Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[creekland]

And the news this morning was mentioning that being overweight in middle age brings on Alzheimers symptoms approx 6 months earlier.   :glare:

 

I guess that helps my motivation to keep losing weight... though neither of my parents have Alzheimers so I might be ok there.  My MIL has it and was a little overweight in her middle years, but not excessively overweight like my relatives.  I'm not related to her though.  Hubby is... may his weight loss go well!

 

(The news specifically said the extra weight didn't cause Alzheimers - researchers just think the symptoms come on sooner for those already doomed to get it at this point.  I watch an NBC affiliate for my local news if anyone wants to try to find it online.)

[ktgrok]

And, as a personal aside, my scale that had been stalled for a week finally moved down today. yay!

 

(I'd stalled during some high stress stuff, now I've upped my protein and lowered my carbs a bit. I'm still not no carb, I have a small serving of whole grains a day..either a few whole wheat crackers or a small low carb tortilla etc, plus some berries/veggies) 

[PeachyDoodle]

Thanks so much for taking the time to share that. So it sounds like 1-hour of hard physical activity 3 times a week, and more like 2-hours 2-3 times per week? With a little extra when you need it?

 

I would say 2 hours on any given day is a generous estimate (if we're talking actual workout time, not travel, getting the kids where they need to go, etc.), but that's it, more or less.

 

But here's the thing: I LOVE IT. I really do. I never, ever in a million years thought I'd say that. But it feels GOOD. The harder it is, the better it feels. And I look for ways to fit exercise in, especially when I've had a few days off. Even if I just go for a run.

 

I realize that I am very, very lucky to have the kind of schedule that is flexible enough to allow me to do this. But honestly, carving out those hours makes me MUCH more effective during my other hours as well.

 

ETA: When I say "need it," I am not referring to trying to make the scale move. I mean that my body feels like it needs to move, KWIM?

 

[Joanne]

Any time for exercise plans? Beyond weight, it is my understanding that there is a pretty solid evidence exercise reduces stress, aids sleep and helps in the prevention of heart attacks.

Actually, yes! I have the 21 day fix on the way. I have successfully done a BeachBody exercise product before. I have been shifting my sleep/wake pattern so I can get up earlier. Exercise at night is not an option for me. I have been working with an author:expert in an accountability group. He also happens to be a BeachBody coach, so he will be mine.

 

I don't expect to lose weight but I have an educational international tour in April that will have A LOT of walking. I would like to increase my strength (which has seriously diminished since the accident) and endurance. And I am ready for the improved stress response and sleep.

[AlmiraGulch]

Actually, yes! I have the 21 day fix on the way. I have successfully done a BeachBody exercise product before. I have been shifting my sleep/wake pattern so I can get up earlier. Exercise at night is not an option for me. I have been working with an author:expert in an accountability group. He also happens to be a BeachBody coach, so he will be mine.

 

I don't expect to lose weight but I have an educational international tour in April that will have A LOT of walking. I would like to increase my strength (which has seriously diminished since the accident) and endurance. And I am ready for the improved stress response and sleep.

 

I hate exercise, but I didn't hate the 21-Day fix exercises nearly as much as I hate most others.  :-)

 

I didn't lose weight, because I didn't really change my diet, but the rate at which my endurance increased was remarkable.  In fact, I should probably do that again.  You may have just inspired me.

 

Good luck with it!

[Carol in Cal.]

One of the miscommunications is that people who are successful with CICO arent making it the only strategy. Whole foods are assumed, and balancing the macros and watching the glycemic index are included, but since people rarely want the details, and arent willing to give up some or all of sweets, the processed food, the calorie dense items, or weigh their portions, they have learned not to go in depth when sharing their success strategy. It is tmi.

In that case, it's still CICO, just more management on the CO side.

[Twigs]

I just watched this lecture by Gary Taubes. The lecture part is about 1 hour 15 minutes. Very informative.

 

 

[Carrie12345]

One of the miscommunications is that people who are successful with CICO arent making it the only strategy. Whole foods are assumed, and balancing the macros and watching the glycemic index are included, but since people rarely want the details, and arent willing to give up some or all of sweets, the processed food, the calorie dense items, or weigh their portions, they have learned not to go in depth when sharing their success strategy. It is tmi.

 

I can agree with that.

It's like saying "I homeschool."  I don't spend a week describing exactly how I homeschool, how other people homeschool, theories I've heard about homeschooling, or how each individual defines homeschooling, but the fact remains that I do homeschool, however you want to look at it.

[Katy]

And the news this morning was mentioning that being overweight in middle age brings on Alzheimers symptoms approx 6 months earlier.   :glare:

 

 

Only six months?  LOL.  What was the margin of error?

[Carol in Cal.]

CI assumes you manage what is ingested, beyond number of calories. The usage has changed, I would guess due to TV exposure. Dr. Oz, for ex, has done eat this, not that shows which show that its not just calories, its nutrients and the macros. People have tried 'eat nutrient dense, not calorie dense' but it hasnt caught on.

 

CO assumes you manage your movememt. Fitbit and its cousins opened a lot of eyes as far the nature of jobs where people stand on their feet, but dont move a lot. Lots of ladies out getting 10, 000 steps briskly walking as a result.

 

As mentioned above, the research is just getting in to what switches the body between energy storage and energy use in cases of nondeprivation.. Nutrition matters. Movement matters...the lymph system has a role, and it doesnt circulate sufficiently if the body doesnt get enough movement.

 

I have not met any adults in the last 20 years that seriously believe its just CICO, and that a cookie is just as good of an afternoon snack as a banana. Met a few teens that are subbing sugar for

It can, but it doesn't have to.  Sometimes an equation is just an equation.

What all of those research areas are looking at is the CO side--that for some reason CO is dropped.  That's consistent with what I said.

[DawnM]

Physical today.

 

Found out I am fat.

 

Huge surprise.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

[PeachyDoodle]

Physical today.

 

Found out I am fat.

 

Huge surprise.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

 

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[Pawz4me]

CI assumes you manage what is ingested, beyond number of calories. The usage has changed, I would guess due to TV exposure. Dr. Oz, for ex, has done eat this, not that shows which show that its not just calories, its nutrients and the macros. People have tried 'eat nutrient dense, not calorie dense' but it hasnt caught on.

 

CO assumes you manage your movememt. Fitbit and its cousins opened a lot of eyes as far the nature of jobs where people stand on their feet, but dont move a lot. Lots of ladies out getting 10, 000 steps briskly walking as a result.

 

As mentioned above, the research is just getting in to what switches the body between energy storage and energy use in cases of nondeprivation.. Nutrition matters. Movement matters...the lymph system has a role, and it doesnt circulate sufficiently if the body doesnt get enough movement.

 

I have not met any adults in the last 20 years that seriously believe its just CICO, and that a cookie is just as good of an afternoon snack as a banana. Met a few teens that are subbing sugar for protein, claiming CICO with the usual predictable effect. Met a lot of people who ingest no vegetables or fruits....some of them have mentioned that inuit dont , so they can pass too, but since they dont eat the organs or make up the missing nutrients with supplements or address the lack of fiber, they have issues. Read a lot of mo to normal success stories and met some in real life too. They have all gone beyond using only calories, using myfitnesspal, spark people, whatever. I have lived rural, so I do know it takes time for chamges in word usage to spread. Staycation, for ex, hasnt made it into daily usage here, but it did make it to tv and the oed. Even wikipedia now references the Harvard study that concluded CICO is worthless without considering the type of calories being ingested. Maybe the creative minds here could come up with a new acronym. MoM is what Ive heard locally...MindOnMacros.

 

That's not what I mean by CI.

 

I think some people could eat nothing but cookies and chips and ice cream and still lose weight.  As long as they ate fewer calories than their bodies burned.

 

I think it really is that simple for some people.

 

Is it optimal?  I don't think so.  Far from it.  I think every body is always going to function better with good nutrition.  But I think what constitutes good nutrition can vary some depending on individuals.  Just as we've seen in this thread, some say higher carb/lower fat works for them and others say low (or lower) carb works better.  And that's what I mean when I say CICO isn't the same thing as all calories are equal.

 

I've been in both places -- when I was younger high carb/low fat worked great.  All the fiber kept me feeling full.  As I've gotten older lower carb seems to keep me more satisfied and keeps my hunger at a manageable level.

 

I'm willing to bet nobody who has commented on this thread is living on cookies and chips and ice cream. ;)

 

 

Physical today.

 

Found out I am fat.

 

Huge surprise.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

 

:grouphug: :grouphug:

[mommymilkies]

 

I'm willing to bet nobody who has commented on this thread is living on cookies and chips and ice cream. ;)

 

 

Not for lack of trying...I think I could swing that.  Can I add brownies, though?  

 

ETA: This was just me poking fun at myself for having a sweet tooth.  I pretty much lived off of candy and pop as a kid because my Mom is also a sweet tooth and I was super skinny.  Oh, the good ole days. Now I look shifty eyed at a bakery and I balloon up. 

[mommymilkies]

Physical today.

 

Found out I am fat.

 

Huge surprise.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

:grouphug:

[Pawz4me]

Not for lack of trying...I think I could swing that.  Can I add brownies, though?  

 

ETA: This was just me poking fun at myself for having a sweet tooth.  I pretty much lived off of candy and pop as a kid because my Mom is also a sweet tooth and I was super skinny.  Oh, the good ole days. Now I look shifty eyed at a bakery and I balloon up. 

 

You can have my share of the sweet stuff if I can have your share of the chips. ;)

[mommymilkies]

You can have my share of the sweet stuff if I can have your share of the chips. ;)

Deal!

[creekland]

Only six months?  LOL.  What was the margin of error?

 

This report came from me listening to the morning news on TV.  This means the story was given something like 20 seconds tops.  They didn't mention margin of error in that time.  The channel is an NBC affiliate, so there could be more to the story on NBC's web page I would think.  I haven't looked.

 

Physical today.

 

Found out I am fat.

 

Huge surprise.

 

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

 

The easy solution to this is to skip the physicals... ;)  Otherwise, it's too bad we don't live closer together.  Since we can't meet at a coffee shop due to my not liking coffee, we could have met on a hike.

 

:grouphug:

[staceyobu]

That's not what I mean by CI.

 

I think some people could eat nothing but cookies and chips and ice cream and still lose weight.  As long as they ate fewer calories than their bodies burned.

 

I think it really is that simple for some people.

 

Is it optimal?  I don't think so.  Far from it.  I think every body is always going to function better with good nutrition.  But I think what constitutes good nutrition can vary some depending on individuals.  Just as we've seen in this thread, some say higher carb/lower fat works for them and others say low (or lower) carb works better.  And that's what I mean when I say CICO isn't the same thing as all calories are equal.

 

I've been in both places -- when I was younger high carb/low fat worked great.  All the fiber kept me feeling full.  As I've gotten older lower carb seems to keep me more satisfied and keeps my hunger at a manageable level.

 

I'm willing to bet nobody who has commented on this thread is living on cookies and chips and ice cream. ;)

 

 

 

:grouphug: :grouphug:

 

Well, there was the professor who did the "twinkie diet" with great success. DH and I used to joke that we were going to lose a lot of weight eating nothing but Taco Bell and be like the Subway guy for Taco Bell. But, I guess the Jared thing didn't turn out so well, so maybe we need to look for another avenue to get a lifetime of free fast food.

 

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

[displace]

And the news this morning was mentioning that being overweight in middle age brings on Alzheimers symptoms approx 6 months earlier. :glare:

 

I guess that helps my motivation to keep losing weight... though neither of my parents have Alzheimers so I might be ok there. My MIL has it and was a little overweight in her middle years, but not excessively overweight like my relatives. I'm not related to her though. Hubby is... may his weight loss go well!

 

(The news specifically said the extra weight didn't cause Alzheimers - researchers just think the symptoms come on sooner for those already doomed to get it at this point. I watch an NBC affiliate for my local news if anyone wants to try to find it online.)

I heard an NPR episode about processed and sugary foods at long term facilities. I don't recall if it was just one physician/person's story about a trend or a study. It was noted that a lot of elderly patients who were admitted for various reasons, who started getting fed these junky dessert diets showed quick dementia symptoms. I would have to check if it was a study or just a trend noticed though. I think it was associated with sugar or simple carbs and the proteins that build up in brains of patients with Alzheimer's.

[displace]

Eta - I think it may have been the July 22, 2015 Dianne rheam show, regarding dementia. I think they were discussing diabetes with dementia but I can't read through the whole transcript now.

[creekland]

I heard an NPR episode about processed and sugary foods at long term facilities. I don't recall if it was just one physician/person's story about a trend or a study. It was noted that a lot of elderly patients who were admitted for various reasons, who started getting fed these junky dessert diets showed quick dementia symptoms. I would have to check if it was a study or just a trend noticed though. I think it was associated with sugar or simple carbs and the proteins that build up in brains of patients with Alzheimer's.

 

This is interesting.  Hubby's parents always had sugary desserts at least once daily, often more.  The rest of their diet was traditional southern (not terribly healthy by most nutrition advice today).  His mom has dementia and has for years now.  His dad doesn't.  I wonder if, as mentioned in the current study, it brings it on in those predisposed to it?  His dad had, and still has, major heart issues.

 

In the meantime, I'll also be thankful I don't have (and never had) a sweet tooth.  The idea of eating something sugary every day - or even every week - would be gagging.  I'd lose weight on a Twinkie diet too - because after the first one, maybe two, it would turn me off and I wouldn't want to eat them.  Soda could be my downfall.  I'm pretty convinced they put something else addictive more than caffeine in them.  Like others, when drinking them I want more.  When off for a few days, I'm happy without.

 

Hopefully no one will ever link salt to dementia!  But then again, my blood levels are borderline low, so I might be ok there.  I'll know if that stayed the same or if I need to adjust things in two weeks.  Perhaps it's fine as long as my body isn't building up a salt mine in the brain where the brain cells used to be!  

[Joanne]

A new article. I am going to get his book.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/why-diets-dont-actually-work-according-to-a-researcher-who-has-studied-them-for-decades/

[busymama7]

Soda could be my downfall. I'm pretty convinced they put something else addictive more than caffeine in them. Like others, when drinking them I want more. When off for a few days, I'm happy without it.

I think it's the high fructose corn syrup. I am working with a doctor to balance my hormones including insulin and he has told me absolutely no HFCS as it messes with hormones and the feeling of being satisfied.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Some scientific research supporting the theory that the brains of severely overweight people react differently than the brains of normal weight subjects to certain foods.

EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/econ-sst082715.php

[Catwoman]

A new article. I am going to get his book.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/why-diets-dont-actually-work-according-to-a-researcher-who-has-studied-them-for-decades/

I hope you'll post a review once you've had a chance to get it and read it.

[Ausmumof3]

It would still be designed to put weight on a calf quickly. It's somthing intrinsic to milk, not something added by the farmer or given to the lactating cow.

We did a dairy farm visit and they said homogenising milk makes it harder for the body to recognise the fat and deal with it appropriately.

[displace]

A new article. I am going to get his book.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/why-diets-dont-actually-work-according-to-a-researcher-who-has-studied-them-for-decades/

Interesting interview regarding the psychologist's new book. Personally I tend to look on a medical answer but I wonder if a psychological answer is what's needed? And to accept a set point? This seems drastic. One year ago i had a different set point than now. Five years ago it was different too, and ten years ago, etc. The problem for me is there is no set point, it's just going up. And I feel I should try to decrease that or prevent it as it's just getting worse over the years. And we all know about medical risks with obesity, especially as we age. Idk, stuff to think about.

[creekland]

I think it's the high fructose corn syrup. I am working with a doctor to balance my hormones including insulin and he has told me absolutely no HFCS as it messes with hormones and the feeling of being satisfied.

 

Could be.  I'm about to head that way again as we head to my in-laws.  One of these days I need to learn to like cold tea for my caffeine needs, but not today.

 

I suspect there will be a bit of weight gain this weekend.   :glare:  I spent yesterday buying foods I only bought for heading down there and they will expect three meals per day with dessert at two of them.  Since I'm sitting with MIL (dementia), the only exercise I will get is to go from the chair to the table or bathroom or boat.  That, alone, is setting up for the other medical issues to be super annoying, but so far I've survived and I expect to again.  It's just a "mental" physical challenge.

 

I'm currently down 10lbs in the past month (Aug 7th - Sept 4th).  I expect this weekend will toss 4-5 lbs back on, BUT, so did our last trip (early Aug) and that all came off within a week (part of the 10 lbs, using the high from the end of that trip), so hopefully this will be temporary too.   Hopefully.

 

Over July 4th when we were with them I was able to break them into my eating less a little bit.  Eating slowly helps.  I still gained weight.  Whenever we're with any of my relatives I always gain weight.  It doesn't have to be Thanksgiving or Christmas.  The diet and lifestyle just changes tremendously and I still feel the need to be polite.  These relatives are in their mid 80s, so I'm sure not lecturing them on their choice of food, etc.

 

Spread the food out and eat slowly is my plan.  Then I'll need to be careful which threads I post on if I get cranky.   :lol:

[Pawz4me]

Could be.  I'm about to head that way again as we head to my in-laws.  One of these days I need to learn to like cold tea for my caffeine needs, but not today.

 

I suspect there will be a bit of weight gain this weekend.   :glare:  I spent yesterday buying foods I only bought for heading down there and they will expect three meals per day with dessert at two of them.  Since I'm sitting with MIL (dementia), the only exercise I will get is to go from the chair to the table or bathroom or boat.  That, alone, is setting up for the other medical issues to be super annoying, but so far I've survived and I expect to again.  It's just a "mental" physical challenge.

 

I'm currently down 10lbs in the past month (Aug 7th - Sept 4th).  I expect this weekend will toss 4-5 lbs back on, BUT, so did our last trip (early Aug) and that all came off within a week (part of the 10 lbs, using the high from the end of that trip), so hopefully this will be temporary too.   Hopefully.

 

Over July 4th when we were with them I was able to break them into my eating less a little bit.  Eating slowly helps.  I still gained weight.  Whenever we're with any of my relatives I always gain weight.  It doesn't have to be Thanksgiving or Christmas.  The diet and lifestyle just changes tremendously and I still feel the need to be polite.  These relatives are in their mid 80s, so I'm sure not lecturing them on their choice of food, etc.

 

Spread the food out and eat slowly is my plan.  Then I'll need to be careful which threads I post on if I get cranky.   :lol:

 

That's almost certainly a normal water weight fluctuation.

 

[creekland]

That's almost certainly a normal water weight fluctuation.

 

 

Water weight, BBQ buffet, (2) restaurant fish & chips dinners, (2) milkshakes, (3) typical hotel breakfast buffets, sodas, (2) tenderloin biscuits... they're all the same, right?   :coolgleamA:   It was slightly different than what I eat at home.  :lol:  Very tasty though!  And we did walk the beach a bit... ;)

[Sarah CB]

Interesting interview regarding the psychologist's new book. Personally I tend to look on a medical answer but I wonder if a psychological answer is what's needed? And to accept a set point? This seems drastic. One year ago i had a different set point than now. Five years ago it was different too, and ten years ago, etc. The problem for me is there is no set point, it's just going up. And I feel I should try to decrease that or prevent it as it's just getting worse over the years. And we all know about medical risks with obesity, especially as we age. Idk, stuff to think about.

 

I think it seems really drastic and kind of bizarre.  I've also had set points change - always up.  For years I had one set point, even after pregnancies, and then since the birth of my fourth child my "set point" has risen.  I don't feel healthy at my current "set point" and I'm also physically uncomfortable.  I don't want to accept this as where I'll be - especially because I'm terrified that in another year or two my "set point" will be even higher.  

[DawnM]

I was at the highest range of normal for the height/weight chart (the number right before entering the overweight category) for years and years.  Once I hit the overweight category I dieted.  I finally got to the lower end of the height/weight chart and I must admit I felt and looked great.   I was only able to maintain that for 2-3 years and it was HARD!  I ate very little and had to work very hard at it.  It was much easier to maintain the higher end of that chart for me.

 

However, I am well beyond any height/weight chart now and definitely obese.  I may even be morbidly obese but I haven't looked at the chart in a while.  I would just like to get back to the overweight category.  That is my first priority.

 

I am starting an eating plan in earnest this weekend.  What I have tried in the past isn't working.

[ktgrok]

I think it seems really drastic and kind of bizarre.  I've also had set points change - always up.  For years I had one set point, even after pregnancies, and then since the birth of my fourth child my "set point" has risen.  I don't feel healthy at my current "set point" and I'm also physically uncomfortable.  I don't want to accept this as where I'll be - especially because I'm terrified that in another year or two my "set point" will be even higher.  

 

One of the thoughts is that the reason the set point keeps getting higher is the constant dieting. That if a person could accept a higher than they like set point, say, 20lbs higher, and never diet strenuously, they wouldn't keep having it go up and up. 

 

Not sure what that means practically, since by the time we read books like this we are way past that point. I know that they said one of the benefits of my surgery was resetting the set point, but obviously that's not for everyone. 

 

I DO highly agree with her science, and with the idea that people have GOT to stop blaming themselves. It breaks my heart. 

[Laurie4b]

One of the thoughts is that the reason the set point keeps getting higher is the constant dieting. That if a person could accept a higher than they like set point, say, 20lbs higher, and never diet strenuously, they wouldn't keep having it go up and up. 

 

Not sure what that means practically, since by the time we read books like this we are way past that point. I know that they said one of the benefits of my surgery was resetting the set point, but obviously that's not for everyone. 

 

I DO highly agree with her science, and with the idea that people have GOT to stop blaming themselves. It breaks my heart. 

 

 

And doctors. Doctors have got to stop blaming people for following the medical advise they have been given to lose weight and then getting worse. 

[kroe1]

The problem with the set point theory is that it implies there is nothing that can be done. It is a battle we cannot win. No hope is allowed.

 

This is so untrue. The body is never stagnant (not even dead). There is no set point at any given day, not even any given second. It could be that the author is just trying to simplify the struggles and frustrations of obesity. It is, no doubt, a multifactorial phenomenon. But, if there were true set points, then bariatric surgery would not be as successful as it is.

 

I would love to hear some opinions before I read yet another "I am going to get rich" book that will fail, yet again, so many people with weight problems and wallets.

[KathyBC]

Cheesy, inspirational video for this morning.  :) 

[PeachyDoodle]

Some scientific research supporting the theory that the brains of severely overweight people react differently than the brains of normal weight subjects to certain foods.

EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/econ-sst082715.php

 

Do they know whether this is a cause or effect? Do overweight people gain weight because of their "faulty" brain reaction, or does being overweight cause the misfire?

[displace]

One of the thoughts is that the reason the set point keeps getting higher is the constant dieting. That if a person could accept a higher than they like set point, say, 20lbs higher, and never diet strenuously, they wouldn't keep having it go up and up.

 

Not sure what that means practically, since by the time we read books like this we are way past that point. I know that they said one of the benefits of my surgery was resetting the set point, but obviously that's not for everyone.

 

I DO highly agree with her science, and with the idea that people have GOT to stop blaming themselves. It breaks my heart.

ITA with the set point weight theory possibility with dieting, but take a person who is not dieting over the years and is gaining weight and the "set point" changes? That's my big concern and goes against the psychologist's theory.

[PeachyDoodle]

The problem with the set point theory is that it implies there is nothing that can be done. It is a battle we cannot win. No hope is allowed.

 

This is so untrue. The body is never stagnant (not even dead). There is no set point at any given day, not even any given second. It could be that the author is just trying to simplify the struggles and frustrations of obesity. It is, no doubt, a multifactorial phenomenon. But, if there were true set points, then bariatric surgery would not be as successful as it is.

 

I would love to hear some opinions before I read yet another "I am going to get rich" book that will fail, yet again, so many people with weight problems and wallets.

 

See, this is what bothers me about the whole "stop blaming yourself" thing. It seems to be so hopeless. Maybe that's just because I'm a control freak, but if I have no ability to fix the situation, to make better choices, and if science hasn't caught up to the "real" problem, am I just screwed?

 

Certainly we need to find a better way than to wallow in the mire of guilt. That doesn't do anybody any good. What I'm proposing (and what worked for me) was a different perspective -- one that accepts responsibility for my choices while also acknowledging that I have issues (biological? psychological? spiritual?) with food that makes it very difficult for me to make the best choices. EVERYBODY has something like this that they have to deal with, some area of life where their natural inclinations lead them toward less-than-ideal choices. For some people, those areas are worse than others. I happen to wear mine on the outside in the form of extra rolls, where everybody can see exactly where I struggle. Lucky me.

 

It is not fair that I have to struggle with food when my mother and sisters do not. It's not fair that my youngest sister died in a car accident because she made one stupid mistake and forgot to wear her seat belt JUST ONCE. Life isn't fair.

 

When I got over wanting things to be fair, losing weight got a whole lot easier for me. Again, I'm only speaking to my own experience. Perhaps it will help someone in a similar situation, however.

 

[displace]

The problem with the set point theory is that it implies there is nothing that can be done. It is a battle we cannot win. No hope is allowed.

 

This is so untrue. The body is never stagnant (not even dead). There is no set point at any given day, not even any given second. It could be that the author is just trying to simplify the struggles and frustrations of obesity. It is, no doubt, a multifactorial phenomenon. But, if there were true set points, then bariatric surgery would not be as successful as it is.

 

I would love to hear some opinions before I read yet another "I am going to get rich" book that will fail, yet again, so many people with weight problems and wallets.

One theory is the hormone ghrelin (hunger hormone) decreases after bariatric surgery but increases in dieters. So if surgery physically decreased hormone levels to allow less hunger and a lower set point or easier weight loss, then a theory is that somehow altering this hormone would help weight loss. I'm curious if probiotics affect the hormone. A lot of studies showing different gut bacteria in lean vs obese people.

[Pawz4me]

ITA with the set point weight theory possibility with dieting, but take a person who is not dieting over the years and is gaining weight and the "set point" changes? That's my big concern and goes against the psychologist's theory.

 

I think the set point theory is kind of interesting to think about in normal weight people as they age.  Most people, even those who've been normal weight their entire lives, seem to gain a bit as they age.  Why is that?  Is it simply because they become more sedentary or eat more (or both)?  Or does their set point (if such a thing truly exists) naturally increase with age?  Haven't some studies shown that older adults who are slightly overweight tend to live longer?  Could that have anything to do with what seems to be the natural tendency for weight (or set point) to increase as one ages?  Lots to consider!

[Carrie12345]

That article has me all riled up now, lol.  Because I agree with everything the author is saying EXCEPT for the way she has chosen to define and represent "diet".

I am working on losing weight.  I am losing weight. (30ish down, 20ish to go, for measurement purposes, not fixed-goal purposes.)  I AM NOT ON A DIET.

[ktgrok]

The problem with the set point theory is that it implies there is nothing that can be done. It is a battle we cannot win. No hope is allowed.

 

This is so untrue. The body is never stagnant (not even dead). There is no set point at any given day, not even any given second. It could be that the author is just trying to simplify the struggles and frustrations of obesity. It is, no doubt, a multifactorial phenomenon. But, if there were true set points, then bariatric surgery would not be as successful as it is.

 

I would love to hear some opinions before I read yet another "I am going to get rich" book that will fail, yet again, so many people with weight problems and wallets.

 

Actually, one of the main pros of weight loss surgery is it helps you reset your set point. Something about it does that, they don't even know what. But for whatever reason you don't get the same slowed down metabolism, increased appetite, etc that you get with regular dieting. Your body works with you, instead of against you. It definitely changes levels of many different hormones, even before you lose weight. People with diabetes, for instance, end up off insulin within days for instance, before losing a significant amount of weight. It resets the metabolism. 

[ktgrok]

One theory is the hormone ghrelin (hunger hormone) decreases after bariatric surgery but increases in dieters. So if surgery physically decreased hormone levels to allow less hunger and a lower set point or easier weight loss, then a theory is that somehow altering this hormone would help weight loss. I'm curious if probiotics affect the hormone. A lot of studies showing different gut bacteria in lean vs obese people.

 

Not that hormone, but they do seem to effect other aspects. In fact, one study showed that people with gastric bypass on probiotics lost more than those not taking probiotics. 

 

(guess who is now taking probiotics, lol!)

[kroe1]

I think the set point theory is kind of interesting to think about in normal weight people as they age. Most people, even those who've been normal weight their entire lives, seem to gain a bit as they age. Why is that? Is it simply because they become more sedentary or eat more (or both)? Or does their set point (if such a thing truly exists) naturally increase with age? Haven't some studies shown that older adults who are slightly overweight tend to live longer? Could that have anything to do with what seems to be the natural tendency for weight (or set point) to increase as one ages? Lots to consider!

This one is quite simple. As we age, we get muscle atrophy. Striated muscle, especially the bigger ones like the quadriceps, burn the most calories. With the loss of muscle mass win aging, there goes the calorie burners. That is why weight training is so important after age 50 and probably as young as 40. All exercise helps burn some calories as we all know. But, anything that keeps the bigger striated muscles strong, burns more calories over the long term.

 

There is one final player. As we age, we do not move as much on a minute to minute basis. Young people are more likely to be shaking a leg while sitting in a chair, walking with an elevated gait, etc. Those extra tidbits of calories add up. Without an equivalent reduction in caloric intake, we get a few extra pounds a year.

[purplejackmama]

See, this is what bothers me about the whole "stop blaming yourself" thing. It seems to be so hopeless. Maybe that's just because I'm a control freak, but if I have no ability to fix the situation, to make better choices, and if science hasn't caught up to the "real" problem, am I just screwed?

 

Certainly we need to find a better way than to wallow in the mire of guilt. That doesn't do anybody any good. What I'm proposing (and what worked for me) was a different perspective -- one that accepts responsibility for my choices while also acknowledging that I have issues (biological? psychological? spiritual?) with food that makes it very difficult for me to make the best choices. EVERYBODY has something like this that they have to deal with, some area of life where their natural inclinations lead them toward less-than-ideal choices. For some people, those areas are worse than others. I happen to wear mine on the outside in the form of extra rolls, where everybody can see exactly where I struggle. Lucky me.

 

It is not fair that I have to struggle with food when my mother and sisters do not. It's not fair that my youngest sister died in a car accident because she made one stupid mistake and forgot to wear her seat belt JUST ONCE. Life isn't fair.

 

When I got over wanting things to be fair, losing weight got a whole lot easier for me. Again, I'm only speaking to my own experience. Perhaps it will help someone in a similar situation, however.

 

Interesting perspective. For me it's not about my wanting things to be "fair" I just simply want to lose weight. I know that sounds oversimplified but I want something to work. I am willing to put in the blood, sweat, and tears if I know the plan will work. I've yet to find anything that does :/

[creekland]

Um, I'd rather you folks don't mess up the set point theory.  I've already incorporated it into why I pulled off that last trip weight so quickly since earlier in my life I could gain that much before over the holidays and NOT pull it off quickly - or sometimes - ever.  I like the idea that my set point is now lower than it was.

 

Otherwise, I've lost (known markers) 18lbs since May, 14lbs since June, 11lbs since July, and 10lbs in Aug (late July and early Aug had a bit of cheatin' with trips so weight went up some between the two making Aug look impressive).  If the set point is lower due to previous weight loss, I'm less worried about what I will put on here at my in-laws.  I LIKE that theory.

 

I guess I can let you know mid Sept if it is holding true.  We're here for 4 days.  How much can one put on with far more calories in and very few heading out?

 

And... I agree with those who say this isn't dieting.  Our regular diet is our new normal IMO.  Once I'm down to where I want to be, then I'll see what's necessary to maintain it, but I doubt it will end up looking like our vacation food list.  I even forgot to add 2 supreme deep dish pizzas on that list - no wonder at all that the scale tipped 5lbs higher upon my return!  I didn't consume the entire pizzas though - just 1/4 each - still plenty when added to everything else!

[Laura Corin]

This one is quite simple. As we age, we get muscle atrophy. Striated muscle, especially the bigger ones like the quadriceps, burn the most calories. With the loss of muscle mass win aging, there goes the calorie burners. That is why weight training is so important after age 50 and probably as young as 40. All exercise helps burn some calories as we all know. But, anything that keeps the bigger striated muscles strong, burns more calories over the long term.

 

 

Just wanted to mention that 'weight training' does not need to be 'lifting weights'.  Yoga forces me to carry up to 60 kilos on various large muscles repeatedly and systematically.

[PeachyDoodle]

Interesting perspective. For me it's not about my wanting things to be "fair" I just simply want to lose weight. I know that sounds oversimplified but I want something to work. I am willing to put in the blood, sweat, and tears if I know the plan will work. I've yet to find anything that does :/

 

I hear you. I've been there. I guess it comes down to how you define "works."

 

For me, I finally had to come to terms with putting in the blood, sweat and tears *without* knowing whether it would work. I knew that there would be health benefits to eating better and exercise, and I was sick of feeling trapped by my compulsion to eat junk and sit around. (Can you have a compulsion to NOT do something??) But I didn't know if the end result would be significant weight loss. I just knew that the new choices were better than the old ones, and I wasn't going to give up.

 

For years, it really, truly FELT like it was beyond my control. It really, truly WASN'T. It's still hard, but it isn't impossible. I am not a prisoner to my genes, or my hormones, or my gut bacteria, or whatever.

 

It is SLOW. It is PAINSTAKING. It is WORTH IT. I wouldn't stop now if you paid me. It is ongoing, and it will be until I die, I expect. Whether I end up skinny or not, it doesn't matter. I have to make the effort, day after day. And I have had to accept that I will have to make the effort, day after day. For me, at least, making that effort is better (physically, psychologically, emotionally) than being trapped in my compulsion.

 

Guess what I had for lunch today? Two chocolate-covered pretzels and a couple of orange slices (the pure sugar kind, not fruit). But I ate well the rest of the day. I busted my tail in the gym this morning, and tomorrow I will get up and do it again. I make healthy choices 90% of the time, and when I splurge, it doesn't derail me. THIS lifestyle is much closer to "normal" than my old one ever was.