What made Americans fat..........

[justamouse]

y'all reminded me I have 5 avacados in the fridge. :D I'm going to have them with breakfast eggs.

[Nestof3]

Yeah, I always laugh when people act like I eat no vegetable matter because I LC. By far, we eat more veggies than most families I know! Dinner is a salad, a veggie, and a protein, or two veggie sides and a protein, or a big salad and a protein. I find it easier to fit a lot of veggies in our lifestyle as a result.

 

I was referring to a few lettuce leaves and a side salad. It doesn't sound like a lot of veggies and fiber there. That's why I asked.

[Luvmy3kids]

But WHY do americans eat too much???? Why are people eating a ton and still hungry? That is the real question, and one that the OP answered.

 

 

I think it is because your body is needing NUTRIENTS, which it does not get completely from a highly refined diet with high fat and high sugar content.

[nono]

I have a had time giving accurate recipes, though. I make them up as a go along, so they tend to not be very consistent. :D

 

A true cook! Well, if you change your mind, I'd love to have your contributions!

 

(Note, I have not added one recipe to that thread that contains bacon. I am more than a one trick pony. :tongue_smilie:)

[justamouse]

A true cook! Well, if you change your mind, I'd love to have your contributions!

 

(Note, I have not added one recipe to that thread that contains bacon. I am more than a one trick pony. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Ya gotta go with your strengths.

 

I make recipes up as I go along, I have no idea what to add to that thread. :001_smile:

[nono]

Ya gotta go with your strengths.

 

I make recipes up as I go along, I have no idea what to add to that thread. :001_smile:

 

You could use the popcorn smiley. :D

[Juniper]

With all due respect, one of the troubles with the conversation is the imprecise use of terms. For ex "Starving myself" means nothing but water, but for many people it means cutting out the seconds/thirds, the nibbling while preparing the plate, and the dessert. "Exercise" and "active" do not mean a stroll with the children to the playground or taking the garbage can out to the driveway or being on one's feet doing light household chores; they have specific meanings related to a person's aerobic fitness or strength.

 

You asked about changes that affect everyone. The biggest change is in calories consumed, as well as source of those calories, when comparing to what one's grandparents consumed.

 

If you are hypoglycemic, your issues aren't just with your food intake and your solution isn't going to work for others who do not have your genetics or health issues.

 

I just wanted to make a comment about this, because I think it was a lot of people are not realizing. In America, with the nutritional makeup and quality of our easily accesible food stuffs and produce, many WOULD be nutritionally STARVING if they cut out those seconds, thirds, snacks and desserts.

 

That is why the whole eat less, move more thing falls apart. :glare:

 

 

 

.....but, I also think this is something that is inherently difficult for the masses to face, because our government wouldn't REALLY allow this to happen to our food supply right?

 

I mean an ear of corn is an ear of corn? right? A glass of milk is a glass of milk? Or is the raw milk straight from our own dairy goats going to give more nutrients that the Gallons have cows at Sam's? How many glasses of Sam's milk would I have to consume to get the same nutrients I get from my goats?

 

Many people who are obese are STARVING! There physiology has changed. From Insulin to metabolic rates to liver enzymes, they are in serious trouble, and I don't think the answer is a simple as eat less, move more.

[justamouse]

Many people who are obese are STARVING! There physiology has changed. From Insulin to metabolic rates to liver enzymes, they are in serious trouble, and I don't think the answer is a simple as eat less, move more.

 

Where I used to live, there was a morbidly obese family. They ate almost nothing. I was utterly gobsmacked one day when the mom told me what they eat. Boxes of mac and cheese and iceberg lettuce. Lots of starches. The occasional london broil.

 

Then the father had a heart attack and they went to low fat. :glare: And they were the working poor. Not on welfare, but there was a strict budget.

 

They really didn't eat a lot. And then, what they did eat was so nutritional empty--I used to give them all of my eggs from my chickens, just hoping that they'd get some dense nutrients into them.

[Stacy in NJ]

Everyone who has dared to voice the opinion that portion size, too much junk food, or too sedentary lifestyle are the cause of much (not all, but much) of the weight issues in this country has been chastised and accused of insulting all overweight people. I'm glad that you and others have had some success with this. However, a lot of people are overweight because of their choices, not because of IR, how little fat they eat, or how many carbs they eat. There are a whole lot of people for whom a LCHF diet would not be best.

 

For the record, I'm not bashing overweight people. I'm not some skinny little thing who has never fought her weight (nothing against those who are). I have battled my weight almost my entire life. I currently am fighting against a medicine that has increased my weight gain & made losing weight almost impossible. I've had all the tests done. I don't have diabetes, IR, thyroid issues, etc. Even once I get off this medication, my weight will still be a battle. There is no simple fix for me. I can't just cut down (or out) on any food group and have the weight suddenly become easy to lose & manage. I actually have several issues that make weight loss very difficult. Yet, I can still look at the national/global problem objectively and see that much of it can be helped/fixed by eating a healthy diet instead of junk and making more of an effort to move.

 

Let's say I'm a 30 year old woman who wants to lose 10 pounds. I'm not obese; I'm hardly overweight. I just have a little extra padding that I'd like to get rid of.

 

I decide to take up running - something I haven't done before. So, 3 times a week, I run 3 miles. My muscles are stronger, my lung capacity has grown. I'm feeling good, but I still haven't lost that extra 10 pounds.

 

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

 

So, I decide to start watching more closely what I eat. Based upon advice from the AMA and the AHA, I decide to eliminate some fat from my diet and increase my whole grain intake (carbs). I replace my whole milk, full fat yoghurt, cream cheese, cheese, and sour cream with low fat versions. I cut down on meat (particularly red meat), eggs, and butter. I eat more whole grain bread, brown rice, and potatoes - all of these without butter because butter is bad.

 

After doing all this I've found that I seem to have less energy particularly in the evenings. I've taken to snacking a bit more at night, but I'm eating low-fat yoghurt instead of potato chips, so that's okay, right? But, I'm not losing weight; in fact, I've gained another 5 pounds. Must be my metabolism as I age.

 

Now I'm 35 and 15 pounds overweight. I've gone back and forth with both my low-fat diet and my running. My weight has fluctuated back and forth with my efforts. Sometimes I'm focused and am able to do both, sometimes I'm "bad" and fall off the wagon - eating foods I know I shouldn't and not exercising "enough". I feel great about myself when I'm able to master the diet and the running, but I feel awful about myself when I don't.

 

Good news, I got married and decided to have a baby! I love my bundle of joy, but boy does parenting take up a lot of energy. I have interrupted sleep and am finding it even more challenging to exercise and watch what I eat. I've gained another 10 pounds. I need to take drastic action if I want to get my weight and health under control. I go on a more calorie restrictive diet and join a gym. I'm eating less and exercising more and losing weight, but its slow going, and I feel hungry constantly and crave sweets. I fall off my diet and gain back all the weight I've lost plus an extra 10 pounds. I'm a horrible, undisciplined human being and a fat pig. I give up.

 

This is the experience, or something similar to it, of millions of Americans. What if the things we're supposed to do to lose weight - eat less and exercise more, and eat more grains and less fat, actually contributes to the problem instead of helping us?

 

When we take the fat and protein out of our diets and replace it with carbs we increase our insulin level and increase are cravings for higher carb foods. It is an ugly cycle. Some folks don't experience it at all - for whatever reason. But many, many people do. Some only marginally. For me, it was that persistent 20 pounds that I just could not keep off. For others, it's more weight, and their cycle is a sharp spiral straight down into fat hell. For them, it probably began in childhood.

 

So, we can yammer on all day about portion size and the poor quality of fast food, but if we don't address the basic issue - too many carbs, not enough fat and protein in the diet - we will FAIL.

 

Being fat isn't a moral failure or a character defect. Its biology and chemistry. If we get the biology and chemistry right we'll have fewer fat people with fewer health issues. And, probably fewer mental health issues as well.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Stacy in NJ

[PrairieSong]

Where I used to live, there was a morbidly obese family. They ate almost nothing. I was utterly gobsmacked one day when the mom told me what they eat. Boxes of mac and cheese and iceberg lettuce. Lots of starches. The occasional london broil.

 

I know a family of five who are all very heavy. The kids are now grown, but our kids were sometimes be on the same sports teams. At games, they would ALWAYS have sodas and candy bars. The kids would be clamoring for money to buy something from the snack bar, which the parents would usually give them. The games didn't last more than 1 to 1.5 hours.

 

These games were usually right after the dinner hour. I'm assuming they ate before they came, but I didn't ask of course. We rarely ate during games because we weren't hungry.

 

I saw a morbidly obese guy (an acquaintance) buying groceries, and his cart was full of ice cream, soda, cookies, junk. He didn't see me and I wondered if he would be embarrassed at what he had in his cart, so I went the other way.

 

So I don't think all the obese people are eating tiny amounts of food, or trying to eat healthy. I think junk food is very addicting. We consume vast amounts of sugar, much of it in the form of high fructose corn syrup, and it makes our blood sugar spike and then plummet, so we're hungry again. A vicious cycle. Then we feel sluggish so we don't move.

[Juniper]

I know a family of five who are all very heavy. The kids are now grown, but our kids were sometimes be on the same sports teams. At games, they would ALWAYS have sodas and candy bars. The kids would be clamoring for money to buy something from the snack bar, which the parents would usually give them. The games didn't last more than 1 to 1.5 hours.

 

These games were usually right after the dinner hour. I'm assuming they ate before they came, but I didn't ask of course. We rarely ate during games because we weren't hungry.

 

I saw a morbidly obese guy (an acquaintance) buying groceries, and his cart was full of ice cream, soda, cookies, junk. He didn't see me and I wondered if he would be embarrassed at what he had in his cart, so I went the other way.

 

So I don't think all the obese people are eating tiny amounts of food, or trying to eat healthy. I think junk food is very addicting. We consume vast amounts of sugar, much of it in the form of high fructose corn syrup, and it makes our blood sugar spike and then plummet, so we're hungry again. A vicious cycle. Then we feel sluggish so we don't move.

 

 

I think it can manifest in both forms. What is so hard...and you alluded to...is that even though they are making poor food choices and poor quantity choices...they are still nutritionally starving so the cycle continues.

 

I had one rather intelligent mom tell me, "Why shouldn't I let the kids have icecream for breakfast? What is the difference between a bowl of icecream or frosted flakes with milk?" The sad part....she has a point. :tongue_smilie:

[Parrothead]

Merriweather talked about it *repeatedly*. So did I.

 

I'm wondering if anyone who disagreed actually read any of our posts or watched the vids.

Maybe I missed it. But I didnt' see anyone who disagreed that what you are doing works for you. Just that they disagreed that what you (and the others who like HFLC) are doing works for everyone or is the only way to eat.

[Stacy in NJ]

Don't you think these folks have just given up, though? They know they can't win the low-fat more exercise war, so they just accept the weight and the consequences.

 

They feel hopeless so they don't even try.

 

I know a family of five who are all very heavy. The kids are now grown, but our kids were sometimes be on the same sports teams. At games, they would ALWAYS have sodas and candy bars. The kids would be clamoring for money to buy something from the snack bar, which the parents would usually give them. The games didn't last more than 1 to 1.5 hours.

 

These games were usually right after the dinner hour. I'm assuming they ate before they came, but I didn't ask of course. We rarely ate during games because we weren't hungry.

 

I saw a morbidly obese guy (an acquaintance) buying groceries, and his cart was full of ice cream, soda, cookies, junk. He didn't see me and I wondered if he would be embarrassed at what he had in his cart, so I went the other way.

 

So I don't think all the obese people are eating tiny amounts of food, or trying to eat healthy. I think junk food is very addicting. We consume vast amounts of sugar, much of it in the form of high fructose corn syrup, and it makes our blood sugar spike and then plummet, so we're hungry again. A vicious cycle. Then we feel sluggish so we don't move.

[Juniper]

Maybe I missed it. But I didnt' see anyone who disagreed that what you are doing works for you. Just that they disagreed that what you (and the others who like HFLC) are doing works for everyone or is the only way to eat.

 

For the most part I agree with you, but there were definitely a few posters who were adamant on the eat less, move more mantra. ;)

[Stacy in NJ]

I suggest that people stop giving fat cells so much power over their psyche.

 

I'm sure we'll have less cancer then.

 

Again, if it's not clear, my comment was a joke.

[PrairieSong]

Absolutely, but I see plenty of thin people eating like that. People automatically assume thin = must be eating healthy. Or fat = must be eating unhealthy or too much.

 

Oh yes, me too. I see both. I was just responding to the PP's observation of some heavy people eating very little, and showing another side.

 

It's so weird, isn't it? Some people can consume vast amounts of food/carbs and still be thin, and others are very overweight.

 

I always tell my thin dh that if I ate exactly what he did, I'd probably gain weight.

[PrairieSong]

Don't you think these folks have just given up, though? They know they can't win the low-fat more exercise war, so they just accept the weight and the consequences.

 

They feel hopeless so they don't even try.

 

Yes, I think so, and it makes me sad for them.

[Parrothead]

For the most part I agree with you, but there were definitely a few posters who were adamant on the eat less, move more mantra. ;)

:iagree:

[SKL]

If I took up running to deal with a little middle age spread, I would not expect to lose weight. I would expect to become more toned/fit and probably stay around the same weight (assuming my exercise program was reasonable).

 

Some people seem to be putting too much emphasis on weight. The business of switching from one tactic to another to lose a few pounds is the beginning of long-term weight problems for many people.

 

My daughters both have above average BMIs despite being slim. One of my daughters (who will be 6 in October) still wears size 2-3 shorts and underwear. Bigger stuff literally falls off. But she's very muscular. My other daughter has a more typical waistline but also muscular legs and arms, and a big bone structure. (Her ribcage is much larger than her waist, for example.) Her BMI is in the 70-something percentile. I do have to watch what she eats, but she's not fat by any stretch. Both of my kids also have markedly low blood pressure for their age, and lots of strength and stamina. So I feel that they are very healthy. You have to look at the big picture. I am sure some above are doing just that, but some of the comments make me wonder.

[SKL]

I'm sure we'll have less cancer then.

 

Again, if it's not clear, my comment was a joke.

 

Actually there is a lot of truth to that as well. Cancer is successfully fought off by many people. (And no, I'm not talking woo-woo medicine.)

[Stacy in NJ]

the point of the article is that exercise is pointless for weight loss purposes. It may improve your health in other ways, but it won't help you lose weight.

 

 

Buried in Taub's article is the salient point:

 

This is not to say that there aren’t excellent reasons to be physically active, as these reports invariably point out. We might just enjoy exercise. We may increase our overall fitness; we may live longer, perhaps by reducing our risk of heart disease or diabetes; we’ll probably feel better about ourselves.

 

I don't understand why Taub is so passive in making the point. He should say: there are excellent reasons to be physically active, and then enumerate them.

 

And a person who is physically active *will* increase their fitness, it is not a *maybe*.

 

I don't know why this is so mysterious. If a person is physically active, in fit condition, and eats healthful foods in reasonable amounts, their chances of being obese are slight and they will improve their health vs being sedentary.

 

It doesn't take fad diet ideas, just a little common sense.

 

Bill

[Momof3littles]

Oh yes, me too. I see both. I was just responding to the PP's observation of some heavy people eating very little, and showing another side.

 

It's so weird, isn't it? Some people can consume vast amounts of food/carbs and still be thin, and others are very overweight.

 

I always tell my thin dh that if I ate exactly what he did, I'd probably gain weight.

Adding to that, the thin carb consuming crowd may have high triglycerides, type 2 diabetes, and other markers of metabolic syndrome types of disease if they are prone to IR. They aren't necessarily healthy individuals just because they are thin. I know a whole lot of people IRL who assume only full blown diabetics need to watch sugar and carbs, or that only overweight people become diabetics. In my life, I've heard this type of thinking more times than I could possibly count.

[justamouse]

Robert Lustig: I had a stable of kids who were enormously obese. And thing was they weren’t obese before the tumor, but they started gaining weight at 30 to 40 pounds a year after the tumor.

 

Alec Baldwin: Per year?

 

Robert Lustig: Per year. With no cessation, nonstop.

 

Alec Baldwin: These kids suffered from something called hypothalamic obesity, an especially heinous form of obesity that doesn’t respond to diet or exercise.

 

Robert Lustig: In 1994 when the hormone Leptin was first discovered it became very clear that these kids, because that area of the brain was dead, they couldn’t see their Leptin signal. Now normally Leptin will tell you, you don’t need to eat so much and you can burn energy properly.

 

Alec Baldwin: It literally is the signal about appetite.

 

Robert Lustig: Right. And these kids were constantly hungry and worst yet, they were the world’s biggest couch potatoes. They lost interest in every single thing around them. They would sit on the couch, eat Doritos and sleep. This was their life. And the parents would come to me and say this is double jeopardy. My child has survived the tumor only to succumb to a complication of the treatment. They are non-functional.

 

[Crosstalk]

 

Alec Baldwin: Why did they become couch potatoes? What was the link there?

 

Robert Lustig: Because when your brain sees Leptin, you want to burn energy, you want to exercise, you want to be physically active, you want to concentrate, you want to go do things.

 

Alec Baldwin: So Leptin signals the body to exercise?

 

Robert Lustig: Leptin signals the body that you have enough energy on board to exercise.

 

Alec Baldwin: Right.

 

Robert Lustig: When your brain can’t see it, your brain thinks you’re starving. And my job was to figure out a way to take care of these kids. So my research in obesity started back in 1995. We said okay, these kids brain--that area of the brain is dead. I can’t bring it back. I’m not a neurosurgeon, I can’t transplant the hypothalamus. What can I do? So after doing some research realized that we could work downstream of the brain. The brain was signaling the pancreas to make extra insulin. Insulin makes you store energy. So these kids are known to have enormously high insulin levels. So I said, all right let’s give these kids a medicine that will block the release of insulin. We did a study and low and behold patient starting losing weight. But more importantly they started exercising. One kid started competitive swimming; two kids started lifting weights at home. One kid became the manager of his high school basketball team, running around collecting all the basketballs.

 

Alec Baldwin: Right.

 

Robert Lustig: I mean, you know parents were calling me up within a week saying 'I’ve got my kid back.'

 

Alec Baldwin: Right. But some people also link this - who you talk about the activity or the lack of activity to political things and economic things like cuts in school budgets for activities and so forth and technology. That kids are much more interested in virtual games and not getting out there and playing a game. Do you see that with the kids you work with as well?

 

Robert Lustig: There’s no question that all those things are true. The question is are those cause or effect. There are a lot of correlations and a lot of ‘em have nothing to do with anything. The point was this was cause because we were interfering with insulin release and these kids changed their behavior. And that was the first key to what I think is the entire enchilada in terms of the obesity epidemic.

 

Alec Baldwin: And then what happened for you? What did you do next?

 

Robert Lustig: So then we said maybe there are adults out there who have the same problem; they just don’t have a brain tumor. Let’s look for it. So we did a whole study, pilot study, with 44 obese adults and we gave ‘em the same drug to do the same thing. And low and behold, 8 out of the 44, not all of ‘em by any means, but 8 out of the 44 lost a lot of weight, a pound a week over 24 weeks without doing anything. And what was even more amazing was their fat intake didn’t change, their protein intake didn’t change. Their carbohydrate intake dropped on a dime. They went from 900 calories a day to 350 calories a day in carbohydrate. They stopped snacking between meals. And the most important --

 

Alec Baldwin: Crackers.

 

Robert Lustig: Right. Bugles, you know.

 

Alec Baldwin: I can’t believe you just said Bugles.

 

Robert Lustig: You bet.

 

Alec Baldwin: Pringles.

 

Robert Lustig: Absolutely.

 

Alec Baldwin: Yeah.

 

Robert Lustig: And these kids needed to get their insulin down and the medicine did it. And these adults needed to get their insulin down and the medicine did it for them too. And most importantly, when we got their insulin down guess what, they started exercising. So this all of a sudden became very clear what’s going on. For these kids with the brain tumors they couldn’t see their Leptin, their insulins were sky high because their brain was starving. And because their brain was starving they would eat everything under the sun and it still wouldn’t be enough ‘cause they could never see their Leptin. And what we realized was this is obesity too. They can’t see their Leptin either.

 

Alec Baldwin: Well, why? They don’t have brain tumors.

 

Robert Lustig: That’s where sugar came in.

 

Alec Baldwin: So sugar was a culprit that enabled other bad eating.

 

Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we’ve learned that the higher your insulin goes the hungrier you get.

 

Alec Baldwin: The hungrier you are.

 

Robert Lustig: That’s right.

 

Alec Baldwin: So sugar is an appetite stimulant.

 

Robert Lustig: In a sense, yes.

 

Alec Baldwin: Accelerant, whatever you want to call it.

 

Robert Lustig: You can call it that.

 

Alec Baldwin: Right.

 

Robert Lustig: Absolutely. We know that because David Ludwig at my opposite number at Boston Children’s, he prepped a bunch of kids with a soda, a can of soda, 150 calories, and then he let ‘em lose at the fast food restaurant. So the question is did they eat more or did they eat less. What do you think?

 

Alec Baldwin: They ate more.

 

Robert Lustig: They ate more.

Alec Baldwin: Right.

 

Robert Lustig: Their insulin was high and also there’s a --

 

Alec Baldwin: High insulin makes you hungry.

 

Robert Lustig: That’s right. High insulin makes you hungry and also there’s a hormone in your stomach that signals hunger called Ghrelin and when Ghrelin’s high you’re hungry and sugar doesn’t knock it down.

 

 

Link

Edited July 18, 2012 by justamouse

[Firefly]

Absolutely, but I see plenty of thin people eating like that. People automatically assume thin = must be eating healthy. Or fat = must be eating unhealthy or too much.

 

:iagree:I am one of those people. In my 20s I was the quintessential junk food junkie. Because of high metabolism/genes/whatever I've always been very thin. BUT, I wasn't healthy. I felt like crap all the time... IBS, CFS, headaches. In my early 30s I tried to figure out why I was feeling like that and finally figured out it had to be food--the processed, sugary, chemical-laden crap that I consumed daily. It never had occurred to me that I was, in effect, poisoning myself. I just figured because I was thin I didn't have to worry about what I ate. Wrong! I still find it amazing that I feel better and have more energy now in my 40s than I did in my 20s.

 

I just think in general most Americans (thin or fat) are ill-informed about nutrition/food (including many doctors and health professionals) and make poor food choices. It does seem to be slowly changing, though.

[regentrude]

the point of the article is that exercise is pointless for weight loss purposes. It may improve your health in other ways, but it won't help you lose weight.

 

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?

Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

[justLisa]

Definitely. It's hard being low carb in a high carb world. I'm not perfect at it. It's frustrating to me a lot of times. Sometimes I don't want to have to think so hard about it.

 

This reminds me of when we went out to a local burger place. They have THE best food. One of the menu items is specifically a lower carb option turkey burger. It is on top of lettuce instead of a bun. Same exact burger, .50 MORE. I asked about it....same burger, just no relish unless you ask.:confused:

 

2 pieces of lettuce cost more than a bun and relish? Sad thing is it's probably true. Funny though, that you can buy the other burger sans bun and it comes with a side salad :lol:

[Joanne]

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

 

There aren't.

 

Exercise is a small percentage of total weight loss.

 

For *health and fitness*? Totally. But not weight loss in any significant way.

[nono]

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?

Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

 

You disregarded my direct reply to you earlier about me as a successful marathon runner. With data. NO IT IS NOT SO all the time for all people. And to the poster who alluded to pharmeceuticals and weight gain, I have no doubt there could be a link there. FTR, in my case, I haven't even had an aspirin during those 5 years. And definitely no prescriptions. So, it's steady state me, except for the advancement of 5 years, slightly more exercise, more carbs, less fat, and it all equalled weight G-A-I-N. But I must be a liar or a stupid dope. Amazing I'm allowed to teach my children.

 

:lol:

[justamouse]

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?

Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

 

Did you read the interview with Lustig I posted on the previous page? When people's insulin is so high, they can't get off the couch because their body is telling them (despite being fat) that their body is starving. Their chemistry is out of control.

 

A person who is going to go on a two week backpack journey isn't close to the person who isn't getting off the couch. Their insulin isn't so high that it's telling their body it's starving. You're comparing apples to oranges. The person who is going to go on that journey or be active probably has none of the IR markers.

[CatMomof3]

 

I had one rather intelligent mom tell me, "Why shouldn't I let the kids have icecream for breakfast? What is the difference between a bowl of icecream or frosted flakes with milk?" The sad part....she has a point. :tongue_smilie:

 

Frosted Flakes is approved by the American Heart Association as a heart healthy cereal :glare:

[regentrude]

Did you read the interview with Lustig I posted on the previous page? When people's insulin is so high, they can't get off the couch because their body is telling them (despite being fat) that their body is starving. Their chemistry is out of control.

 

A person who is going to go on a two week backpack journey isn't close to the person who isn't getting off the couch. Their insulin isn't so high that it's telling their body it's starving. You're comparing apples to oranges. The person who is going to go on that journey or be active probably has none of the IR markers.

 

I responded to the blanket statement "exercise is pointless for weight loss purposes". That simply is not correct.

Are there people who can not exercise because they are ill? yes, of course.

But to say that exercise does not lead to weight loss is simply not true.

[Stacy in NJ]

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?

Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

 

I would lose weight. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately), I cannot live my life on a permanent vacation of wilderness backpacking.

 

Did you know that many professional and Olympic athletes gain copious amounts of weight once their career is over?

 

Let's talk reality. Most people cannot devote enough time to the amount of exercise necessary to lose weight permanently, and they shouldn't have to.

 

Again, the calorie in calorie out paradigm is false. Please take the time to watch and read about insulin and lipid hormones and their interaction and effect on the body.

[justLisa]

Then why ARE there thousands of people who lose weight solely through exercise?

Why does every mountaineer lose weight on an expedition, every person who hikes the Continental Divide? Why the publicized examples of fat people who decide to walk across the nation and slim down in the process?

I do not believe I am the only person who knows people who did this, and successfully lost weight.

 

The statement simply makes no sense - if you expend more energy than you can refuel, you will.lose.weight eventually. I challenge you to go on a mere two week wilderness backpack, walking all day and having only the food you can carry - and not lose weight.

 

It does not work for me for weight loss. Ok, so a few years back I decided "hey, I'm gonna diet down and enter a figure show." So I did. I was already a very low body fat and muscly so I cut the carbs out and did not do anything else. I dropped SO fast, while all the other girls were eating their six servings of a quarter cup of oats and egg whites :lol:, POUNDING the cardio at 5 am and nightly. The thing about the food was, I couldn't eat much before a workout, and right after wasn't hungry. Working out hard 4 days a week for an hour, was probably 6 out of my day without many calories. That leaves a decent fat and protein dense bfast, and a good dinner. I didn't actually enter one, because turns out it is expensive and you have to PAINT yourself bronze. Um, no thanks.

 

But if you are on an expedition, i don' think you have access to lots of food:confused::confused: I mean, when I go hiking for a day (which is rare but a few times over summer with my sis) I only have room for nut bars and water, maybe an apple/banana.

 

I have this nagging 5 pounds I want to lose. I started cutting the grains/carbs yesterday, and I expect it to work.

[regentrude]

There aren't.

 

Exercise is a small percentage of total weight loss.

 

For *health and fitness*? Totally. But not weight loss in any significant way.

 

So I am hallucinating when I recall my backpacking buddy losing weight on each trip? In a significant way, measurable in inches off waist (as proven by having to literally tighten his belt)?

 

If you expend 6000 calories daily but only have 1500 to refuel, you will not lose weight? Where on earth is the energy for walking and climbing going to come from?

[CatMomof3]

Yeah and who seriously wants to eat a burger on lettuce leaves? Ugh.

 

That is what we had for dinner last night, with grilled veggies - so good :D

[Stacy in NJ]

Out of curiosity, once he returned to his normal daily life, did he maintain the weight loss?

 

After all, shouldn't the goal be a permanently healthy lifestyle?

 

So I am hallucinating when I recall my backpacking buddy losing weight on each trip? In a significant way, measurable in inches off waist (as proven by having to literally tighten his belt)?

 

If you expend 6000 calories daily but only have 1500 to refuel, you will not lose weight? Where on earth is the energy for walking and climbing going to come from?

[regentrude]

But if you are on an expedition, i don' think you have access to lots of food:confused::confused: I mean, when I go hiking for a day (which is rare but a few times over summer with my sis) I only have room for nut bars and water, maybe an apple/banana.

 

That is precisely my point. Normally, exercise makes people hungrier and if they get home, most people will eat more. If you, however, eliminate the possibility of refueling for prolonged periods of time, you simply can not replace the calories you worked off during the day.

 

Day hikes never did anything for me weight wise, because the time is not long enough and even with a strenuous hike, a good dinner replaces everything that was lost. But going out and not having access to even remotely enough food to replace the expenditure, works every time.

[justLisa]

That is what we had for dinner last night, with grilled veggies - so good :D

Well I get these 100 calorie thin buns. I just need a burger sometimes ya know? And no, I don't want to pick it up using lettuce. It's not a burger to me then. I don't like hot meat in salad.

[Stacy in NJ]

That is precisely my point. Normally, exercise makes people hungrier and if they get home, most people will eat more. If you, however, eliminate the possibility of refueling for prolonged periods of time, you simply can not replace the calories you worked off during the day.

 

Day hikes never did anything for me weight wise, because the time is not long enough and even with a strenuous hike, a good dinner replaces everything that was lost. But going out and not having access to even remotely enough food to replace the expenditure, works every time.

 

that would cause me to lose weight temporarily - vomiting up my food is one example. Should I do that?

[regentrude]

Out of curiosity, once he returned to his normal daily life, did he maintain the weight loss?

 

After all, shouldn't the goal be a permanently healthy lifestyle?

 

He is slender throughout hiking and climbing season. Then the winter comes with diminished physical activity, and he will put on a few pounds - which are lost again one the season for outdoor activities starts. I have seen this for the last 25 years ;-)

(But he never hiked with the goal of losing weight, so "keeping it off" was not a priority; that was just a side effect.)

[SKL]

I have a friend who always loses weight very effectively when she exercises. (And gains it back when she doesn't.) She's a workaholic so she only exercises in spurts. But it always works for her.

 

But ladies, why can we not allow for individual differences? Homeschoolers of all people. Can it not be true that X worked for me and not you, that Y worked for you and not me? That food A affects me differently than you, etc.? I see so much rigidity here.

[CatMomof3]

Well I get these 100 calorie thin buns. I just need a burger sometimes ya know? And no, I don't want to pick it up using lettuce. It's not a burger to me then. I don't like hot meat in salad.

 

Different people like different things :D

[justLisa]

That is precisely my point. Normally, exercise makes people hungrier and if they get home, most people will eat more. If you, however, eliminate the possibility of refueling for prolonged periods of time, you simply can not replace the calories you worked off during the day.

 

Day hikes never did anything for me weight wise, because the time is not long enough and even with a strenuous hike, a good dinner replaces everything that was lost. But going out and not having access to even remotely enough food to replace the expenditure, works every time.

 

Ya, I see what you mean. But still, in every day life this takes a tremendous amount of self control. So, say I am going to the gym (right now 3-4 days a week because I cannot leave my kids alone yet). I do not eat 2 hours before, I am there one hour, so that is 3:30 including travel time to/from. Then I shower, and make dinner. Then we all eat together. So I go from about 2:00-3:00, untill dinner without food. That means I eat one good meal mid morning, then a small snack in the afternoon. I try to keep busy and we do go out, but I cannot go to the gym daily nor would I want to. I bring homemade fruit/nut bars if we go out for a day. We don't do the eating out thing. The thing is it is a very busy lifestyle to maintain, and not one that everyone can do every day. But I do see your point about being out/food availability. But food *is* everywhere, and it is really hard to cut that habbit. If I did not eat high fat/low carb foods, I'd be starving.

[nmoira]

Just a couple things that have been niggling at me as I read this thread. Hypoglycemia and like issues aside, it seems that the focus is solely on weight loss, rather than overall health. If someone is eating sensibly and exercising regularly, is in good cardiovascular health, does it make sense to obsess over 10 or 20 pounds and try every fad diet under the sun, setting the stage for yo-yo-ing with bigger and bigger oscillations until there is a real problem?

 

I often see people complain that they gain weight when they start to exercise. Why is that a problem? Do we want to be healthy, or do we want someone else's body? Me, I'm overweight. I went through yo-yo cycles until, after my last child I just didn't care much any more. I've about 5'4" and have never weighed less than 124, and in retrospect probably never could have (and stayed healthy) because I'm of a "solid" build. Short, muscular legs are never going to be slim and willowy, yet always in the back of my mind in younger days was the delusion that they could be.

 

We got a dog a few months ago, and I walk it about five miles a day, miles I wasn't walking before. And I'm losing weight. That's the only thing that's changed. I'm not saying everyone should get a dog: I am a cat person, and dogs seem needy and desperate to me, always wanting attention. However I think it's a huge mistake to focus on weight only or even primarily on weight because that's not the prize: a long, healthy life is the prize.

Edited July 18, 2012 by nmoira

[Lawana]

Don't you think these folks have just given up, though? They know they can't win the low-fat more exercise war, so they just accept the weight and the consequences.

 

They feel hopeless so they don't even try.

But that's true for any diet, not just low fat. Which makes giving wight loss advice frought with danger. Anytime you tell people how to loose weight, it is very likely that that many many of them will loose some weight, then gain it back plus more when they return to their previous eating habits, leaving them worse off than they were before.

[regentrude]

I would lose weight. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately), I cannot live my life on a permanent vacation of wilderness backpacking. ..

Let's talk reality. Most people cannot devote enough time to the amount of exercise necessary to lose weight permanently, and they shouldn't have to.

 

Again, the calorie in calorie out paradigm is false. Please take the time to watch and read about insulin and lipid hormones and their interaction and effect on the body.

 

I did not say anybody HAD to do anything. I am merely refuting the absolute statement made earlier that exercise can not cause weight loss.

Some people may not be able to exercise enough to lose a significant amount of weight, fine. Some people do not want to, fine. But for some people, it does work. That's all I am saying.

[Parrothead]

I would lose weight. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately), I cannot live my life on a permanent vacation of wilderness backpacking.

 

Did you know that many professional and Olympic athletes gain copious amounts of weight once their career is over?

 

Let's talk reality. Most people cannot devote enough time to the amount of exercise necessary to lose weight permanently, and they shouldn't have to.

Again, the calorie in calorie out paradigm is false. Please take the time to watch and read about insulin and lipid hormones and their interaction and effect on the body.

I think what is missing here is "for some people." Or even "for most people." There are people who do fine with calorie in/calorie out.

[Evergreen State Sue]

I

I didn't cycle when I was in high school. I was under 100 lbs and a long distance runner. Everyone chalked it up to that. I was put on the pill to regulate my cycles. Only when I was 24 and stopped taking the pill in an effort to TTC did I figure out I wasn't ovulating, or cycling...still. Even though I wasn't a hard core long distance runner anymore. I eventually got a PCOS diagnosis...but I now know I had it back in high school. I was extraordinarily active, and ran 3-12 miles per day. I often ran twice a day, once before school and once in my normal practice. For 3 years of high school I was on a jr. Olympic AAU team, and had my normal high school practice, followed by a jr. olympics practice several days per week. I had PCOS, and was likely IR at the time.

 

Oh, and FWIW in addition to the metabolic syndrome issues I listed above that my parents have contended with (which all made sense once I got a PCOS diagnosis), my grandfather had gout, and my dad psoriasis. BOth of those have connections to IR as well.

 

Remember that even the mom or grandmother's diet can alter the epigenome. Maybe those of us with IR are dealing with some of the repercussions from our recent ancestors.

 

What do these abbreviations mean?

[Lawana]

 

the point of the article is that exercise is pointless for weight loss purposes. It may improve your health in other ways, but it won't help you lose weight.

That is only true for some. Many people have adopted a more active lifestyle and lost weight, and some have managed to keep it off.

[justLisa]

I think what is missing here is "for some people." Or even "for most people." There are people who do fine with calorie in/calorie out.

 

I *can* be fine with a certain number of calories. I have done it before. But then I discovered that if I eat high fat and lower carb I am not miserably hungry all the time. So while it could work for me, I am not satisfied. And I don't have good skin.