What if there *isnt* a cure?

[flyingiguana]

This (page 2) suggests that the food per capita has been increasing steadily in the US.  This has worldwide figures.  Physical exercise seems to be declining too, mostly due to less physically demanding jobs, walking and in-house work.

 

L

OK, I think I found one example of the sort of thing I'm remembering:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9217594

"In the adult US population the prevalence of overweight rose from 25.4% from 1976 to 1980 to 33.3% from 1988 to 1991, a 31% increase. During the same period, average fat intake, adjusted for total calories, dropped from 41.0% to 36.6%, an 11% decrease. Average total daily calorie intake also tended to decrease, from 1,854 kcal to 1,785 kcal (-4%)."

 

This is a different per capita calorie estimate than in the links quoted above, so I'm not sure how they're coming to these vastly different conclusions.

 

This paper was published in 1997, though. Could that explain the difference? Or is the methodology the reason?

 

The pubmed article concludes: "Reduced fat and calorie intake and frequent use of low-calorie food products have been associated with a paradoxical increase in the prevalence of obesity. These diverging trends suggest that there has been a dramatic decrease in total physical activity related energy expenditure. Efforts to increase the average American's total exercise- and nonexercise-related physical activities may be essential for the prevention of obesity."

 

So they're pinning it all on physical activity, although one can see the seeds of blaming it on increased refined carbs -- even if the calorie intake remains the same or drops slightly.

 

I think all I can really conclude from this is that figuring out actual calorie consumption must be pretty difficult. It would not surprise me if some assumptions were being made by researchers in figuring out per capita calories -- assumptions that include a bit of bias that might be skewing all the conclusions.

 

I'm actually rather skeptical of all the "evidence" that is getting published. A lot of it is in the form of govt pamphlets and magazine articles, based on what look to me to be poor methodology (as evidenced by such vastly different conclusions on calorie count found over the same time period). It seems that looking at actual research on test subjects --- seeing how they respond to different types of diets -- is more appropriate than looking at overall trends in population surveys. Probably even experiments controlling the diets of rats is more informative than looking at how many calories the US is producing and correlating that with obesity rates. Problem is, the rat diet would have to be nearly identical to that of the humans, in order to draw any valid conclusions, but it looks like we can't even get a good handle on what that diet actually is.

 

Although calories produced vs. obesity rates might seem to be a no-brainer, there are a lot of cases where the obvious conclusion wasn't true.

 

It's also interesting that there is now conflicting evidence about the harm of being overweight. Are the old studies on the problems of being overweight now no longer pertinent, perhaps because people aren't overweight for the same reasons they used to be? (on average, that is) Perhaps the extra weight was never a health issue, but the things that caused it used to be causes that were linked to other unhealthy behavior? And that overweight/obesity is now caused by many more factors -- some of which are not actually a health risk?

 

I can't find this now, but I believe I've also read some things suggesting that activity levels are actually higher now. Again, I don't know how you'd measure a thing like that. But what I conclude from this is that higher calorie intake/lower physical activity, although it seems like a no-brainer conclusion (and is reinforced in a lot of publications, from magazines to govt info) is likely not the big difference between today and, say, the 1950's.

 

Despite how "obvious" it looks.

[flyingiguana]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/19/health/la-he-obesity-causes-20111219

And from this article: "Women should breast-feed for at least six months after childbirth or — better yet — take one year off from work and breast-feed."

 

Which makes me distrust this article -- as it seems they've got some other agendas going on here. WHY should women take a year off work? They could have just left this as "women should breast feed for a year" and let the mother decide if that necessitates taking off work. (And like many of the magazine/govt/newspaper articles, they don't provide references to actual research)

 

And, to be honest, I don't know that there's much good research supporting their claim for breast feeding being the way to reduce childhood obesity. At best, there's a correlation, but the causation likely lies elsewhere. (This is another area where shaming based on shaky research really should stop.)

[Dory]

I haven't read through everything on here (although I am slowly working my way through). I thought I would throw my grandparents advice on healthy eating in here. My grandprarents are super skinny as are their kids and it isn't until my generation of siblings and cousins that I am starting to see overweight folks. My grandma always said to eat 6 small meals a day. There were no pre-packaged meals in their house. The closest she got to that was buying shredded wheat. She canned all her own jams and veggies or dried them or fermented them. They ate wild meat or their own beef or sometimes shared a neighbours beef. They never trusted the grocery store to carry healthy stuff so they depended on themselves or on farmers nearby. They also drank tea. Tea with every meal.

I think the biggest thing though is that they were constantly moving. Sitting down was for eating, or winter evenings. They would work like crazy and take short little breaks. It was the way they were raised and taught and it was what they taught their kids. I started putting weight on pretty quick after my second kid. I used to have a tiny stomach that wouldn't let me eat too much but it seemed to stretch out when I was nursing that second kidlet. I have had to switch back to eating the way I was taught.

 

I do think there are a lot of other factors at play. Some people are just genetically predisposed to be a little heavier. Some people have slow metabolisms that make it hard to keep pounds off. Some people seem to have stomachs that are overly stretchy or too big. I have been lucky enough to hit the genetic jackpot I suppose.

[AlmiraGulch]

My hand is a small peach size, too, and I do not starve to death. I challenge you to try limiting your portions. When the first TV dinners first came out, there was one piece of fried chicken in it that was barely 3 inches across. There was a scoop of mash potatoes that equaled about 2 flat tablespoons and a scoop of corn with about 30 kernels. This was before "Hungry Man" sizes were introduced. Back then, we ate one of these TV dinners and were perfectly full. That is still the same today. You need to get your mind off of current portion size and go back to 1950s and 1960s portion sizes. Anyone who does that for a year will be a 1950s and 1960s average weight American, not the obese people we have today. I am not saying there were no obese people back then, just very few.

 

As I watched the obese, one right after another, load into the Mine Train ride at Disney yesterday, I could not help but be embarrassed for America. All had to tuck a pannus above the safety bar. Shame, shame America and now the rest of the world.

 

And I challenge you to think for a minute before posting things like this within our own community.

 

 I guarantee, in fact I actually know for certain, that your words here are not only NOT helpful, but in fact just contribute to the shame that obese people already feel.  Do you think people enjoy being obese?  Do you think that they are just too lazy and undisciplined to do anything about their medical condition? 

 

I happen to know that there are people reading this very post of yours today and feeling just a little bit worse than they did when they woke up this morning.    I hope you're happy with that, and that you can take comfort from knowing that you are perfect while everyone else must just wallow in their failures.  

[BigMamaBird]

It's easy for me to say embrace your size and body when I fall within the culturally acceptable norm and haven't had to deal with weight discrimination. But some of the posts here are heartbreaking in their descriptions of rejection of the gift that is truly a home for the soul. Think about this...go and stand in front of the mirror and look at your body with the awareness that you are actually looking at your soul in three dimensional living, breathing form. Your particular and unique arrangement of flesh and breath, bones and sinew, blood and muscle is how your own soul has chosen to take up space on this greening earth. One could even say your body is your consort throughout life.

 

I don't have much to contribute to this conversation that hasn't already been said.  But I wanted to say that this is a really beautiful sentiment.  Thank you for sharing.

[ktgrok]

It could be now, but in 2004, that hadn't really started. Fast food was extremely expensive for middle class Chinese - it was a twice-a-year treat.  Almost all food was still cooked at home or made in (proper) restaurants, and overwhelmingly is was traditional Chinese food but with the balance of ingredients shifted.  

 

In 1985, a meal consisted of rice/steamed buns with stir-fried vegetables in a little oil (cooking oil was rationed) and with a tiny bit or meat or tofu.  Meat was used like a condiment.  At the beginning of the winter, people in Beijing bought three months worth of large Chinese cabbages and stacked them outside their doors.  The temperature dropped and the cabbages were preserved for eating throughout the winter.  I'm not saying that the diet was ideal, but it was certainly lean: the only people I knew who were well-covered were high level communist party cadres who had perks.

 

In 2004, people were still cooking and eating the same style of food, but the calorie load was much higher, because oil was not rationed and meat was more affordable.  Bicycles were now rare on the streets - the bike lanes had been taken out - with electric motorbikes, bus transport or (for the rich) car transport being the norm.  It was a completely different combination of inputs and outputs to twenty years previously.

 

L

 

AGain, epigenetics. It has been shown that if the pregnant woman is calorie restricted too much when pregnant her child will be more likely to be obese. 

[flyingiguana]

This thread has got me looking a few more things up.  Mostly because I'm seeing in a lot of posting of received wisdom -- "everybody says, so it must be so".

 

I ran into this link: http://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/

My initial thought, was, great!  this has a bunch of links.  They must go to the actual research.  I gave up after the few I clicked just went to  TED talks and similar things. 

 

Talk about circular references.

 

The problem is, without the references, I can't look up the original research (IF there was any -- which oftentimes there isn't).  If I can't look up the original paper(s) (more than one finding the same thing would be nice), then there's no way for me to check methodology and decide if the research actually means anything.

 

I did find this: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jesse.shapiro/research/obesity.pdf

That looks like it's supposed to be a well researched bit of science, but when I got down into how they determined per capita calories, I was floored at not only how bad the methodology was, but also how much hand waving they did to get around the problems.  And how the hand waving didn't even work -- there were still issues that would COMPLETELY undermine their conclusions.  In fact, the hand waving made it worse. 

 

Another paper I found linked to an actual govt site where they did surveys of weight -- but when I went to the site, that data either wasn't available to a member of the public and was thus completely hidden, or.... there really was no data on weight at that site.  So it looked convincing, but there was no way to verify it.  (I'm having trouble believing it was hidden -- I access satellite data from the govt all the time, and I've never had to have any special sign in).

 

And I'm reminded that a total lack of research on margarines and trans fats resulted in govt recommendations that everyone drop butter and eat trans fats.  For years.  It was just "decided" by someone that that might be a good thing.

 

(I *think* maybe there's research saying this was a bad thing, but now I'm even doubting that....)

 

The fact that advice comes in a govt pamphlet is NO guarantee that it's the truth.  There's no guarantee it was even researched.

 

So I think we need to stop blaming scientists for these things.  In fact, oftentimes no research was ever done, and what was done never went into govt policy.

 

But mostly, we need to stop repeating all these things we happened to see in a TED talk, or read on some health website, or heard from our doctor, because, for the most part, NONE OF IT was ever researched.  And if it was, it was done badly -- not necessarily because the scientists involved were lazy or stupid or had an agenda, but because it was difficult or impossible to do.

 

And we REALLY need to stop shaming people for not doing what each of us personally believes the research or the few anecdotes we've heard seems to indicate.  Most of it isn't backed up. 

 

Even if there was solid evidence that something worked, don't you think most people who are overweight wouldn't do something about it if it were reasonably possible?  They're not that stupid, even you have decided they are, due to flawed logic.

 

The following comment (from the first link in this post) does get at some of this, but "Mark" is still too hopeful that there is research out there that backs up at least some of this diet advice.  I'm not actually finding it -- over the past day or so, I've been looking, and all I've been running into is a lot of hand waving.

 

"Mark Klein • 4 months ago

Nutrition is a very dangerous domain because so much of the "science" is not replicated and therefore unverified. People love to quote "one-offs," or books/articles/presentations that present something unconventional that is new/eye-opening when much of that is done to further the author's own personal agenda and/or personal profit.

I realize this is a general statement that may be interpreted as an attack against virtually everything out there. I guess my point is not to be so quick to believe something that is "new" such as "fruits today are bad compared to those of yesteryear" before you really study and analyze the science behind those claims. Unfortunately, most people are not trained in critical evaluation of scientific literature, which includes looking up references, scrutinizing and understanding the statistical measures used, and evaluating the experimental design.

Those of us not trained in these matters are therefore not capable of evaluating the claims brought to us in the popular press. For us, the best we can do is look to those we think we can trust and ask them if they have critically evaluated the underlying science. It quickly becomes evident what a slippery slope the nature of knowledge truly is."

 

 

Why were people thinner in the 50's and 60's?  I dunno -- maybe smoking was a major contributor?  Even for those of us only exposed to it second hand.  It's supposed to change the gut biome.  And we all supposedly have gut biomes similar to those we're in close contact with.

 

Or gut biome may turn out to be another research fad that didn't turn up anything.

 

 

[LibraryLover]

According to my clinical research, mostly watching Mad Men, a steady stream of cigarettes & amphetamines can help deter obesity.  Drinking your calories in the form of gin and tonic probably means those donuts in the morning look pretty sickening, too.

[LibraryLover]

The activity component...getting 10, 000+ steps in a day for lymph system and insulin function seems helpful also as does the sunshine exposure for vit D and the weight bearing exercise for muscles.

I

 

We can't take movement out of the equation, as movement builds muscle and a body with good muscle mass is metabolically more efficient.

[kroe1]

What?? No clinical trials on obesity? I get emailed at least one a week. I do not have time for a detailed post, but this will help get you started. You can contact directors directly if you have questions. This is a short list of one agency's current trials and a listing of completed trials on the left.

 

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/obesity/clinicaltrials.htm

 

I will post more sites when I have time in a few days.

 

Here's another real quick:

 

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/obesity/clinicaltrials/Pages/default.aspx

[Liz CA]

People have definitely different body shapes but looking at magazines or photos from the fifties for example, I see very few really overweight people. I always suspected it had something to do with all the additives in food that are neurotoxins and other toxins and make us hungrier instead of nourishing us. Two hours after eating, we feel the need to eat again and again. Once I got off most processed food, I seem to feel satisfied longer. Portion size is another issue.

[Mom-ninja.]

By the way, I also run 3 miles a day and still have to keep to such normal portion sizes even though friends tell me I eat like a bird. Really, I eat the same portion size my grandmothers ate. People today eat enough to feed a cow at each meal. Add in antibiotic and hormone fed beef (even though these are denatured in the cooking process) and we wonder why this generation is fat. To me, the answer is easy.

 

First, a bird eats its own body weight in food each day. Birds eat a lot. So the saying of "eats like a bird" needs to go unless you're talking about someone who eats the body weight in food. 

 

Second, how does it feel to be so confident in ones own answer to a problem that many scientists and doctors do not even agree on? You have an amazing self confidence. 

 

Also, for your challenge let's take it a step further. I eat lots more than my fist size at each meal. A lot more. You say that you eat little. Post a pic of yourself and I'll post a pic of myself. We'll see if it's just food portion size that contributes to size.

[DawnM]

I have no idea what this means.

 

 

Ever tried heritage meals?  My kiddo had a history class in high school where the teacher had them make and bring in a heritage meal.  He made scotch broth.  Filling. No hungry two hours later from that one.  Same with biscuits and gravy, and few other of our ancestor's choices. 

 

The salt intake is also a consideration. People who eat a lot of processed get a lot of salt in their diet.  Things happen in the body as a result, since the chemistry is off and the physical structures have become damaged. They can't repair without sufficient proteins, and it seems as if there is a point where the body can't repair all the damage.

 

[JadeOrchidSong]

Most people have a genetically determined set point. The focus should never be on weight loss, it should be on fitness and health.

There is some truth in this. However, if we compare size of people 50 years ago to size of people today for the same racial groups in the same country, it is hard to get this conclusion.

[JadeOrchidSong]

People have definitely different body shapes but looking at magazines or photos from the fifties for example, I see very few really overweight people. I always suspected it had something to do with all the additives in food that are neurotoxins and other toxins and make us hungrier instead of nourishing us. Two hours after eating, we feel the need to eat again and again. Once I got off most processed food, I seem to feel satisfied longer. Portion size is another issue.

This is true. In addition, we can also compare how active one was in the fifties with today. More things are done by machine than by hand today and many things take less time to do and people have more time to sit on the couch.

[VeganCupcake]

I am now firmly in the camp of everyone who is overweight needing a fecal transplant.   Yup, and since there is no way on God's green earth I would do that, that is the reason I am fat.  No other reason, nope.

 

Dawn

 

My DH and I have talked about this (casually--we are not planning fecal transplants :) ). He claims he is only willing to accept a fecal transplant from one of our children. I was a bit insulted that my feces are not good enough for him.  :lol:

 

But just in case anyone's interested, I currently have two exclusively breastfed infants who have never had antibiotics. They were born vaginally and I assume they have pretty good microbiomes. So let me know if you'd like me to collect some feces.  :laugh:

[DawnM]

My grandparents and great grandparents ate a lot of corn and flour, both of which we are told not to have today.

 

My mother said she had cornbread at least once per day, sometimes twice.

 

 

A heritage meal is a meal that your ancestors prepared frequently, in times and places where food was not scarce. Back then salt and sugar and other chemicals weren't added in the huge quantities they are today. 

 

[Guest inoubliable]

My hand is a small peach size, too, and I do not starve to death. I challenge you to try limiting your portions. When the first TV dinners first came out, there was one piece of fried chicken in it that was barely 3 inches across. There was a scoop of mash potatoes that equaled about 2 flat tablespoons and a scoop of corn with about 30 kernels. This was before "Hungry Man" sizes were introduced. Back then, we ate one of these TV dinners and were perfectly full. That is still the same today. You need to get your mind off of current portion size and go back to 1950s and 1960s portion sizes. Anyone who does that for a year will be a 1950s and 1960s average weight American, not the obese people we have today. I am not saying there were no obese people back then, just very few.

 

As I watched the obese, one right after another, load into the Mine Train ride at Disney yesterday, I could not help but be embarrassed for America. All had to tuck a pannus above the safety bar. Shame, shame America and now the rest of the world.

 

Your realize people in America eat very differently from people in the 50s and 60s, right? It's not just portion size. 

 

Shame America? I'd be ashamed if I were judging people for their weight without knowing their circumstances. What a shitty thing to do.

[Laura Corin]

What did their ancestors eat, in times of plenty?

 

My ancestors in times of plenty ate massive amounts of meat and beer.  And suffered from gout.  Certainly some ancestral food is great stuff, but I don't think we can say that our ancestors were always very savvy about what made them well.

 

L

[mommymilkies]

This is true. In addition, we can also compare how active one was in the fifties with today. More things are done by machine than by hand today and many things take less time to do and people have more time to sit on the couch.

1. I posted a link earlier in the thread about obesity in the Fifties. 

 

2. Not according to my grandmother.  It must depend on your family.  But they had washers, vacuums, etc. back then, too.  And household help was more common according to my family and from what I have read in books. I mean, if you're talking some sort of June Cleaver situation where she washed the walls for hours to sanitize the house every day, maybe.  But I doubt everyone did things like that. ;)  I don't think things like housework or transportation play as big of roles as we'd first guess.  We may be more sedentary in other areas, though.  I know I have more friends who walk, run, bike, and exercise than I've seen as normal for the Fifties.  And there was definitely junk food back then, too.  The situation is too complex for it to be any one thing.

 

Interesting: http://books.google.com/books?id=LFcbvxUzHfoC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=housework+not+less++time+consuming+technology&source=bl&ots=HX7vZWj6g1&sig=-J0gOyzXWL7sMfXl3QityiEQHJU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gS2XU9v4BcuOyATOo4CoCA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=housework%20not%20less%20%20time%20consuming%20technology&f=false

 

ETA: I am talking about the 50s and later. Obviously if we are talking the strenuous daily lives of the 1850s, that would be a different discussion.  But from tin types and pictures of my family from the 1800s-1950s, I'd say my family's body shapes have not really changed over time.  

 

 

The sitting on the couch thing does bug me, though.  It's physically hard on your body-sitting on your tailbone, slouching, all things bad for your body's support systems.  But you don't want to hear me rant about that!  :lol:

[OneStepAtATime]

My ancestors in times of plenty ate massive amounts of meat and beer.  And suffered from gout.  Certainly some ancestral food is great stuff, but I don't think we can say that our ancestors were always very savvy about what made them well.

 

L

 

Well, if you go back far enough my ancestors were cannibals.  We've improved our diet choices since then, thankfully.... :)

 

Diet today has pros and cons.  I had a great aunt die from what was probably a severe food allergy but they didn't understand those things at the time.  And life spans were definitely significantly shorter in previous eras.  Also, access to really healthy food depended frequently on your locale.  If you couldn't grow or raise it locally it was either not accessible or only the wealthy could afford it.  Now I can eat food from all over the world, without too much effort, just by going to the local store and buying imported fruits, veggies and meats.  And I happen to live in an area with fertile land, but most of the foods we eat don't come from this region.  

 

But unfortunately with accessibility to healthier foods also comes accessibility to much less healthy foods.  At least in the area I live in, food choices in general ARE pretty bad and obesity is a significant issue here.  

 

FWIW, I have a friend that was considered morbidly obese.  When we would sit and eat together, she ate about the same portions I did, but she was significantly heavier and it was impacting her health and day to day life.  She had tried various diets and had tried exercising consistently but it wasn't helping much.  She finally decided to make a significant change in her life.   She got together with her doctor, plus a nutritionist and a trainer and worked for 2 years with the three of them to find the right balance of exercise, healthy eating and sleep, reduction of stress, etc.  She dropped 150 lbs. and has kept it off for several years.  But she had to find the right balance and path for HER body and she had to have consistent expert help working as a team long term to assist her.  She doesn't have kids or a husband so she was able to focus just on her needs, though.  She admits, she couldn't have done it alone and it would have been difficult to do while also raising children and being a supportive wife.

 

I will say, though, that your natural body state has to be taken into consideration, too.  I have two cousins, sisters, a year apart.  One is tall and thin and looks like their mom.  The other is tall and much larger.  She looks like her dad (although a LOT prettier :) ).  Raised in the same household eating the same foods.  But one has always, from infanthood on, been much larger than the other.  Both were active in sports, ate well and still lead active lifestyles.  I do not believe that even though they are close to the same height they should have the same shape.  Their bodies weren't meant to, just like they weren't meant to have the same hair color or the same eye color or the same nose shape, etc.  Does that make sense?

[DawnM]

Much of the same in my Mom's family.

 

Dad's family......Grandmother grew up in China, Great-Grandfather went to China as an adult.  Lots of rice and some meat.

 

Before that they lived on a farm.  Lots of meat, milk, wheat crops.......early to mid 1800s.

 

Older generations, no idea......

 

 

 

 

What did their ancestors eat, in times of plenty?

 

[kubiac]

Some interesting informational maps that relate to a lot of the points discussed in this thread.

 

http://www.vox.com/a/explain-food-america

40 maps that explain food in America

 

I think it's very hard to figure out the WHY and WHAT TO DO for the whole country, so maybe we have to just figure out a system that works for each of us as individuals and doesn't rely on the conventional wisdom, which may not be so wise after all.

[OneStepAtATime]

Some interesting informational maps that relate to a lot of the points discussed in this thread.

 

http://www.vox.com/a/explain-food-america

40 maps that explain food in America

 

I think it's very hard to figure out the WHY and WHAT TO DO for the whole country, so maybe we have to just figure out a system that works for each of us as individuals and doesn't rely on the conventional wisdom, which may not be so wise after all.

Interesting....

[ktgrok]

There is some truth in this. However, if we compare size of people 50 years ago to size of people today for the same racial groups in the same country, it is hard to get this conclusion.

 

Epigenetics. Same genese, but totally different expression of those genes, due to environmental factors. 

[JadeOrchidSong]

Some interesting informational maps that relate to a lot of the points discussed in this thread.

 

http://www.vox.com/a/explain-food-america

40 maps that explain food in America

 

I think it's very hard to figure out the WHY and WHAT TO DO for the whole country, so maybe we have to just figure out a system that works for each of us as individuals and doesn't rely on the conventional wisdom, which may not be so wise after all.

America is so behind in GMO labeling.

[Joanne]

The lazy and stupid meme!

 

It exists, in abundance, right in this thread.

 

I must not move enough. I don't read the right stuff. Or, I seek information but am not scientifically trained "enough" to evaluate what I read. I must be an emotional eater. Clearly, I eat too much and move too little.

 

The 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's have been health information and cultural nightmares. Fat women can't win.

 

We try to lose weight and we are told we are doing it "wrong."

 

We try to lose weight and we are told that, if we had good self esteem, we'd be okay at size 20.

 

We are patronized with "limit portion sizes" or "don't forget to exercise".

 

We try many things to lose, and when they fail, we try bariatric surgery and are told (directly and passive aggressively) what a lousy choice THAT was, and btw, have you tried limiting portions?

 

I grew fat - grew morbidly obese - during the busiest years of my life. (Insert assumption I ate a bunch of fast or junk food) I grew fat while working jobs such as running poker tournaments from 6:00 pm until 1:00 am. I set up tables, took down tables, delivered chips, greeted customers, and made sure 5-8 tables of 10 dwindled down to 1 winner in a 3 hour time slot (twice a night). For a period of time, I left that job to go clean an office building: all desks, hallways, toilets, sinks, and that included a nail and hair salon! And let's not forget teaching. First, at home in a small cottage school and later in a traditional brick and mortar. On my feet. At the white board. Walking hallways. Now, that job has morphed a bit into more desk time, but I am back to running treatment at night. Tonight? I stand in front of 30+ people (clients and family members) and teach the stages of recovery from substance abuse. For 3 hours. Which reminds me about stupid. I was a full time graduate student during 2.5 years of the above, graduating impressively. Just sayin.'

 

I tried Weight Watchers, completely compliant. Totally, 100% compliant. Not only did I GAIN weight, I was a screaming bitchy mess. The leader, fully entrenched in the eat less/move more paradigm had honed shame based leadership to an art. She clearly didn't believe me or my food log.

 

I tried low carb (with which I have had the most success). I felt great, and in my 30's, lost 50 pounds on it. Of course, it was assumed I ate bacon cheeseburgers slathered in mayo - in spite of my frequent plates of steamed veggies with a pat of butter and salads. Budget and time and stress derailed me, and I have not been able to replicate those times.

 

I tried paleo and primal, but discovered that community was male-oriented, and budget unfriendly.

 

I'm 20 or 25 down from my highest, but I am still FAT. I have never binged, I am not an emotional eater. I know what feels right to my body, but even that is inaccessible in terms of time, planning, budget and the weight loss is crazy slow.

 

Using contemporary "wisdom" and "science", I should not weigh what I do, and I should have lost substantial weight many times.

 

Here's the thing: I am not unique. I thought maybe I was, but I am not. There are MILLIONS of Joanne's out there.

 

I'd do WLS but the correlation with addiction/substance abuse is one I can't risk with my background.

 

 

 

[SailorMom]

People I know who have a weight problem NOT health related (thyroid, steroids, etc.) tend to drink soda (diet or regular), eat crappy food, and eat large portions.  By weight problem I mean very obese; overweight but generally healthy I don't see as a problem really, unless it really bothers them.

 

This isn't a judgment, just an observation.  One of my aunts could never understand why she was so overweight, but then we'd go out to eat and what she considered a normal, or even light, lunch or dinner was more than I would eat in 2 days.  I think many ingest wayyyyy more calories than they realize, and also got caught up in the "low fat" fad which is the exact opposite of what most people need to eat.

 

When asked why I am thin, I used to kinda uncomfortably avoid the subject, but now I'm honest.  I eat well, I never eat until I'm full, I'm frequently hungry, and rarely snack, and I stay moderately active.  If I stop doing these things, I gain weight.

 

I do think modern medicine is a wonderful thing - but also causes many people to gain weight or feel to cruddy to exercise.  I think diet soda tricks the body into actually craving more sugar and messes with blood sugar levels, I think constant inflammation caused by our bodies reaction to unnatural foods leads to obesity.  I also think that many people eat too much and exercise too little.

 

That being said, we all have our challenges and my heart goes out to those who are struggling with weight.  If I had to stop drinking coffee, or go on a diet for diabetes, or never have a glass of wine again - I'd probably fail miserably over and over again.  I can't imagine having to deal with a weight problem.  It must be so terribly difficult.

[Outdoorsy Type]

I don't think I have ever gone below 10,000 steps when I haven't been gravely ill. I'm getting 20,000 steps + on my fit bit from jogging/walking 5-7 miles a day. I jog in the morning and then walk the trails by my house again with my kids every single day. I'm not losing weight. My diet has actually gotten cleaner/lighter during the warmer months, too. It kind of sucks, except I feel wonderful and enjoy being outside. Not a complete wash.

[Moxie]

Yeah oddly I don't believe losing weight is really just about exercise. For the longest time we've been told that, but I've proven it to myself. I've tried losing weight using the same methods with exercise and without exercise. I lost at the same rate both times. What WAS different was the shape of my body with exercise though. So I took a smaller clothing size with the exercise, but the weight wasn't much different. So there is that.

 

I think sometimes a lot of exercise makes us quite hungry and we eat a lot more. And we might even feel justified to eat a lot more.

I don't think walking is going to help much (although it does help some people). I do believe that weight training and building muscle will help with fat loss in the long term.

[Moxie]

It didn't help me other than tone my body more. I didn't lose more weight more quickly than doing no exercise at all. I went to the gym every day, did weight training every other day, and cardio every day.

 

I looked pretty good, but I don't have that kind of time and motivation anymore.

 

I don't currently have complaints about my body. I don't care what people think in that department.

Like I mentioned in another thread, I threw out my scale. That bitch was ruining my life!! I have no clue what I weigh. I do know that I am doing all I know how to do. I can't do more than that, no matter what my scale says!

 

The reality that I am trying to accept at this point is that I am going to have to eat low-carb and get a daily workout in FROM NOW ON. This is how I'm made and no amount of harrumphing will change that.

[Moxie]

I have no clue what I weigh either. I haven't weighed myself in 10 years.

 

Best thing I could have done for my mental health.

Amen to that!!

[Joyofsixreboot]

Just want to add a couple things.  The very latest research says that if you view working out as "exercise" you will re-eat the calories.  If you view it as "pleasure" you don't. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/losing-weight-may-require-some-serious-fun/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

I only know what worked/works for me.  It was more about a total shift in how I view things than anything specific I did.  Health was really my push not appearance. I do agree that I can carry a few extra pounds because I am all tight and muscular from running/kettlebell but you can lose weight with only diet.  Again, it's physiological, not a moral failing.  I am no less lazy or hungry or special at this weight than I was at a greater one.  I just don't get why our culture makes everything about character except areas that are actually about character.

 

 

[Joyofsixreboot]

I view it as torture so Chinese Buffet here I come!

 

:lol:

I may have run to the Chinese Buffet ~hides head in shame~

[myfunnybunch]

I threw out my scale.

 

I threw mine out too. Like you, I have no idea how much I weigh.

 

It helps me keep my focus on being active and eating well instead of the number on the scale.

 

Cat

 

[JadeOrchidSong]

I may have run to the Chinese Buffet ~hides head in shame~

Ds and I just came back from Chinese Teppanyaki grill buffet two hours ago! It is their favorite restaurant and with $7.99 for adult and $4.99 for kids 11 and under, you can beat the price. I had some sushi, too! The Chinese dumplings there are relish!

[DawnM]

I did that.  I hadn't weighed in several years.

 

Went to the doctor and got a huge wake up call.  I had gained 25 pounds on top of my big fat self.

 

Now I am my heaviest weight ever.

 

Dawn

 

 

I have no clue what I weigh either.  I haven't weighed myself in 10 years.

 

Best thing I could have done for my mental health.

 

[mirth]

So what if science determines we aren't meant to be thin and most of us cannot achieve it long term?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/06/is-long-term-weight-loss-impossible-cbc-readers-share-their-stories.html

 

For some reason, I can't post the original article, but you can get to it from here.

 

 

A doctor who writes a blog called Weighty Matters posted couple of rebuttals to this article.  

 

June 5, 2014 

June 10, 2014

 

Excerpt from 6/5/14 (emphasis mine):

 

I've had many requests to comment on the recent study and reports that permanent weight loss is impossible. The stories remind me of a piece from the New York Times a few years ago that also said we're all doomed to regain our lost weights and I'll repost my blog on that below, but briefly, if a meta-analysis of randomized trials of weight management fails to show long term success with weight management does it mean the people in the included trials failed to maintain their interventions, or does it mean that the interventions were too crappy to be sustainable in the first place? Having read what feels like hundreds of weight loss studies my bet is definitely the latter and therefore learning that poorly designed, or overly strict, or poorly supported interventions don't help people in the long run really isn't all that surprising.

[wintermom]

So what if science determines we aren't meant to be thin and most of us cannot achieve it long term?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/06/is-long-term-weight-loss-impossible-cbc-readers-share-their-stories.html

 

For some reason, I can't post the original article, but you can get to it from here.

 

I don't see at all where the article says, "we aren't meant to be thin." It focuses on weight loss being very difficult as our bodies are highly efficient at maintaining weight already gained. The point is to not become over-weight in the first place by eating healthy and being physically active from childhood throughout one's life-time, with the goal of overall health.

 

Some countries/cultures do this a lot better than North America, where physical activity is the norm and they are used to eating wonderful tasting, healthy food. When you are brought up on good food, junk food is simply disgusting to eat in large quantities. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, have far less cases of obesity than in the US. Carbs and dairy are not a problem as they eat them in moderate quantities. The yogurts, chocolates, ice creams and bakery items available are amazing! They taste wonderful, and yet people stay thin. People also tend to be active with cycling, walking, skiing, playing soccer, etc. They enjoy their lives with quality food and enjoyable physical activities. It requires time and energy, some self-control and health awareness, but doesn't have to be torture and sacrifice.

 

 

 

 

[Joanne]

. It requires time and energy, some self-control and health awareness, but doesn't have to be torture and sacrifice.

Hm. But the fact is that many millions of people who have self control and health awareness are FAT.

 

The formula doesn't work with a crazy number of people. We are not lying, misreporting. undereducated on the topic, overeating or lazy.

 

The eat less/ move more theory is flawed and inaccurate for many people. It becomes shaming and discouraging.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I don't see at all where the article says, "we aren't meant to be thin." It focuses on weight loss being very difficult as our bodies are highly efficient at maintaining weight already gained. The point is to not become over-weight in the first place by eating healthy and being physically active from childhood throughout one's life-time, with the goal of overall health.

 

Some countries/cultures do this a lot better than North America, where physical activity is the norm and they are used to eating wonderful tasting, healthy food. When you are brought up on good food, junk food is simply disgusting to eat in large quantities. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, have far less cases of obesity than in the US. Carbs and dairy are not a problem as they eat them in moderate quantities. The yogurts, chocolates, ice creams and bakery items available are amazing! They taste wonderful, and yet people stay thin. People also tend to be active with cycling, walking, skiing, playing soccer, etc. They enjoy their lives with quality food and enjoyable physical activities. It requires time and energy, some self-control and health awareness, but doesn't have to be torture and sacrifice.

I agree with you totally! The built-in activity level is very low in the USA. I remember I was shocked that when I visited China after living in the US for 10 years I automatically had a taxi take us to a place for a distance I never would take the bus or taxi for when I lived in China. The Chinese walk everywhere and bus stops can be 1/2 to 1 mile away from their homes. Daily trip to buy vegetables is another 2 mile round trip with veggies they buy as load they have to carry by hands. Going shopping alone can burn lots of calories because people would walk one or two hours in shopping area in several shops at a time. Now we live a mile or a little more from the library and a grocery store and Target. However, I seldom walk to the library because I combine the trip with grocery shopping and Target shopping, all done by driving a car from one place to the other. My kids are not used to walking much either. Of course other families may do things differently and walk a ton more to their library and their grocery store. Even as a person who grew up walking everywhere, I have changed to driving everywhere instead to save time. But save time for what? I don't know. Of course grocery shopping for a whole week does involve a car in most cases especially if there are six people in the family eating.

 

ETA: I want to add that the Chinese also eat treats like cake and cookies only on birthdays or holidays; ice cream is for children and adults usually don't eat ice cream. Dessert after meal is usually fruit. Large quantity of veggies with a small amount of meat is eaten. There is the saying that Americans will ask a Chinese about the authentic Chinese dish, " Where is the meat?" A Chinese would ask an American about an American dish (for example, steak and mashed potato), "Where is the vegetable?" Usually a typical homemade Chinese dish is a few small bite sized meat pieces with lots of veggies. Of course lots of Chinese dishes have just meat with no veggies mixed in, but there would be plates of stir fried veggies to accompany the pure meat dishes.

[Joyofsixreboot]

....

 

Some countries/cultures do this a lot better than North America, where physical activity is the norm and they are used to eating wonderful tasting, healthy food. When you are brought up on good food, junk food is simply disgusting to eat in large quantities. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, have far less cases of obesity than in the US. Carbs and dairy are not a problem as they eat them in moderate quantities. 

~bolded mine for emphasis~This is the part I disagree with.  I was brought up as wholesomely as possible.  My parents were children of the depression and my grandmother lived with us.  They never got the memo to stop gardening, hunting and pasturing our own meat.  Oh the summers I cursed my 'old fashioned' family as I weeded and canned and picked....anyway the first chance I got to live on my own it was fast food and boxes all the way.  I wised up when I had kids and we went healthy but I still love the stuff.  Just smelling grease makes my stomach rumble.  So I realized it was bad and stopped but I sure do have a taste for it.  They study it for heaven sake to reach the  bliss point (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)  Fighting evolution is hard.  I also notice that my kids are literally, and I mean literally, the only children at the park.  Few ride their bikes. The kids who come here to play with mine will jump on the trampoline a bit but then want to go back to their house to play video games.  Our culture, as others said, encourages ease and lack of movement.  Other than swimming up stream I don't know what to do.  And I totally believe the people here who say they have tried the advice and not had success.  If we all believe we have unique personalities within a larger frame work so why not our physical bodies too?

[ktgrok]

Active lifestyles don't preclude obesity. I was a veterinary technician for years. That meant walking, FAST, back and forth across the building about a million times a day. Often while carrying a dog or cat. I was lifting animals up to 50lbs by myself several times a day, restraining animals of that size and larger a few times an hour, etc. I was ALWAYS moving. I didn't sit down except at lunch or a few times a day to look at the microscope for a minute here or there. I still gained weight, and became obese. 

[wintermom]

Active lifestyles don't preclude obesity. I was a veterinary technician for years. That meant walking, FAST, back and forth across the building about a million times a day. Often while carrying a dog or cat. I was lifting animals up to 50lbs by myself several times a day, restraining animals of that size and larger a few times an hour, etc. I was ALWAYS moving. I didn't sit down except at lunch or a few times a day to look at the microscope for a minute here or there. I still gained weight, and became obese. 

 

Somehow myself, my family, my parents, my in-laws, my friends, my children's friends, who are exercising and eating moderate quantities of healthy food are defying science. We're feeding our dogs and cats quantities of food relative to their exercise levels and they're defying science and maintaining a healthy, non-obese weight. I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?

 

I have been mindful of my exercise amounts and food intake my entire life. I studied Human Kinetics, anatomy and physiology to a graduate level in University, and continued to work in and read current research in the area of physical education and health. Research has shown, and continues to show that people who are physically active in their youth remain physically active and have higher rates of avoiding becoming over-weight or obese. The difficulty is in monitoring food intake when our activity levels change. We become used to eating a certain quantity of food, which is necessary when we exercise with intensity for long periods of time, but then we keep eating the same amount when our activity levels change. Or we get used to eating more food than needed for a sedentary life-style.

 

Maintaining a healthy weight is not something a human being achieves and then relaxes and does nothing but eat and rest. Our bodies were made to move. The older I get, the more I feel this. When my dh and I (late 40's) don't exercise with intensity, our joints become stiff and painful. Dh's gout has made an appearance since he's taken up tennis. There are dozens of adults in the 50 - 70+ age range at our tennis club who are a very healthy weight and enjoying life.

[Joanne]

Somehow myself, my family, my parents, my in-laws, my friends, my children's friends, who are exercising and eating moderate quantities of healthy food are defying science. We're feeding our dogs and cats quantities of food relative to their exercise levels and they're defying science and maintaining a healthy, non-obese weight. I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?

 

I have been mindful of my exercise amounts and food intake my entire life. I studied Human Kinetics, anatomy and physiology to a graduate level in University, and continued to work in and read current research in the area of physical education and health. Research has shown, and continues to show that people who are physically active in their youth remain physically active and have higher rates of avoiding becoming over-weight or obese. The difficulty is in monitoring food intake when our activity levels change. We become used to eating a certain quantity of food, which is necessary when we exercise with intensity for long periods of time, but then we keep eating the same amount when our activity levels change. Or we get used to eating more food than needed for a sedentary life-style.

 

Maintaining a healthy weight is not something a human being achieves and then relaxes and does nothing but eat and rest.

 

The red is what is infuriating.

 

The calories in/calories out model - the science - did NOT work for me. Based on your post, you won't believe me. That is what is shaming from professionals, WW Leaders, people who were able to shed weight using volumetrics or "eat less/move more" or "moderation" ; the disrespect embodied in not believing the self report of people who do adopt a reasonable eating and activity model and achieving a healthy weight - or weight loss at a reasonable weight does not happen.

 

I am not unique in this regard. There are millions of us.

[Pawz4me]

Somehow myself, my family, my parents, my in-laws, my friends, my children's friends, who are exercising and eating moderate quantities of healthy food are defying science. We're feeding our dogs and cats quantities of food relative to their exercise levels and they're defying science and maintaining a healthy, non-obese weight. I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?

 

I'm totally baffled at what you're trying to say here.

 

I've owned and fostered many, many dogs and cats over the years.  Often very similar dogs at the same time (i.e., two dogs of the same breed/mix and about the same age).  Since I'm providing or supervising their activity, I know that each one is getting approximately the same amount.  And I can absolutely assure you that the food (calorie) intake required for any dog to maintain his/her weight is affected by a LOT more than activity level.  On multiple occasions I've had two very similar dogs getting the same amount of exercise but whose caloric needs have varied tremendously.  On the order of hundreds of calories a day.  My layman's opinion is that basic metabolic rate plays a huge part.  And from what I've observed of the dog world, it's not particularly enjoyable being a pup who has a low basic metabolic rate and who has to go hungry much of the time in order to maintain a "normal" weight.  The same is true of humans.  You're quite lucky if you haven't experienced that (either for yourself or through one of your pets).

[ktgrok]

Somehow myself, my family, my parents, my in-laws, my friends, my children's friends, who are exercising and eating moderate quantities of healthy food are defying science. We're feeding our dogs and cats quantities of food relative to their exercise levels and they're defying science and maintaining a healthy, non-obese weight. I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?

 

I have been mindful of my exercise amounts and food intake my entire life. I studied Human Kinetics, anatomy and physiology to a graduate level in University, and continued to work in and read current research in the area of physical education and health. Research has shown, and continues to show that people who are physically active in their youth remain physically active and have higher rates of avoiding becoming over-weight or obese. The difficulty is in monitoring food intake when our activity levels change. We become used to eating a certain quantity of food, which is necessary when we exercise with intensity for long periods of time, but then we keep eating the same amount when our activity levels change. Or we get used to eating more food than needed for a sedentary life-style.

 

Maintaining a healthy weight is not something a human being achieves and then relaxes and does nothing but eat and rest. Our bodies were made to move. The older I get, the more I feel this. When my dh and I (late 40's) don't exercise with intensity, our joints become stiff and painful. Dh's gout has made an appearance since he's taken up tennis. There are dozens of adults in the 50 - 70+ age range at our tennis club who are a very healthy weight and enjoying life.

 

I never said that it caused obesity. I said someone could still have an active lifestyle and be obese. I was responding to the numerous comments saying the problem is our sedentary lifestyles. 

 

As for food intake in balance, I was eating the same meals, same routine, as when I was working a desk job. The first two weeks of the new, more active job I lost a few pounds. Then my set point seemed to change, and I stayed there. For years. Can I lose the weight? I hope so. But a simple "active lifestyle" isn't enough. 

 

Another example. I went from being a fairly sedentary college student to working at a camp in the everglades. Walking everywhere, hiking, swimming, canoeing. Lots of activity. Meals were limited to the 3 times a day and one small snack. I ate what everyone else ate. I lost a few pounds the first week and that was it, no more. I wasn't drinking anything but water or unsweetened herbal tea. I was active. I was eating normal portions. It didn't change my weight from sitting on my butt watching tv and studying. 

 

Just because you know active people at a normal weight doesn't mean that all active people are a normal weight, or that activity means you WILL be at a normal weight. 

 

It helps. But there is something else underlying this. 

[myfunnybunch]

Somehow myself, my family, my parents, my in-laws, my friends, my children's friends, who are exercising and eating moderate quantities of healthy food are defying science.

 

That's wonderful.

 

But be cautious of selection bias. You are anecdotally selecting from a group of people you know. You have a clear bias toward a simple model in which calories in + exercise = healthy weight for all people, so those who are not what you consider to be a healthy weight must therefore not be following the moderate diet and exercise model that works for you.

 

I am within the normal range for weight for my height. When I started taking thyroid meds, I lost 15 pounds in 6 weeks with absolutely no effort on my part. None.  I was a stick. Diet and exercise stayed the same. Boy, was that an eye-opener for me when it came to recognizing the factors that impact weight loss. And people kept congratulating me, as though I'd done something praiseworthy. It was weird.

 

I have a dear friend who watches every bite. She exercises regularly. She cannot lose weight. If we went by the simple diet + exercise = healthy weight, she'd be much thinner than I. She's not, and it's frustrating for her. She works really hard at it, with minimal results. Her inner response to "I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?" would probably be along the lines of "Are you f---ing kidding me? I count every. single. calorie. and exercise vigorously, so you and your condescension can go jump in a lake."

 

I wish the people for whom it IS that simple could recognize that it ISN'T that simple for everyone instead of saying "Well, if you'd just do xyz...."

 

Cat

 

[Mom-ninja.]

Yeah oddly I don't believe losing weight is really just about exercise.  For the longest time we've been told that, but I've proven it to myself.  I've tried losing weight using the same methods with exercise and without exercise.  I lost at the same rate both times.  What WAS different was the shape of my body with exercise though.  So I took a smaller clothing size with the exercise, but the weight wasn't much different.  So there is that.

 

I think sometimes a lot of exercise makes us quite hungry and we eat a lot more.  And we might even feel justified to eat a lot more.

You're right. Losing weight is not just about exercise. It's way about food (and drink).

 

And exercise decreases appetite physiologically, however psychologically we feel our appetite increase. As you said we feel justified in eat more or cheating in more junk food. But if we listen to our actual hunger signs (physically) our appetite is lower after exercising for up to an hour. One of the tips of not consuming *extra* calories is to go for a walk (or whatever exercise you want) when you feel like reaching for food or drink (other than water). It curbs your hunger feeling. The hard part is over coming the psychological "I can eat more because I exercised" fallacy.

 

 

I don't think walking is going to help much (although it does help some people). I do believe that weight training and building muscle will help with fat loss in the long term.

Walking for 30 minutes can have the same effect as running for 10. Walking is a great option for people who cannot do high impact. And you're right. Building muscle plays a huge role in fat loss (not weight loss....fat) in the long term. Muscle eats up those calories. More muscle means you can eat more food. Jackie Warner eats 4000 calories a day. She's like pure muscle.

[Mom-ninja.]

That's wonderful.

 

But be cautious of selection bias. You are anecdotally selecting from a group of people you know. You have a clear bias toward a simple model in which calories in + exercise = healthy weight for all people, so those who are not what you consider to be a healthy weight must therefore not be following the moderate diet and exercise model that works for you.

 

I am within the normal range for weight for my height. When I started taking thyroid meds, I lost 15 pounds in 6 weeks with absolutely no effort on my part. None.  I was a stick. Diet and exercise stayed the same. Boy, was that an eye-opener for me when it came to recognizing the factors that impact weight loss. And people kept congratulating me, as though I'd done something praiseworthy. It was weird.

 

I have a dear friend who watches every bite. She exercises regularly. She cannot lose weight. If we went by the simple diet + exercise = healthy weight, she'd be much thinner than I. She's not, and it's frustrating for her. She works really hard at it, with minimal results. Her inner response to "I'm sure it occurred to you that perhaps your food intake was not quite in balance with your activity level?" would probably be along the lines of "Are you f---ing kidding me? I count every. single. calorie. and exercise vigorously, so you and your condescension can go jump in a lake."

 

I wish the people for whom it IS that simple could recognize that it ISN'T that simple for everyone instead of saying "Well, if you'd just do xyz...."

 

Cat

 

Yes, there is more going on for a lot of people. I also have thyroid disease, and when my meds are off I will gain weight with no change in my diet or exercise. My doctor tells me to let her know as soon as I start gaining just a few pounds because with my diet and exercise level I should not gain weight at all. So my weight is a big red flag for her.