter and fatter, we need to look at what we are eating. Not just the amount either. It can't all be genetics.Well, it isn't all genetics. It isn't all food addiction either. There are hundreds, possible thousands of factors.The overeaters are making the people with genetic contributions indistinguishable.But the overeaters often have genetic contributions too, even if only the ones that make them overeaters/foodaddicts!So yeah, don't ever expect everyone to be skinny, the human population depends on their fat in hard times. I'm just asking that people at least try to eat healthy and live healthy for health, not for body size.That's exactly right! Unfortunately some people measure health solely by body size.

EvilYeti

9th October 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn But again, they are not the only ones who do. Practically the whole society is overeating, some people of course more than others. (There are undoubtedly also many genetic, early childhood and prenatal enviromental factors influencing appetite). Only those who are most susceptible to obesity are becoming morbidly obese. This means that if we want to prevent this altered eating habits, we will have to ask of some people much more self-control than we ask of others. EvilYeti's approach of blaming and shaming is counterproductive.

I'm boggled at why you are trying to make this such a complicated issue. It isn't.

Almost everyone is going to put on weight when they overeat. That perfectly normal. You can quibble for all eternity about metabolism and genetics, but it doesn't change the fact that overweight people overeat. And the obese REALLY overeat.

The idea that some people can eat huge amounts and not gain weight, while others balloon up on 1,200 calorie diets is a myth. Every study that has objectively measured calorie intake, rather than just asking people what they ate, has proven this.

I think alot of the mythology is due to some thin people that will eat one huge meal a day and also exercise. I've known a few people like this and often do it myself. People will wonder how I can stay thin when I eat like a horse at my Sunday BBQ, for example. Its because I rode my bike 20 miles the day before and didn't eat all day Sunday; not genetics. Occam's razor, honey.

I've been overweight in the past. I got that way by engaging in a consistient pattern of overeating. If I had continued that pattern I would have become obese, then morbidly obese. Maybe I'm "genetically susceptible" to obeseity. So what, most obviouslly are, given the majority of overweight people in America.

Originally posted by Earthborn
EvilYeti's approach of blaming and shaming is counterproductive.

No, its not counterproductive. It's stating the truth. If you read my threads on addiction, you would understand that I see all addiction, food or otherwise, as a matter of choice. And its not my choice, or your choice. Its the addicts choice. If he/she ever decides that kicking the addiction is more important than feeding it, no more addiction. This is of course difficult and will involve pain and sacrifice, but thats just life.

By stating my approach is "counterproductive" is implying there is there is a more "productive" way to go about this problem. There isn't. Most dieters fail just like most junkies relapse. The habit is stronger than the will to quit. Look at the minority that triumph and what they have in common. You will find a simple, honest courage; that frankly, I find inspiring. Claiming that they have some genetic marker that makes it easier for them to "kick" is insulting to these folks, IMHO. And unfairly flattering to the failures.

RSL is morbidly obese because he would rather eat junk food, drink syrupy soda and sit on his ass then lead a healthy lifestyle. Its as simple and straightforward as that, no genetics or metabolism involved. Just simple, human CHOICE.

EvilYeti

9th October 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr

And yet, so many opinionated idiots say "it's simple, just eat less and/or exercise more".

Who's the real idiot RSL, the samaritan giving good advice or the fool that refuses to heed it?

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'm boggled at why you are trying to make this such a complicated issue. It isn't.You should make things as simple as possible but not simpler!Almost everyone is going to put on weight when they overeat. That perfectly normal. You can quibble for all eternity about metabolism and genetics, but it doesn't change the fact that overweight people overeat. And the obese REALLY overeat.And have I denied this? I think not.Every study that has objectively measured calorie intake, rather than just asking people what they ate, has proven this.Then show us such a study. I have shown several sites (including the friggin' CDC!) that agree with me. You have shown a site of exactly one journalist, not specialized in anything.Its because I rode my bike 20 miles the day before and didn't eat all day Sunday; not genetics. Occam's razor, honey.In your case that is probably true. I am not disputing that.
I've been overweight in the past.How much?No, its not counterproductive.Yes, it is.It's stating the truth.In an unnecessarily harsh manner.By stating my approach is "counterproductive" is implying there is there is a more "productive" way to go about this problem. There isn't.Yes, there is: showing understanding and support.Most dieters fail just like most junkies relapse.With more supportive people around them they may succeed more eaily.The habit is stronger than the will to quit.Making people feel miserable about themselves doesn't make their will stronger.Claiming that they have some genetic marker that makes it easier for them to "kick" is insulting to these folks, IMHO.Saying that they have overcome some genetic marker, and acknowledging how hard it was, is not insulting.And unfairly flattering to the failures.Those that do not succeed are not failures. They are people who did not yet succeed.Its as simple and straightforward as that, no genetics or metabolism involved. Just simple, human CHOICE.And genetics, metabolism, childhood experience do not influence human choice? I think they do.Who's the real idiot RSL, the samaritan giving good advice or the fool that refuses to heed it?If you were the Samaritan from the parable you would have kicked the wounded man lying on the road to Jericho and you would have said: "Hey, step out it! Stop pretending you are a victim."

If you are oh so concerned with RSL, why don't you do anything constructive for him? Why not design a plan to lose some weight that is realistic for him and give some friendly tips to keep motivated?

Terry

9th October 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Sure, Terry. Knock yourself out:
CDC on Obesity (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm)

So the brown adipose did it? In the genetic library, with the insulin-resistance?</cludo>

So if you're one of those luck obesity-resistant types, if you eat too much, you'll just run a slight fever till the excess energy is gone? Sounds handy. Methinks thre must be a limit to how much excess this mechanismm can cope with though.

Fascinating stuff, and a lot of it to read. I'm still looking for anything that says some people can run a 1000-kcal per day deficit and not lose a pound every 3.5 days though. I'll keep reading..

--Terry

RSLancastr

9th October 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Who's the real idiot RSL, the samaritan giving good advice or the fool that refuses to heed it? The difference is, I *know* that I am a fool.

The fact that you have deluded yourself into thinking that being a self-righteous, judfgemental, flaimng ass is being a "samaritan" is pretty funny.

RSLancastr

9th October 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
How much (weight did EviYeti lose)?Yeti's expertise in the struggles of dieting come from, if I recall, a net weight loss of 15 pounds. (Lost 40lbs of fat, gained 25lbs of muscle, something along those lines). And good for him.

The fact is, he hasn't one effing clue.

When someone who has lost 15lbs tells someone who meends to lose 150lbs "I know the struggle of losing weight", they don't have a lot of credibility. When they then start trying to "shame" the person, they lose what little credibility they may have had.

If you are oh so concerned with RSL, why don't you do anything constructive for him? Why not design a plan to lose some weight that is realistic for him and give some friendly tips to keep motivated? It wouldn't help. And I believe EvilYeti actually did pretty much that in an earlier thread.

I don't need any tips, I don't need someone to design a plan for me to lose weight. I [b]know[b] what I need to do. It is getting off the dime and [b]doing it[b] that is the problem.

For some reason, people who are not overweight/obese think that those of us who are overweight/obese don't realize that we eat too much, that we eat the wrong things, and that we don't get enough exercise. WE KNOW. But knowing these things, and changing them, are two different things.

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Terry
So if you're one of those luck obesity-resistant types, if you eat too much, you'll just run a slight fever till the excess energy is gone? Sounds handy.Or it doesn't even enter the bloodstream. Or this person is extremely restless and thus loses all that energy by moving around a lot. Or the person is a violent gesticulator. Or any of the other few hundred known and unknown factors.Methinks thre must be a limit to how much excess this mechanismm can cope with though.Of course. Each of the hundreds of mechanisms has a limit.I'm still looking for anything that says some people can run a 1000-kcal per day deficit and not lose a pound every 3.5 days though.Remember that the human body is evolved to cope with famine. If there is not enough food, it becomes more efficient. Many people will have difficulty losing a single pound even with not eating for entire month! Especially the Energy Efficient.

Terry

9th October 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
[...]Many people will have difficulty losing a single pound even with not eating for entire month! Especially the Energy Efficient.

I'm sorry, but I find that extremely hard to credit. You do have a reference for this I assume? Please point me to it.

<sarcasm type="unhelpful but oh so hard to resist">Zero calories in for 30 days and no weight loss? What are they, nuclear powered?</sarcasm>

--Terry

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yeti's expertise in the struggles of dieting come from, if I recall, a net weight loss of 15 pounds.Geeez... That's like 7 or 8 kilograms. He wasn't even overweight in any medical sense of the word.And I believe EvilYeti actually did pretty much that in an earlier thread.No, he didn't. It wasn't a realistic plan for you, was it?I don't need any tips, I don't need someone to design a plan for me to lose weight. I know what I need to do. It is getting off the dime and doing it that is the problem.That's why you may need some tips to start very modestly. Like: park your car just one parking space further than you plan to do. Drink diet coke once in a while, just to get used to the taste (it's not my idea of a tasty treat either but very slowly I'm getting used to it). Ignore anyone who tells you you should drink water instead.

No one can turn their life around all at once. Take baby steps. Don't worry about it if you don't take baby steps everyday. It is not a test of willpower. Forget about willpower.

Can you do that?For some reason, people who are not overweight/obese think that those of us who are overweight/obese don't realize that we eat too much, that we eat the wrong things, and that we don't get enough exercise. WE KNOW. But knowing these things, and changing them, are two different things.I think the trick is to stop worrying about it too much and telling yourself you are a wonderfull person. I think you are. :rub:

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Terry
<sarcasm type="unhelpful but oh so hard to resist">Zero calories in for 30 days and no weight loss? What are they, nuclear powered?</sarcasm>
Maybe! :) Or oil, gas or coal: They'll probably have to turn up the central heating. And they won't be doing very much. And I didn't say there is no weight loss, only that it is small. Okay, I admit, it may very well be a bit more than a pound in many cases.

But you may have noticed that in order to make someone lose the recommended 2 kilograms (about 4 pounds) per month (anything more than that is hard to sustain), not only does someone have to limit their diet dramatically, they also need to increase their activity level.

RSLancastr

9th October 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Geeez... That's like 7 or 8 kilograms. He wasn't even overweight in any medical sense of the word.Who knows, maybe he is three feet tall...

No, he didn't. It wasn't a realistic plan for you, was it?Actually, I would have to reread that thread to remember jsut which advice was his, as I heard from many people, well-intentioned and otherwise, therein.

No one can turn their life around all at once. Take baby steps.Yup. In the past 14 months or so, I have made several such small steps. I drink far less sugared drinks, much more Crystal Light and diet iced tea. I eat less pasta, though still far more than I should. Though still fairly sedentary, I'm more active, walk more.

Over that time, I have slowly dropped (as of a week or two ago) 58 pounds. According to some of the charts, i've gone from super-obese to "merely" morbidly obese. :rolleyes:

It is progress. I can see it and feel it. For instance, this morning I missed my bus stop and had to walk back, about 25 minutes at a brisk (for me) pace. It didn't faze me. 14 months ago, I couldn't walk from my house out to the car without feeling awful.

So yup, I know about baby steps.

Can you do that?I think the trick is to stop worrying about it too much and telling yourself you are a wonderfull person. I think you are. :rub: Thanks, you're very kind. My girlfriend gave me a similar pep talk just yesterday!

But again, no matter how many people give me kind, helpful advice, nor how many try the "shaming" approach, neither are going to get me there, nor will they inspire me to do better. ALL of that has to come from within myself.

EvilYeti

9th October 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Who knows, maybe he is three feet tall...

EvilYeti is 6'4". When I first started dieting I went from 240 to 190, the target weight for my height and build. I dropped 50 pounds, not 15. I'm about 215 now and slow dropping again with a target of 200. I'm more into biking then lifting now, so the less weight the better.

Actually, I would have to reread that thread to remember jsut which advice was his, as I heard from many people, well-intentioned and otherwise, therein.

My advice was no more sugary drinks and stop eating at fast food places. Not exactly rocket science.

Yup. In the past 14 months or so, I have made several such small steps. I drink far less sugared drinks, much more Crystal Light and diet iced tea. I eat less pasta, though still far more than I should. Though still fairly sedentary, I'm more active, walk more.

I really think you should make every effort to cut out sugar entirely. Its nothing but empty calories and when you are trying to lose weight, every little bit counts.
I don't see why you don't just drink seltzer water, seeing as you have no sense of smell. Coke tastes like seltzer water to me when I pinch my nose.

Over that time, I have slowly dropped (as of a week or two ago) 58 pounds. According to some of the charts, i've gone from super-obese to "merely" morbidly obese. :rolleyes:

Christ, I didn't know the nomenclature went that high! Whats after super? Hyper? Mega? Ultra?

But again, no matter how many people give me kind, helpful advice, nor how many try the "shaming" approach, neither are going to get me there, nor will they inspire me to do better. ALL of that has to come from within myself.

See Earthborn, just what I said. It doesn't matter what anyone says. It's his choice.

And genetics have nothing to do with it.

volant

9th October 2003, 09:15 PM

Eh, I really do believe the reason I am skinny(Which the article also said happens with this gene.), is because of genes. I am 5'11, 110 pounds, which is beyond normal skinny. Both of my parents were like this, and no matter I have done(weight lifting, swimming, weight gain drinks, etc.), nothing seems to put on weight.

Earthborn

9th October 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Yup. In the past 14 months or so, I have made several such small steps. I drink far less sugared drinks, much more Crystal Light and diet iced tea. I eat less pasta, though still far more than I should. Though still fairly sedentary, I'm more active, walk more.

Over that time, I have slowly dropped (as of a week or two ago) 58 pounds. Congratulations!

:bcake:

(Don't worry: it is fat and sugarfree, but doesn't taste like aspartame)According to some of the charts, i've gone from super-obese to "merely" morbidly obese. :rolleyes:Those are just labels, invented by a skinny person. Don't put yourself down by looking at them.It is progress. I can see it and feel it. For instance, this morning I missed my bus stop and had to walk back, about 25 minutes at a brisk (for me) pace. It didn't faze me. 14 months ago, I couldn't walk from my house out to the car without feeling awful.That's great! That's exactly how you should be measuring your progress, forget the silly pounds and silly labels.So yup, I know about baby steps.The important thing is that you are taking them. It means that "But knowing these things, and changing them, are two different things." does no longer apply to you: you are changing them.Thanks, you're very kind. My girlfriend gave me a similar pep talk just yesterday!You deserve it.
Originally posted by EvilYeti:
See Earthborn, just what I said. It doesn't matter what anyone says. It's his choice.Having a supportive girlfriend couldn't have hurt.And genetics have nothing to do with it.The fact that it is his choice in no way disproves that genetics influence his choices or the effects of his choices.

Genetics does not mean destiny. It means that some people need a little extra support, which RS apperently found.

RSLancastr

9th October 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I really think you should make every effort to cut out sugar entirely. Its nothing but empty calories and when you are trying to lose weight, every little bit counts.You're right of course, and I am halfway there. I will get there.

I don't see why you don't just drink seltzer water, seeing as you have no sense of smell. Coke tastes like seltzer water to me when I pinch my nose.Well, a couple of things: Even with no sense of smell, I can taste the difference between a Coke, a Sprite, a carbonated orange drink, a carbonated grape drink, etc. Seltzer water (if it is what I recall) tastes bitter to me. Nasty stuff. Again, this stuff is making its way out of my diet. I already made the switch from Coke/Pepsi to Sprite/SierraMist, and went through the caffeine withdrawals. And I am slowly weaning my way from even those. Time, time.

Christ, I didn't know the nomenclature went that high! Whats after super? Hyper? Mega? Ultra?I've only seen the "Super" label used in a few places. I don't think it is in the medical literature.

See Earthborn, just what I said. It doesn't matter what anyone says. It's his choice. And genetics have nothing to do with it. It is my choice to beat it, whether genetics plays a large role, or none at all.