American obesity? Why?

[DawnM]

I watched Fat Head yesterday. Great show. I can't quite remember all the points about certain types of fats and such though.

 

But I did really resonate with the sugar in the body and the excess carbs.

 

He lost in part due to calories, but in part due to regulating the carbs he ate. What he said was very true for me. The more carbs I eat, the more I crave and the hungrier I am. Higher fat and higher protein help with the hunger and I don't want as much. I wish I liked meat better.

 

Dawn

Edited July 13, 2011 by DawnM

[Orthodox6]

Off in my own little corner musing . . .

 

Since I acknowledge that mankind is "special creation" by God, I do not believe that I am an animal. There are many, many similarities of biology among living creation, of course, and it would be silly to ignore them. I cannot, though, speculate that my human body was not designed by God to eat substances which, from the most ancient of times, were considered "food". (e.g. grains as a class within foods) What food substances "work" for my own specific body constitutes an entirely different set of reflections.

[Cheryl in NM]

Calories in and calories out is basic science. You don't have to exercise if you eat a small enough amount of calories. If you are willing and able to exercise you can eat more calories. Losing weight is as "simple" as that. There was a man who ate nothing but junk food for a certain period of time and lost weight, without exercising. I'll have to have Dh look up the story for me again. That really made me quit hiding behind the excuse of "oh, I can't handle carbs so I can't lose weight". I've been watching calories and sure enough, regardless of what I eat, if I eat only 1200 calories a day I lose weight, without exercise. Of course, there are other factors to what you eat and what that food does to the biochemistry in your body. I'm not advocating eating junk food and not exercising, just saying that you can eat weight. I also know what some doctors say about a body holding on to fat and that a person can't lose weight without a certain diet or vitamin (that, btw, that doctor is a rep for). I just don't buy it anymore. I think the various diets are designed to help our minds deal with dieting, not our bodies.

[Joker]

Calories in and calories out is basic science. You don't have to exercise if you eat a small enough amount of calories. If you are willing and able to exercise you can eat more calories. Losing weight is as "simple" as that. There was a man who ate nothing but junk food for a certain period of time and lost weight, without exercising. I'll have to have Dh look up the story for me again. That really made me quit hiding behind the excuse of "oh, I can't handle carbs so I can't lose weight". I've been watching calories and sure enough, regardless of what I eat, if I eat only 1200 calories a day I lose weight, without exercise. Of course, there are other factors to what you eat and what that food does to the biochemistry in your body. I'm not advocating eating junk food and not exercising, just saying that you can eat weight. I also know what some doctors say about a body holding on to fat and that a person can't lose weight without a certain diet or vitamin (that, btw, that doctor is a rep for). I just don't buy it anymore. I think the various diets are designed to help our minds deal with dieting, not our bodies.

 

I didn't lose any weight on 1200 calories a day. It wasn't until I ate more food (1500 calories a day) that I lost weight. When I ate more calories I lost 13 lbs in 7 weeks. I eat healthy but I just didn't feel like eating a lot. I finally listened to my dr. and ate more food and I'm losing weight and feeling better. I don't discount across the board that some do need to eat more to lose weight.

[YLVD]

Calories in and calories out is basic science. You don't have to exercise if you eat a small enough amount of calories. If you are willing and able to exercise you can eat more calories. Losing weight is as "simple" as that. There was a man who ate nothing but junk food for a certain period of time and lost weight, without exercising. I'll have to have Dh look up the story for me again. That really made me quit hiding behind the excuse of "oh, I can't handle carbs so I can't lose weight". I've been watching calories and sure enough, regardless of what I eat, if I eat only 1200 calories a day I lose weight, without exercise. Of course, there are other factors to what you eat and what that food does to the biochemistry in your body. I'm not advocating eating junk food and not exercising, just saying that you can eat weight. I also know what some doctors say about a body holding on to fat and that a person can't lose weight without a certain diet or vitamin (that, btw, that doctor is a rep for). I just don't buy it anymore. I think the various diets are designed to help our minds deal with dieting, not our bodies.

 

That is just not how every body works. It isn't.

 

I can eat within the right number of calories and not lose. I have to exercise. I cannot lose without exercise. I don't know why, but I can't. According to my doctor, he is much the same way and some people just are.

 

My DD is insulin resistant and calories in/ out does not work for her. The actual food she eats is key.

[WishboneDawn]

Calories in and calories out is basic science. You don't have to exercise if you eat a small enough amount of calories. If you are willing and able to exercise you can eat more calories. Losing weight is as "simple" as that. There was a man who ate nothing but junk food for a certain period of time and lost weight, without exercising. I'll have to have Dh look up the story for me again. That really made me quit hiding behind the excuse of "oh, I can't handle carbs so I can't lose weight". I've been watching calories and sure enough, regardless of what I eat, if I eat only 1200 calories a day I lose weight, without exercise. Of course, there are other factors to what you eat and what that food does to the biochemistry in your body. I'm not advocating eating junk food and not exercising, just saying that you can eat weight. I also know what some doctors say about a body holding on to fat and that a person can't lose weight without a certain diet or vitamin (that, btw, that doctor is a rep for). I just don't buy it anymore. I think the various diets are designed to help our minds deal with dieting, not our bodies.

 

It may be your experience and it may be the way your body functions but that's a far cry from it being a "simple" fact for everyone else. Bodies are complicated things, some run differently then others. We all carry different genetic legacies and cultural baggage. It's not a big deal or stretch to acknowledge that.

 

I'm in the more calories (within reason) group. Less calories for me means less energy which means no exercise and bad sleep which means weight gain. More calories (2000 a day is great) means much more energy, more exercise, better health and a nice slow weight loss. Even without a regular exercise routine.

 

I believe what you do works for you. But the fact that it works for you doesn't mean a different approach won't work for others.

[Plucky]

It may be your experience and it may be the way your body functions but that's a far cry from it being a "simple" fact for everyone else. Bodies are complicated things, some run differently then others. We all carry different genetic legacies and cultural baggage. It's not a big deal or stretch to acknowledge that.

 

I'm in the more calories (within reason) group. Less calories for me means less energy which means no exercise and bad sleep which means weight gain. More calories (2000 a day is great) means much more energy, more exercise, better health and a nice slow weight loss. Even without a regular exercise routine.

 

I believe what you do works for you. But the fact that it works for you doesn't mean a different approach won't work for others.

 

I agree with YLVD & Dawn. If it were really that simple we wouldn't have the struggle with weight we have in this country. I don't think everyone needs to eat low carb like my dr. is recommending for me, but my dr. also thinks that most overweight people are having problems with carbs and sugar. She says being overweight is just a symptom of the disease. Her methods are working for me and a lot of her patients.

 

I think some people that only have 10, 20, 30 lbs. to lose may not understand that because their biochemistry is different. That's okay, just realize we are all different.

[Pretty in Pink]

I agree that for individuals whose metabolisms aren't completely jacked up by a pattern of poor eating the solution, quite simply put, is calories in/calories out. I also believe that the equation becomes more complicated for many individuals who have lived on a poor diet for an extended period of time.

 

Then again, I know several individuals who have undergone gastric bypass surgery and they all lose a ridiculous amount of weight quite rapidly because they take in so few calories following surgery. I have a friend who could only eat baby food for the first several weeks. Of course she lost a lot of weight. She was barely eating anything. Was the surgery even necessary, or could she have just gone on the baby food diet and still lost the weight? Did her surgery somehow reset her metabolism, or was it the eating habits forced upon her as a consequence of the surgery?

[Plucky]

I agree that for individuals whose metabolisms aren't completely jacked up by a pattern of poor eating the solution, quite simply put, is calories in/calories out. I also believe that the equation becomes more complicated for many individuals who have lived on a poor diet for an extended period of time.

 

Then again, I know several individuals who have undergone gastric bypass surgery and they all lose a ridiculous amount of weight quite rapidly because they take in so few calories following surgery. I have a friend who could only eat baby food for the first several weeks. Of course she lost a lot of weight. She was barely eating anything. Was the surgery even necessary, or could she have just gone on the baby food diet and still lost the weight? Did her surgery somehow reset her metabolism, or was it the eating habits forced upon her as a consequence of the surgery?

 

For some of those people that get the lap band or gastric bypass the addiction is still there. Some even gain the weight back. Can you imagine going to the last resort according to the bariatric doctors and still gaining back the weight. :crying:

[YLVD]

I agree that for individuals whose metabolisms aren't completely jacked up by a pattern of poor eating the solution, quite simply put, is calories in/calories out. I also believe that the equation becomes more complicated for many individuals who have lived on a poor diet for an extended period of time.

 

Then again, I know several individuals who have undergone gastric bypass surgery and they all lose a ridiculous amount of weight quite rapidly because they take in so few calories following surgery. I have a friend who could only eat baby food for the first several weeks. Of course she lost a lot of weight. She was barely eating anything. Was the surgery even necessary, or could she have just gone on the baby food diet and still lost the weight? Did her surgery somehow reset her metabolism, or was it the eating habits forced upon her as a consequence of the surgery?

 

My DD has always eaten healthy. But, she has an endocrine issues. I have not dieted or eaten poorly, have a slightly sluggish metabolism, but it is not about calories in or out for me as much as it is exercise.

[Momof3littles]

I'm in the camp that believes calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that biochemically. I can eat 1500 calories of pasta, lean meat, etc. and feel positively ravenous. I can eat 1500 calories of fat, moderate protein, and veggies and feel full and satiated. Insulin spikes cause my sugar to crash and I'm super hungry an hour later. THat happens to me if I eat oatmeal (supposedly a "good" whole grain. Many diabetics will tell you their sugars end up super high after eating even plain rolled oats, before adding any sweetener), a bagel, or breakfast cereal.

 

People have jacked up metabolisms not just because they did something wrong. Environmental exposure (BPA, etc). There are some rodent studies showing the influence of what the "grandmother" rodent ate on subsequent generations.

 

I think a much larger percentage of the population is carb-sensitive than is widely acknowledged. People assume you must be diabetic in order to be carb-sensitive. There are a host of other conditions that are tied to insulin resistance or a tendency toward carb sensitivity. The average American IME doesn't think there's any need to be concerned until one is fully diabetic.

 

There are many thin/normal weight folks who are also carb-sensitive. I've always been of normal weight (or on the thin side) and have PCOS and am insulin resistant. I have eaten a whole foods, relatively healthy diet (always did whole grains, etc. not white/refined stuff, never ate fast or convenience foods, etc) my entire life. I am still IR. I didn't cause my IR through my lifestyle choices.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Momof3littles

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe your point was that if you have abused your body with sugar and white flour, then naturally you are going to feel better going low-carb, but that doesn't mean low-carb is optimal, right? And to a large extent, I completely agree with you! Our ancestors were omnivores, and the evidence shows they likely ate pretty much whatever they could get their hands on, whether it was comprised of carbs or fat: meat and lots of it, root vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds. Wherever they found a source of calories, they ate it. That's what our bodies are designed for, and I think if you eat like that, you *probably* don't need to count carbs or calories or anything else. (Although the 'eating anything you can get your hands on' instinct does us a disservice in the modern world, where food is so abundantly available!)

 

I think where you and I might disagree though (and I'm not on a crusade to change your mind, I promise, just musing) is that I think that grains are an unnatural food for the human body, and that they are harmful whether they are whole or refined, or even soaked and fermented as the Weston Price Foundation suggests. Mammals in general and humans in particular were not designed to digest and process grains. (Birds of course are a different story, but mammals don't eat grains.)

 

As someone who has always been interested anthropology, maybe I consider the evidence from archaeology to be more compelling than others would. To me, the archaeological evidence is pretty darn convincing. Skeletal remains from hunter-gatherer societies show tall, strong, healthy, long-lived people. But once agriculture comes along, all that changes. Suddenly the remains show that people weren't growing as tall but were carrying more extra weight, that they suffered from extensive tooth decay, that they lived into their forties instead of into their seventies.

Interesting.

 

Off in my own little corner musing . . .

 

Since I acknowledge that mankind is "special creation" by God, I do not believe that I am an animal. There are many, many similarities of biology among living creation, of course, and it would be silly to ignore them. I cannot, though, speculate that my human body was not designed by God to eat substances which, from the most ancient of times, were considered "food". (e.g. grains as a class within foods) What food substances "work" for my own specific body constitutes an entirely different set of reflections.

hmmm good point. Looks like I have some investigating to do.

 

I'm in the camp that believes calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that biochemically. I can eat 1500 calories of pasta, lean meat, etc. and feel positively ravenous. I can eat 1500 calories of fat, moderate protein, and veggies and feel full and satiated. Insulin spikes cause my sugar to crash and I'm super hungry an hour later. THat happens to me if I eat oatmeal (supposedly a "good" whole grain. Many diabetics will tell you their sugars end up super high after eating even plain rolled oats, before adding any sweetener), a bagel, or breakfast cereal.

 

People have jacked up metabolisms not just because they did something wrong. Environmental exposure (BPA, etc). There are some rodent studies showing the influence of what the "grandmother" rodent ate on subsequent generations.

 

I think a much larger percentage of the population is carb-sensitive than is widely acknowledged. People assume you must be diabetic in order to be carb-sensitive. There are a host of other conditions that are tied to insulin resistance or a tendency toward carb sensitivity. The average American IME doesn't think there's any need to be concerned until one is fully diabetic.

 

There are many thin/normal weight folks who are also carb-sensitive. I've always been of normal weight (or on the thin side) and have PCOS and am insulin resistant. I have eaten a whole foods, relatively healthy diet (always did whole grains, etc. not white/refined stuff, never ate fast or convenience foods, etc) my entire life. I am still IR. I didn't cause my IR through my lifestyle choices.

:iagree:I think high protein, high fat, high fiber is a better simplification. I also have to have a balanced meal. Some people purposely food combine... proteins and fats are eaten in separate meals from carbs. If I do that I am sick all of the time. Edited July 13, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Greta]

Calories in and calories out is basic science. ... Losing weight is as "simple" as that.

 

My dh and I go round and round about this! :lol: He's a physicist, and he thinks everything can be understood through math. I'm a biologist, and I try to convince him that living things are not like pulleys and levers, you cannot simply slap a mathematical equation on them and claim to fully understand them.

 

My first problem with the calories in vs calories out view (and I actually did finally win him over on this one!) is: what is a calorie? How is it measured? Well, they take a chunk of food, incinerate it until it's ash, and measure the amount of heat it generated. And this relates to the way a body uses food . . . how? Well clearly it doesn't. Our stomachs are not incinerators. Particularly with regards to protein, our bodies generally don't use protein for fuel, but more like for "scaffolding" for building us. So I would think protein shouldn't even be counted as part of the "calories in".

 

Now with carbs and fat, obviously that is our fuel. And how our bodies "burn" that fuel is governed not by rapid oxidation (fire) but by our hormones. When you eat carbs, your body creates insulin in response. When you eat fat, your body creates glucagon in response. These two hormones (among others) determine what your body does with your fuel, how it puts it to use. Will your fuel go into your muscle cells and organs for use, or into your fat cells for storage? Your hormones make that decision. And the amount and ratio you have of these hormones creates a cascade effect with all of the other hormones in your body: those that govern sleep, reproduction, everything.

 

My husband is so frustrated because even though he is super athletic, he has gained a teency amount of weight on his abdomen, his blood pressure and cholesterol are creeping up -- all of this despite the fact that he eats the same as he always has, and bikes anywhere from 12 - 60 miles per day and lifts weights and rows, etc., and never misses a day of exercise unless he is sick. Meanwhile, if I drop my carb intake below 50 grams per day, I lose so much weight without exercising much at all (15 or 20 minute walks or bike rides, three or four days per week) that he starts to worry about me and freaks out. And yet I still can't seem to convince him that it has nothing to do with calories in - calories out and everything to do with hormones. (Sigh.)

[Lovedtodeath]

Now with carbs and fat, obviously that is our fuel. And how our bodies "burn" that fuel is governed not by rapid oxidation (fire) but by our hormones.

You are so cool. Sincerely.

 

Okay, my food and sleep deprived brain will go back to bed now before I make a bigger fool of myself.

[Greta]

Off in my own little corner musing . . .

 

Since I acknowledge that mankind is "special creation" by God, I do not believe that I am an animal. There are many, many similarities of biology among living creation, of course, and it would be silly to ignore them. I cannot, though, speculate that my human body was not designed by God to eat substances which, from the most ancient of times, were considered "food". (e.g. grains as a class within foods) What food substances "work" for my own specific body constitutes an entirely different set of reflections.

 

:001_smile: I understand and respect that, and would like the chance to qualify the statement I made earlier. I believe that humans are animals. But I do not believe that humans are merely animals. So I do believe that the laws of physiology and our natural history as a species govern our health and well being. But I'm not a materialist.

[Greta]

You are so cool. Sincerely.

 

:lol: I assure you, I'm truly a total dork. Just ask my daughter. ;)

 

Okay, my food and sleep deprived brain will go back to bed now before I make a bigger fool of myself.

 

I haven't noticed any foolishness, but go get yourself some food and some rest!!! :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

:lol: I assure you, I'm truly a total dork. Just ask my daughter. ;)

That might be why this dork likes you so much. Okay, I am really going... my mom didn't take the kids so I could fool around on here.

[Britomart]

I'm in the camp that believes calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that biochemically. I can eat 1500 calories of pasta, lean meat, etc. and feel positively ravenous. I can eat 1500 calories of fat, moderate protein, and veggies and feel full and satiated. Insulin spikes cause my sugar to crash and I'm super hungry an hour later.

 

I should think that that proves that grains aren't satiating, not that calories in/calories out is incorrect.

 

It seems to me that a lot of this carbs bad/fats good/sugar bad etc. is about what makes it hard to eat a moderate amount of calories, not about whether eating a moderate amount of calories leads to weight maintenance.

 

I.e., if you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 2000 calories a day, your weight stays stable. But if those 2000 calories are crap, you're going to be hungry and then you're likely to eat more than 2000 calories. Right?

[Momof3littles]

I should think that that proves that grains aren't satiating, not that calories in/calories out is incorrect.

 

It seems to me that a lot of this carbs bad/fats good/sugar bad etc. is about what makes it hard to eat a moderate amount of calories, not about whether eating a moderate amount of calories leads to weight maintenance.

 

I.e., if you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 2000 calories a day, your weight stays stable. But if those 2000 calories are crap, you're going to be hungry and then you're likely to eat more than 2000 calories. Right?

 

Well, I agree with GretaLynne. I think calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification for the reasons she specified. Calories in/calories out just doesn't account for the hormonal/biochemical impact of what we eat.

 

That isn't to say that I don't think calories play some part (surely I would gain weight if I ate 4000 calories of higher fat/moderate protein per day since I have a smallish frame).

 

My primary issue w/ calories in/calories out is that it is often used to say that overweight people really need more "will power" more or less. I don't think that is fair. I think we are doing a disservice to many overweight people by telling them calories in/calories out would solve their problems. When the diet gurus oversimplify things to "calories in/calories out" without acknowledging the impact of insulin on hunger and fat storage, I feel it is really doing a great disservice to overweight Americans. They are left feeling like they are starving while trying to squeak by on minimal calories, and wondering why they don't have enough willpower.

[Cheryl in NM]

I didn't lose any weight on 1200 calories a day. It wasn't until I ate more food (1500 calories a day) that I lost weight. When I ate more calories I lost 13 lbs in 7 weeks. I eat healthy but I just didn't feel like eating a lot. I finally listened to my dr. and ate more food and I'm losing weight and feeling better. I don't discount across the board that some do need to eat more to lose weight.

 

Right, if we want to lose weight we must stay out of starvation mode which is a proven scientific fact. It sounds like you were in starvation mode at 1200 cal. a day. Myself, I can eat 1200 cal/day for a few days, but then I have to eat around 1400 cal/day to be effective.

 

It's all about how your body reacts and what it needs, but the calories in/calories out has been proven over and over again. While the "eat this" to lose weight regardless of how many calories you eat is what causes yo-yo dieting and continued obesity.

 

Everyone I know and have heard of that lost weight and kept it off was because they reduced calories in and increased calories out. They ate deserts and real sugar. I am insulin resistant and calories in/out is effective IF I stick to it. The problem is that it's hard and we all want a "magic bullet". I'll agree there are a few diseases that make it harder to lose weight, but in the long run, you will lose weight if you are faithful about calories in/out. I've spoken to several nurses, dietician and doctors over the years about my weight loss and they've all told me what I am telling you now.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[Orthodox6]

:001_smile: I understand and respect that, and would like the chance to qualify the statement I made earlier. I believe that humans are animals. But I do not believe that humans are merely animals. So I do believe that the laws of physiology and our natural history as a species govern our health and well being. But I'm not a materialist.

 

I think you registered that I was not being combative, -- (Thanks!) -- but that I just was musing aloud to myself off in that cyber-corner. When dd's interest was caught by the icon of Adam naming the animals, that forced me to read and think about that event and its implications. God creates the body and immortal soul of each human simultaneously. The animal soul is not immortal; at a definitional point, then, animals and people differ radically. (This is Orthodox teaching, not me speculating.)

 

As I noted before, anyway, the biological similarities between people and animal are very great. Many scientific properties descriptive of one exist for the other.

 

It has not been that long that I have "come out of the closet" and affirmed that I am not an animal, so I don't even look for much agreement other than from Orthodox people. :)

Edited July 13, 2011 by Orthodox6

[Cheryl in NM]

I'm in the camp that believes calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that biochemically. I can eat 1500 calories of pasta, lean meat, etc. and feel positively ravenous. I can eat 1500 calories of fat, moderate protein, and veggies and feel full and satiated. Insulin spikes cause my sugar to crash and I'm super hungry an hour later. THat happens to me if I eat oatmeal (supposedly a "good" whole grain. Many diabetics will tell you their sugars end up super high after eating even plain rolled oats, before adding any sweetener), a bagel, or breakfast cereal.

 

People have jacked up metabolisms not just because they did something wrong. Environmental exposure (BPA, etc). There are some rodent studies showing the influence of what the "grandmother" rodent ate on subsequent generations.

 

I think a much larger percentage of the population is carb-sensitive than is widely acknowledged. People assume you must be diabetic in order to be carb-sensitive. There are a host of other conditions that are tied to insulin resistance or a tendency toward carb sensitivity. The average American IME doesn't think there's any need to be concerned until one is fully diabetic.

 

There are many thin/normal weight folks who are also carb-sensitive. I've always been of normal weight (or on the thin side) and have PCOS and am insulin resistant. I have eaten a whole foods, relatively healthy diet (always did whole grains, etc. not white/refined stuff, never ate fast or convenience foods, etc) my entire life. I am still IR. I didn't cause my IR through my lifestyle choices.

 

But if you don't eat when you feel hungry and stick to your 1500 cal a day then you won't gain weight. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about facts, not feelings.

[Cheryl in NM]

If it is simply calories in vs calories out then why do people go on a calorie restricted diet and go through periods of time where they don't lose weight? (I recognize this is also true of other types of diets.)

 

Because your body gets used to it. Everyone has a set amount of calories needed to maintain their current weight. So as you lose weight you need less calories. When you plateau try cutting your calories or increasing your exercise.

 

Food = calories in

Exercise/movement = calories out

[Cheryl in NM]

I should think that that proves that grains aren't satiating, not that calories in/calories out is incorrect.

 

It seems to me that a lot of this carbs bad/fats good/sugar bad etc. is about what makes it hard to eat a moderate amount of calories, not about whether eating a moderate amount of calories leads to weight maintenance.

 

I.e., if you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 2000 calories a day, your weight stays stable. But if those 2000 calories are crap, you're going to be hungry and then you're likely to eat more than 2000 calories. Right?

 

Exactly what I was trying to say!

[Cheryl in NM]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

Here's the story I referred to in my original post.

[Cheryl in NM]

Yes, but then people adjust for that and still don't lose weight.

 

Just like everything in life, we must constantly adjust. You keep adjusting until you reach your goal weight and then that plateau is your maintenance caloric intake.

[Momof3littles]

I have a little one nursing in my lap right now. I don't think calories have absolutely no bearing on weight. My standpoint is that calories in/calories out is still a gross oversimplification of how it works and I don't think it is particularly helpful to those who are already overweight. It comes across as "just eat less" when managing appetite, cravings, etc. is really so much more complex.

 

I'll reference Taubes because I'm typing one handed now.

http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

 

[Lovedtodeath]

See the problem is that I keep putting just a little gas in my car each day and the car just keeps getting heavier. I make sure I only put the recommended amount of gas but something isn't working right.

[Lovedtodeath]

Just like everything in life, we must constantly adjust. You keep adjusting until you reach your goal weight and then that plateau is your maintenance caloric intake.

Curves flies in the face of all of that. They use a phase 3 system to get you back up to eating 1800-2000 calories per day.

[Lovedtodeath]

The ignition is broken in my car. It can't turn the gas into fuel!

[regentrude]

Ok if I go along with the premise that it is as simple as that (calories in and calories out) why are so many people unable to naturally eat the amount of food they need and be done? Why must they subject themselves to a life of careful calorie calculating and feel hungry all the time? Why are people so hungry? While yes, sometimes we eat just cuz we like it, a lot of people eat because they really are hungry.

 

I believe that one major contributing factor is that people at a young age lose touch with their natural hunger. Asking a child to eat until the plate is empty, eating just because it is a certain time of the day, eating for any other reason (company, boredom, depression) are all things that diminish the natural awareness about one's hunger. Many people in our developed countries with the abundance of foods are never truly hungry and could not even identify the feeling - they merely have an appetite for food, a craving, a desire.

 

At the same time, being sedentary makes people less aware of their own weight and body fitness. To simplify: if I climb mountains or run, I will notice immediately if I have gained weight/am out of shape and will self-regulate my eating. A sitting life style does not let a person feel weight gain as easily.

[Britomart]

My primary issue w/ calories in/calories out is that it is often used to say that overweight people really need more "will power" more or less. I don't think that is fair.

 

Logically, I don't think "fair" has much to do with whether or not it's true. The question is, is it true? "Is it true?" is a question you can have a proper discussion about. "Is it fair?" . . . well, it's fair if it's true.

 

I think we are doing a disservice to many overweight people by telling them calories in/calories out would solve their problems. When the diet gurus oversimplify things to "calories in/calories out" without acknowledging the impact of insulin on hunger and fat storage, I feel it is really doing a great disservice to overweight Americans. They are left feeling like they are starving while trying to squeak by on minimal calories, and wondering why they don't have enough willpower.

 

I think it might be better to say that we're doing a disservice if we only talk about calories in/calories out. That is, if we talk about calories in/calories out but never talk about how to do it without starving. That's where all the satiating-food-vs.-empty-calories stuff would come in. But I think we're doing folks a disservice if we say, "You can eat as much as you want" or "you never have to moderate your portions". Because that's just not so, unless you're talking about, I dunno, lettuce, or something else where you are physically incapable of taking in enough volume of it to equal your daily calorie burn. (Or, as has been pointed out, if you're talking to someone who has a physical malady that changes the equation.)

[Lovedtodeath]

How accurate is calorie counting anyway? Packaged foods are allowed a pretty wide margin of error. Fruits and vegetables vary depending on the stage of ripeness. Forget about it if you try to cook stuff with more than one ingredient. If I put butter in my bowl of pasta, how much of the butter did I end up with on my portion?

YES! It is very difficult to cook a multiple ingredient meal for the whole family and then know exactly how many calories I ended up with.

[Momof3littles]

Logically, I don't think "fair" has much to do with whether or not it's true. The question is, is it true? "Is it true?" is a question you can have a proper discussion about. "Is it fair?" . . . well, it's fair if it's true.

 

 

 

I think it might be better to say that we're doing a disservice if we only talk about calories in/calories out. That is, if we talk about calories in/calories out but never talk about how to do it without starving. That's where all the satiating-food-vs.-empty-calories stuff would come in. But I think we're doing folks a disservice if we say, "You can eat as much as you want" or "you never have to moderate your portions". Because that's just not so, unless you're talking about, I dunno, lettuce, or something else where you are physically incapable of taking in enough volume of it to equal your daily calorie burn. (Or, as has been pointed out, if you're talking to someone who has a physical malady that changes the equation.)

 

I agree w/ many of your points. Again, I never said calories don't matter at all. I agree that we are doing a disservice if we *only* talk about calories in/calories out because it is a total oversimplification. How often are you seeing experts expand on the calories in/calories out principle? Everything is supposed to be "balanced" and they are supposed to eat many servings of whole grains to lose weight each day according to most of the sources out there. There are people who can lose weight while eating some whole grains, etc. But there is a huge percentage of the population, especially in the overweight population, who just can't handle a lot of carbs and grains. Yet we continue to tell pretty much everyone to eat several servings of whole grains every day and they'll lose weight and be healthy. There is very little information in the general public about how things like insulin spikes make it easy to store fat and increase hunger. What I read and hear is mostly "eat less, have more willpower, and you will lose weight" and I think that really is doing many people a disservice. Oh, and "fat" is evil and will kill you :D

Edited July 13, 2011 by Momof3littles

[Britomart]

I agree w/ many of your points. However, how often are you seeing experts expand on the calories in/calories out principle? Everything is supposed to be "balanced" and they are supposed to eat many servings of whole grains to lose weight each day according to most of the sources out there. There are people who can lose weight while eating some whole grains, etc. But there is a huge percentage of the population, especially in the overweight population, who just can't handle a lot of carbs and grains. Yet we continue to tell pretty much everyone to eat several servings of whole grains every day and they'll lose weight and be healthy. There is very little information in the general public about how things like insulin spikes make it easy to store fat and increase hunger. What I read and hear is mostly "eat less, have more willpower, and you will lose weight" and I think that really is doing many people a disservice. Oh, and "fat" is evil and will kill you :D

 

Yeah, it is hard to get a broad and wide view of the subject from soundbites, that's for sure. I'm prone to reading up on anything I'm interested in - just my personality - and so I guess I assume that most people who really care about a subject are going to do the same thing. Maybe we need a rule that any health expert on a TV show needs to say, "But this is just where you ought to start: DO YOUR OWN FURTHER RESEARCH." :lol:

[Pretty in Pink]

I think that could be part of it. My husband grew up with a mother who made him clean his plate. He has a weight problem (so does the rest of his family). When I visit I'm considered rude if I don't want to try at least one piece of each of the five cakes. It's ridiculous and my husband can't get that mentality out of his head.

 

Yup. I am sure that a lot of us grew up in the 'clean plate club'. I know that was the motto in both my and dh's home growing up.

 

I've also heard of studies which suggest a link between bottle feeding and overeating. I think the theory is that, because it's more work to extract milk from a breast than a bottle, breastfed infants are likely to eat more slowly and therefore respond to feelings of fullness rather than just draining a bottle quickly. Also, parents might tend to prepare full bottles and then encourage baby to finish rather than 'wasting' formula.

[Britomart]

Curves flies in the face of all of that. They use a phase 3 system to get you back up to eating 1800-2000 calories per day.

 

I honestly think 1800-2000 calories is a lot less than most Americans eat each day. I know it's a lot less than I used to eat.

 

I think starting to count your calories is the same sort of shocking that going for a bra-fitting is: you just had no idea that the numbers were that different from what you thought they were! :lol:

[Momof3littles]

Yeah, it is hard to get a broad and wide view of the subject from soundbites, that's for sure. I'm prone to reading up on anything I'm interested in - just my personality - and so I guess I assume that most people who really care about a subject are going to do the same thing. Maybe we need a rule that any health expert on a TV show needs to say, "But this is just where you ought to start: DO YOUR OWN FURTHER RESEARCH." :lol:

 

Hey, you mean we WTM type folks aren't normal??? :D :lol: IME, most people do not dig deeper. They catch the sound bites, they believe the news story that distorts the study, etc.

[Cheryl in NM]

Ok if I go along with the premise that it is as simple as that (calories in and calories out) why are so many people unable to naturally eat the amount of food they need and be done? Why must they subject themselves to a life of careful calorie calculating and feel hungry all the time? Why are people so hungry? While yes, sometimes we eat just cuz we like it, a lot of people eat because they really are hungry.

 

Really? You believe that people are physically unable to control themselves? I'm not being snarky, just curious. It's a mental issue, not a calories in/out issue. They are linked but that doesn't mean that treating the mind negates the physical reality of calories in/out.

[Britomart]

How accurate is calorie counting anyway? Packaged foods are allowed a pretty wide margin of error. Fruits and vegetables vary depending on the stage of ripeness. Forget about it if you try to cook stuff with more than one ingredient. If I put butter in my bowl of pasta, how much of the butter did I end up with on my portion?

 

Well, if you're cooking for four, say, and you use 16 oz. of pasta and 2 T. butter and you eat 1/4 of what's in the pot, you ate 4 oz. of pasta and 1/2 T of butter, or about 450 calories. I'm not being snarky; that's how I figure it.

[Plucky]

Really? You believe that people are physically unable to control themselves? I'm not being snarky, just curious. It's a mental issue, not a calories in/out issue. They are linked but that doesn't mean that treating the mind negates the physical reality of calories in/out.

 

No, it isn't. It is a biochemistry issue. The sugar in the bloodstream and the insulin malfunction cause the body to crave more carbs and sugar. A person on the diet can keep trying, but they are constantly up against the cravings and blood sugar issues that make them feel sick. It is very hard for an overweight person with a glucose intolerance to limit calories when they are still relying on their carbs. Their own body works against them.

[Cindyz]

I wasn't able to read all of the pages, but here are a few that I didn't see mentioned.

 

1. Processed foods are cheaper than whole foods.

2. Processed foods are easier and quicker than whole foods.

3. Americans work a LOT of hours and have little time for food preparation compared to past generations so they will resort to fast foods and processed foods.

4. We have moved further and further away from physical jobs into jobs that are more sedentary so we are not getting the natural work out that previous generations got.

5. Americans work a LOT of hours and have little time to exercise each day.

6. Advertisement inundation to make us feel that eating good = the good life.

[YLVD]

Really? You believe that people are physically unable to control themselves? I'm not being snarky, just curious. It's a mental issue, not a calories in/out issue. They are linked but that doesn't mean that treating the mind negates the physical reality of calories in/out.

 

I'm not sure what you are not understanding. I don't mean to be snarky, but many of us have explained it on this thread.

 

My DD can't eat too many grains or carbs. Period. She has an endocrine issue and is insulin resistant. According to her pediatric endocrinologist, it isn't uncommon to see it more and more among young people. Part of that comes excruciating cravings for breads, etc. It's hard to fight. She works hard to do it.

 

I'm my hypoglycemic, extremely so. I work hard to manage symptoms. But, if I'm caught without a protein source somewhere, I will become so shaky that I look like a drug addict, and then once I finally get food in my mouth, I way overeat because my body won't settle down. That isn't self-control, that's being able to function.

 

I fainted in a college class once for eating breakfast cereal with no protein or fat with it.

 

I work really hard to manage symptoms but it happens. My SO was shocked the first time he saw a blood sugar attack happen and the amount of food and type of food I had to eat afterword just to be able to stand up and walk around.

[YLVD]

Oh so you think it's a "control" issue in the sense of "weakness" when a person gives in and eats something because they are feeling starved (even though they ate their calorie allotment for the day)?

 

I'm told that a nice steamy bowl of oatmeal makes a great breakfast. So I eat the nice lovely bowl of oatmeal (topped with a little sugar because sugar is not as evil as fat as we all know). Half an hour later I feel like I'm dying of hunger. My head is spinning and I'm light headed. It's half an hour later. I ate my calorie allotment for breakfast. What shall I do? Just fight through that awful pain so I can show my "self control"?

 

I'm happy for you if you don't have this problem, but you cannot say how others feel and what is going on in their body.

 

:iagree:

[YLVD]

Just like everything in life, we must constantly adjust. You keep adjusting until you reach your goal weight and then that plateau is your maintenance caloric intake.

 

That is not the same for everyone, unless you are saying that the endocrinologist my DD sees, as well as my own doctor, are wrong. That is just not the way that all bodies work. Period.

 

My DD could eat 800 calories and not lose a pound. Up the calories, add some healthy protein and fats, decrease grains and huge weight loss.

[Cheryl in NM]

No, it isn't. It is a biochemistry issue. The sugar in the bloodstream and the insulin malfunction cause the body to crave more carbs and sugar. A person on the diet can keep trying, but they are constantly up against the cravings and blood sugar issues that make them feel sick. It is very hard for an overweight person with a glucose intolerance to limit calories when they are still relying on their carbs. Their own body works against them.

 

I understand this. I am insulin resistant. I find that protein and fiber fill me up so that's how I choose to eat. I still watch calories. I agree that how you feel affects how you will stick to a diet, but ultimately, it's calories in/out. Did you read the article I linked?

[WishboneDawn]

That is not the same for everyone, unless you are saying that the endocrinologist my DD sees, as well as my own doctor, are wrong. That is just not the way that all bodies work. Period.

 

My DD could eat 800 calories and not lose a pound. Up the calories, add some healthy protein and fats, decrease grains and huge weight loss.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm not sure why this is so tough to understand. Some people lose weight by different means then other people. That shouldn't be terribly surprising considering all the different ways different people process and are affected by different foods.

[Cheryl in NM]

Oh so you think it's a "control" issue in the sense of "weakness" when a person gives in and eats something because they are feeling starved (even though they ate their calorie allotment for the day)?

 

I'm told that a nice steamy bowl of oatmeal makes a great breakfast. So I eat the nice lovely bowl of oatmeal (topped with a little sugar because sugar is not as evil as fat as we all know). Half an hour later I feel like I'm dying of hunger. My head is spinning and I'm light headed. It's half an hour later. I ate my calorie allotment for breakfast. What shall I do? Just fight through that awful pain so I can show my "self control"?

 

I'm happy for you if you don't have this problem, but you cannot say how others feel and what is going on in their body.

 

I do have this problem. I choose to change how I eat so that I can consume less calories so I can lose weight. For me, adding a little protein helps. I manage to eat protein at every meal and stay under 1500 cal/day, sometimes I even stay under 1300 cal/day.

 

So, yes, it's a will power issue, in part. If what you are doing isn't working, then find out what works for you. But you won't lose weight if you are consuming more calories than you are expending. It's a scientific fact. Did you read the article I linked?

[Cheryl in NM]

I'm not so sure what is so difficult to understand about what I'm saying. You cannot lose weight if you are eating more calories than you are expending. Period. End of story. Scientifically proven. But...you can choose what to eat to control how you feel. I've never denied that. I suffer from issues that cause me to eat a certain way and nutrients in certain proportions. That doesn't give me license to eat 2500 cal/day, not exercise and complain that I CAN'T lost weight.

 

If those of you that oppose what I'm saying will actually read what I'm writing and what you are writing you will see that we are not talking about quite the same thing. You are talking about what proportions to eat food in and saying that those proportions, regardless of calories consumed, will help you lose weight. I am saying the eat whatever you want in whatever proportions you need, but to consume less calories than you expend. I just don't see how that is insulting to some. And some of you have been insulted and have then insulted me. It's really sad that we can't just discuss an issue without people taking things personally and attacking others. Can't we just discuss the issue?

[Pretty in Pink]

Oh so you think it's a "control" issue in the sense of "weakness" when a person gives in and eats something because they are feeling starved (even though they ate their calorie allotment for the day)?

 

I'm told that a nice steamy bowl of oatmeal makes a great breakfast. So I eat the nice lovely bowl of oatmeal (topped with a little sugar because sugar is not as evil as fat as we all know). Half an hour later I feel like I'm dying of hunger. My head is spinning and I'm light headed. It's half an hour later. I ate my calorie allotment for breakfast. What shall I do? Just fight through that awful pain so I can show my "self control"?

 

I'm happy for you if you don't have this problem, but you cannot say how others feel and what is going on in their body.

 

Is this what everyone means by 'carb sensitive'? If one eats only carbs for breakfast of course they will be hungry in half an hour. I don't have any metabolic or dietary issues and I would be hungry if I only ate a bowl of oatmeal or cold cereal for breakfast. Isn't that just the nature of digesting carbohydrates -- we use them up more quickly than proteins and fats?

 

I served oatmeal for breakfast yesterday. Rolled Quaker oats. For four servings I added in 1/2 cup of sliced almonds and 1/4 cup of sunflower kernels, plus a touch of cinnamon and brown sugar. I served the oatmeal alongside eggs (two per person), a small serving of fruit, and ~ 4 oz. milk. This was at 7:30 a.m. and we all began feeling hungry again around 11:30, just in time for lunch. Granted, I have no idea how many calories that meal totals to, but it seems like a well-rounded meal to me. I wouldn't consider a solitary bowl of relatively plain oatmeal to be a complete meal.