Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[ktgrok]

I find it interesting that one of the early replies used bariatric surgery as an example of CICO working.   I've always thought it was proof that it doesn't.  Yes, people lose weight in the first year.   The people I've seen that have had the surgery became less fat, but ano where near skinny or ideal range or even out of the obese range.  My mother has a out-of-town friend that visited over a holiday and stayed about a week.   She'd had her stomach removed.  I estimate she ate about 500 calories a day and she was about 300 pounds.  The stomach had been gone for awhile.  If CICO worked and your stomach was removed you'd be emaciated.  

 

Yup. I've had the sleeve surgery. Eating 600-800 calories a day I was only losing 2lbs a week. I'm now upt o 800-1,000 but barely losing at all. And if I eat carbs above say, 50net grams I don't lose. Period. 

[Catwoman]

Really? I have to live in extreme political circumstances to have a valid viewpoint and feeling?

 

I have eaten and moved "at moderate levels" for a decade and been morbidly obese the entire time.

 

It's ok that you don't believe me. Really, we have been SO indoctrinated that fat people are lazy, stupid, and lack will power and are likely to have emotional problems.

 

You can read past my posts and not believe a word I've reported.

 

I'll just get back to my salad and one of many (on my feet) jobs.

FWIW, I don't think anyone here has even remotely suggested that you are lazy, stupid, or lacking in willpower, nor that you have emotional problems. It seems like you are getting defensive when no one is trying to be "fat-shaming." My impression is that people may or may not disagree with each other in terms of how to lose weight, but that everyone is in agreement that it isn't easy and that different methods work for different people.

[Greta]

But your experience (and several others that have been posted) corroborates that CICO does indeed work.

My experience leads me to conclude that my weight is determined first and foremost by my hormones, not by calories.

 

Again, I'm not saying that CICO isn't true. I'm saying that it's a gross oversimplification that gives short shrift to many other important factors, including factors which I suspect are more important.

 

It simply does. There's no one who wouldn't lose weight if they restricted their calories enough (or exercised enough to create a deficit). There's not a single person here who, if placed in a famine situation, wouldn't lose weight.

 

Now perhaps we're debating at cross purposes, because I am not nor have I ever claimed that maintaining a sufficient caloric deficit to lose weight is easy, or that it's not apparently harder for some than for others.

 

But to me that is a totally different issue than saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss. It does.

 

Now the "why" of why it's apparently so much harder for some to eat (and/or exercise) at a deficit in a modern, wealthy society is worthy of discussion. IMO, of course. As are issues like the role of genetics, hormones, gut bacteria, etc. No doubt some or all of them play a role in why it's harder for some than for others.

Yes, what we mean by "works" is a very important consideration. For someone who (in order to lose weight) would have to restrict their calories so severely that their quality of life would be negatively impacted, then I personally have no problem with saying "CICO doesn't work for them." Would it work if they were starved half to death? Yeah, but so what? Here in the real world, it has failed. And we're not doing anyone any favors by insisting that it would work if they would just be willing to eat so little that they would be utterly miserable and unable to function. We can only help them if we admit that CICO has its limits and failures, and start looking for something that will actually help them.

 

Apply this same idea to any other drug or treatment for any other condition. If it would only work if you used such a massive dose of it that your quality of life was trashed, would most of us still say it "works"? Or would we start looking for other drugs and treatment options?

[LucyStoner]

And then this raises questions like - would it be better to be heavier but in shape?

 

I am heavier but I am generally in shape. I'm just not a small person. Lots of muscle (upper and lower body), high endurance. My blood work shows someone who is well nourished and not unhealthy, my blood pressure is solidly healthy.

 

I got really discouraged as a young adult because I was comparing my weight to the weights of much shorter women or women who just have a fine, slender build. Ironically, this in part led to me gaining weight because I felt like it was hopeless. And I was right. It IS totally hopeless for me to be a 130 or even 145 pounds. I would have to literally starve myself and possibly amputate a limb. That doesn't mean that women my height who are 130 pounds are starving themselves, it just means that they are likely built slimmer.

 

I had to learn to appreciate my size and be comfortable taking up the space I take up.

 

I also had to learn to ignore BMI because if I go by that, I will always be fat. I was "overweight" when I was actually too small for my frame and unhealthy (a size only reached due to water borne illness- clearly not a strategy for health!)

[ktgrok]

 

But I do not see how one can argue with the principle is that with enough movement and less food, one loses weight.

No oneis saying that if they never ate again they wouldn't lose weight. But that there are so many other factors. Some of us can lose with higher calories but lower carbs versus fewer calories but more carbs. We have tracked and found it true. So yeah, when I've seen the numbers myself, I can say it's not just calories in vs out. 

 

On a standard diet, without carb restriction, even eating only homecooking and "real foods" I gain weight. When I cut my calories by nearly 1K a day, and doubled my exercise, I didn't lose weight. 

[Joanne]

FWIW, I don't think anyone here has even remotely suggested that you are lazy, stupid, or lacking in willpower, nor that you have emotional problems. It seems like you are getting defensive when no one is trying to be "fat-shaming." My impression is that people may or may not disagree with each other in terms of how to lose weight, but that everyone is in agreement that it isn't easy and that different methods work for different people.

 

 

On the bold, those are the associations underlying our culture's response to weight (in women, especially).

 

I am defensive, but less so than it may seem. Our words and assumptions about fat and related issues are not terribly evolved or conscious as a culture. I am "just" a loud voice about it.

 

[Halftime Hope]

Interesting. I've had a somewhat similar experience --under to normal weight as a child but steadily gained throughout teen years. Realized at 25 that I was obese and that if I didn't do something about it then I probably never would.  Also had a father and an aunt with diabetes.  Lost weight using CICO and followed that for 27 years.  Was diagnosed with hypothyroidism two months ago (with concurrent increases in cholesterol and BG) and am still getting medication dosage sorted out.  It was in these past two months that I've really been able to fully understand that CICO irrefutably works.

 

Two people, similar experiences, different conclusions.

 

If by CICO, you mean calories in/calories out, I think that's what Joanne and some others are trying to say: for them, indeed for a certain percentage of the population, it is NOT irrefutable. 

 

In my family, CICO produces weight GAIN for one family member.  Since I'm the cook in the family, and thus the one counting the calories--when we were banging our heads on the wall trying that weight loss strategy-- I promise you it. does. not. work for this family member.  

[MrsMommy]

FWIW, I don't think anyone here has even remotely suggested that you are lazy, stupid, or lacking in willpower, nor that you have emotional problems. It seems like you are getting defensive when no one is trying to be "fat-shaming." My impression is that people may or may not disagree with each other in terms of how to lose weight, but that everyone is in agreement that it isn't easy and that different methods work for different people.

 

But I think that's the problem. I don't think most people try to fat-shame, but it's become such a common part of our society that it happens all.the.time. even if people don't realize they're doing it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am not sure why that would be insulting. The problem is just that we are designed for a LOT more movement than the average Western adult gets during normal life.

 

Every backpacker who has only the food she can carry on her back is losing weight - because she eats less than she needs to replenish the calories burned. I have not seen any exception.

I just think our idea of how much physical activity corresponds to how much extra food is inaccurate. An hour at the gym or a 2 mile walk don't really do much.

But I do not see how one can argue with the principle is that with enough movement and less food, one loses weight.

 

I think the biggest argument is why some people can't get passed feeling starved.  So eating less does not work for them because they feel miserable.  Yes, if someone eats very little then after awhile they will lose weight.  I don't think anyone would really argue with that.  Just go to a country where people are malnourished. 

 

Why is it that if I eat oatmeal for breakfast I quickly feel shaky, dizzy, and starved even though I'm told it's the proper amount of calories for me?   Not everyone is the same is what I'm getting at here.

[SparklyUnicorn]

But I think that's the problem. I don't think most people try to fat-shame, but it's become such a common part of our society that it happens all.the.time. even if people don't realize they're doing it.

 

Yes, one of the few acceptable forms of shaming left. 

[Guest]

Many Americans could benefit from the standard advice to eat less and move more. Although weight loss and maintenance aren't as simple as that and different people have different needs, I don't perceive that general advice as hateful or fat shaming.

Except there are plenty of us who eat less, religiously counting every calorie and logging it, and move more, to the tune of extra HOURS per day of exercise, and find ourselves getting hungrier and hungrier to account for the increased energy expenditure and decreased fuel, not thinner.

 

The hormonal models of obesity take into account that the etiology of someone who actually grows new fat cells in response to energy stimuli, instead of simply distending the adipocytes they have, is vastly different. Someone who reaches morbid obesity as a teen or young adult is not in any way experiencing the same phenomenon as a middle aged spread or beer belly. And even when those two individuals are the exact same size, the reduced obese person does not have a body that responds to food like the never obese person. They never will.

 

The inherent problem with the calories in, calories out model is twofold. A) we are not bomb calorimeters, incinerating all food with no regard for the constituent parts. B) it moralizes thinness and obesity, whereby the thin person must be eating and moving the correct amount and the fat person must not be. To put it lightly, it's elitist bullshit, all science aside.

[Scarlett]

I can tell you that it IS hateful and shaming.

 

It assumes that the person has never heard the advice - when "eat less move more" is so indoctrincated in our culture. We've all heard it, over and over.

 

It also assumes that the overweight person overeats (which is not necessarily true) and that they don't move (enough) which is also not true.

 

It is a kinder, gentler variation of the fat and lazy stereotype that fuels fat shaming.

 

It is similar to the advice to "take care of the emotional issues" behind eating. I can tell you that my weight issues are not psychological either (with the exception of the biochemical impact of less sleep and weight which could be fit under a psychological umbrella).

 

 

I guess I am left wondering what it is you are wanting.  Do you think anything would work for you?  

 

I read an article that made sense to me based upon my experience.  It is that once a person becomes obese their brain chemistry changes and what would work for a non obese person no longer works.  That is why DRASTIC things need to be done to get the weight off.  I've never even been over weight so maybe I am not someone people want to hear from on this....IDK.  

 

I have had 20 pounds creep up on me since I got married 5 years ago.  Still not over weight.  But getting close.  So I decided to get part of it off.  I managed to get 10 pounds off and keep it off for almost 5 months.  At first it was brutal.  Then after about 10 days of a fairly strict diet, I have had what I would say is an easy time of keeping it off.  My cravings are way down.  And here is a weird one.  I quit wanting cream and sugar in my coffee (they way I've taken it since I was 15)...and then I quit wanting coffee.  So I know our actions can affect our over all desires and cravings.  

 

Anyway, I think it comes back to the mind.  My thinking had to be changed.  I feel that is different than will power.  Because I have to have food at certain times or I get ill.   I don't power through at those times.  

 

I hope you find something that works for you.

[Guest]

But why are people eating it? Why don't they just feel full on a smaller amount of calories? Why do some people eat half and say "wow, I'm stuffed" and other people eat the whole thing and want dessert? It's not just that the food is there. There is something driving some people to eat more and more and never be satisfied.

The science of appetite and what is driving the entire cycle is finally advancing at rapid pace. Amen and about time.

[Jane in NC]

So a question for Joanne and others:  my husband's employer, a Fortune 500, gives a health insurance discount to people with metrics like BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure under a certain number.  An obese person may not have the BMI to qualify but I believe the discount is still given for something like 4 out of 5 criteria.  Cigarette smokers receive no discount.  Period.

 

I assume actuaries have come up with the magic numbers for these discounts.  Do you see this as blatantly discriminatory?

 

 

[Guest]

:lol: I guess my advice for 17, 21, and 24 would be a bit young to truly recommend. 19 and 27 did me in and left me with weight gain. One from thyroid, the last because I guess I'm old and falling apart? :crying:

It's not just you. I was morbidly obese by 19 after having been a healthy body weight up to puberty. That, plus SSRI's, pulled the trigger on the loaded genetic gun.

 

I had two babies morbidly obese, found what worked for me and lost a bunch of weight over the next two pregnancies. I was happy and healthy in the 145-160 range, after having been 270 and 22 years of age.

 

Then my body changed and crashed, got extremely sick, and stopped working. My cortisol was wonky, my thyroid was off, I was perniciouslt anemic, and in the exact same situation - a pregnancy, I gained 70 pounds instead of the 15-20 I gained in the previous four pregnancies. People are seriously going to tell me I just changed what I was doing that had been working? That I somehow forgot everything that allowed me to lose weight, despite records showing me adhering to it, and that's why the weight came back on?

 

I stopped my cortisone doses and now feel sicker again. But la di da, the rapid weight gain stopped. Of course, now I'm morbidly obese again and trying desperately to find something livable that will get me back down into the healthy range for my height. You know, without killing me to the point where I have more allergies and can't get out of bed again.

 

I didn't change. My hormonal profile did. Again. And I'm not even 30. What ails me isn't what ails my mom, who put on 20 pounds post menopause after fighting the extra 10-15 most of her life but remaining reasonably healthy. Sorry, we are different. She can do weightwatchers and succeed. I tried and cannot. For me, calorie composition matters more than absolute volume, because my body doesn't respond properly to insulin. I keep rock steady blood sugars and shockingly low A1Cs and still my body stores calories instead of using them, and I feel hungry two hours after eating if I'm not completely circumventing the process by eating extremely low carb and engaging in moderate degrees of ketosis, instead.

 

Sucks to be me.

[Guest]

So a question for Joanne and others: my husband's employer, a Fortune 500, gives a health insurance discount to people with metrics like BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure under a certain number. An obese person may not have the BMI to qualify but I believe the discount is still given for something like 4 out of 5 criteria. Cigarette smokers receive no discount. Period.

 

I assume actuaries have come up with the magic numbers for these discounts. Do you see this as blatantly discriminatory?

Yeah, pretty much. We were actually denied several insurances and then heavily dinged for another when I was heavier and before we were members of CHM. I had perfect cholesterol, blood sugar, resting heartrate in the mid 50's, etc, but because I was 240 pounds at the time I was too fat to be a good bet for them. One of my huge milestones in weight loss was 189 and 164, which were the markers whereby this insurance would charge us a lower fee and finally, where I'd get the discounted price for good health. It was motivating and painful, all at once. I tried so hard and did finally make it, but now I'm not sure I can do it again because my body is so broken and sick. If I cannot manage this before Christmas I'm probably going for drastic measures, so I don't die of a comorbidity to obesity first.

 

I should add, I know why insurance does this and realize it is a financial management tool based on risk assessment. Got it. But the data off of which they base their choices isn't people, it's averages. Oftentimes very flawed averages. If they simply tuned up their data tables and risk software to account more heavily for certain factors than others (like, say, sky high triglycerides as opposed to absolute body weight or BMI) it would have less issues. But the fact remains that insurance works in a way that discriminates against perceived financial risk, and obesity is one of the things that hits hardest.

[Scarlett]

I think the biggest argument is why some people can't get passed feeling starved.  So eating less does not work for them because they feel miserable.  Yes, if someone eats very little then after awhile they will lose weight.  I don't think anyone would really argue with that.  Just go to a country where people are malnourished. 

 

Why is it that if I eat oatmeal for breakfast I quickly feel shaky, dizzy, and starved even though I'm told it's the proper amount of calories for me?   Not everyone is the same is what I'm getting at here.

 

 

If I had a bowl of oat meal only for breakfast I would be shaky within the hour.  I have to have something like nuts or eggs.

[Guest]

If I had a bowl of oat meal only for breakfast I would be shaky within the hour. I have to have something like nuts or eggs.

I love oatmeal, but it doesn't love me back. I always serve it to my kids with plenty of eggs and butter, and they're filled for hours. But just oatmeal alone doesn't stick with them nearly as long.

[Jane in NC]

Yeah, pretty much. We were actually denied several insurances and then heavily dinged for another when I was heavier and before we were members of CHM. I had perfect cholesterol, blood sugar, resting heartrate in the mid 50's, etc, but because I was 240 pounds at the time I was too fat to be a good bet for them. One of my huge milestones in weight loss was 189 and 164, which were the markers whereby this insurance would charge us a lower fee and finally, where I'd get the discounted price for good health. It was motivating and painful, all at once. I tried so hard and did finally make it, but now I'm not sure I can do it again because my body is so broken and sick. If I cannot manage this before Christmas I'm probably going for drastic measures, so I don't die of a comorbidity to obesity first.

 

I should add, I know why insurance does this and realize it is a financial management tool based on risk assessment. Got it. But the data off of which they base their choices isn't people, it's averages. Oftentimes very flawed averages. If they simply tuned up their data tables and risk software to account more heavily for certain factors than others (like, say, sky high triglycerides as opposed to absolute body weight or BMI) it would have less issues. But the fact remains that insurance works in a way that discriminates against perceived financial risk, and obesity is one of the things that hits hardest.

 

Um, I just "liked" your post since you were continuing my conversation--but it goes without saying that I am truly sorry that you are facing your health challenges.

 

My husband also has issues with the risk assessment tool the company uses.  He has unacceptable cholesterol numbers unless he is on a statin--and he hates the way statins make him feel. There is a new heart scan that he had done which demonstrated that he has a healthy heart.  But the scan does not fit into the quick "check it off the list" profile.  Very frustrating.

 

[MBM]

Psychological well-being plays a major role in obesity as well. The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (ACEs) illustrates this. The more emotional trauma a person experiences, the more likely that person will develop serious health problems: obesity, heart disease, drug and alcohol addictions, depression, anxiety, suicide. They develop behavior problems which are largely caused by their changed neurobiology.

 

ACEs developed from Dr. Vincent Filitti's discovery that trauma causes a significant number of people to become and remain obese. Felitti, who was in charge of weight loss programs for Kaiser Permanente's Department of Preventive Health, noticed that many of his patients were successfully losing weight but would drop out despite their success. He eventually learned that many of these individuals had been abused, often sexually. The excess weight protected them by making them less noticeable and less alluring.

 

http://acestoohigh.com/2012/10/03/the-adverse-childhood-experiences-study-the-largest-most-important-public-health-study-you-never-heard-of-began-in-an-obesity-clinic/

 

[mamaraby]

first, actually bariatric patients are put on a low carb diet, so it's still not just calorie restriction. To get enough protein you have to very much limit carbs because you can only eat so much.

That was generally my point. And of course you're eating low carb - you'd have to limit fiber intake pretty drastically or you'd fill up before you consumed enough calories to ward off nutritional deficiencies. But it's a practical consideration and not proof that low-carb diets are the magic solution. And *if* calorie restriction plays no role *and* it establishes some sort of magical hormonal/inflammation curing solution then according to a great deal of this thread, weight loss would not only be easy, but permanent.

 

However, as another poster mentioned up thread and as an indictment against calories playing a role in weight gain and loss, bariatric surgery is not a guarantee of sustained or permanent weight loss. People do gain their weight back because it's not magic and it wasn't the right tool for them.

 

What's incredibly ironic to me is that these same people who feel so judged and shamed by people who eat differently than they do, engage in the same tactics when someone else speaks up and says "that didn't work for me." I gave up on weight loss for a number of years because I believed it when the low-carb chorus said that calories didn't matter and that diets didn't work and that low-carb was *the* solution. I not only gained back everything I lost while on a low-carb, high-fat diet, but I gained more because I stopped caring and couldn't handle the constant nausea that came along with a low-carb diet. The "right" diet failed for me ergo nothing would work and I would be stuck morbidly obese for the rest of my life.

 

But calories do matter. It isn't magic. There isn't one way to lose weight. Fat doesn't magically make everyone feel full. Increased protein intake can make your more hungry. And diets fail, not because they don't work, but because individuals do not find them sustainable in the long term.

 

Maybe instead of desperately needing to be *right* with evangelical furor that one must start a thread to insist that anyone who disagrees is wrong and therefore guilty of fat shaming people, one could simply say "this worked for me, that didn't" and leave space for other people to say the same even if that means that they're talking about your preferred method of weight loss.

 

High fiber wasn't sustainable for you? Oh well, try something different, but don't generalize and tell me that it doesn't work. It not only works for me, it's still working. 52lbs with 77lbs to go. It's like a part-time job. It's slow. It sucks. But I can do this indefinitely. You can't? That's ok. You find what works for you then.

 

But I can't say this without someone else chiming in about how the low-carb thing was just magic for them. And I can't talk about my own personal experiences without the low-carb chorus needing to prove me wrong because they're right, forever and ever amen. That's what this thread is about in the end. Not just talking about what personally works...being *right*.

[Joanne]

That was generally my point. And of course you're eating low carb - you'd have to limit fiber intake pretty drastically or you'd fill up before you consumed enough calories to ward off nutritional deficiencies. But it's a practical consideration and not proof that low-carb diets are the magic solution. And *if* calorie restriction plays no role *and* it establishes some sort of magical hormonal/inflammation curing solution then according to a great deal of this thread, weight loss would not only be easy, but permanent.

 

However, as another poster mentioned up thread and as an indictment against calories playing a role in weight gain and loss, bariatric surgery is not a guarantee of sustained or permanent weight loss. People do gain their weight back because it's not magic and it wasn't the right tool for them.

 

What's incredibly ironic to me is that these same people who feel so judged and shamed by people who eat differently than they do, engage in the same tactics when someone else speaks up and says "that didn't work for me." I gave up on weight loss for a number of years because I believed it when the low-carb chorus said that calories didn't matter and that diets didn't work and that low-carb was *the* solution. I not only gained back everything I lost while on a low-carb, high-fat diet, but I gained more because I stopped caring and couldn't handle the constant nausea that came along with a low-carb diet. The "right" diet failed for me ergo nothing would work and I would be stuck morbidly obese for the rest of my life.

 

But calories do matter. It isn't magic. There isn't one way to lose weight. Fat doesn't magically make everyone feel full. Increased protein intake can make your more hungry. And diets fail, not because they don't work, but because individuals do not find them sustainable in the long term.

 

Maybe instead of desperately needing to be *right* with evangelical furor that one must start a thread to insist that anyone who disagrees is wrong and therefore guilty of fat shaming people, one could simply say "this worked for me, that didn't" and leave space for other people to say the same even if that means that they're talking about your preferred method of weight loss.

 

High fiber wasn't sustainable for you? Oh well, try something different, but don't generalize and tell me that it doesn't work. It not only works for me, it's still working. 52lbs with 77lbs to go. It's like a part-time job. It's slow. It sucks. But I can do this indefinitely. You can't? That's ok. You find what works for you then.

 

But I can't say this without someone else chiming in about how the low-carb thing was just magic for them. And I can't talk about my own personal experiences without the low-carb chorus needing to prove me wrong because they're right, forever and ever amen. That's what this thread is about in the end. Not just talking about what personally works...being *right*.

 

What this post doesn't account for is the moralizing associated with fat and the weight loss style endorsed by cico and eat less/move more.

[creekland]

I think the biggest argument is why some people can't get passed feeling starved.  

 

I can tell you it's super easy to lose weight when you never feel hungry.  All I had to overcome were all the other cues for eating (and there are plenty) and then make smarter choices regarding what to eat.  With that accomplished, I now have to (usually) tell myself to eat, esp if no one else is around to remind me it's time to eat.  As I type, I haven't eaten since breakfast and I wasn't hungry then either.  I only fixed it and ate it to remain healthy. It was quite tasty, but I didn't need it hunger-wise.  I could easily skip supper as well... and if hubby weren't coming home, I probably would or I'd eat a pear or something just to have had something.

 

I really, really wish I could pass this aspect on to the rest of you!  It is sort of making me feel guilty reading about some of your experiences.

 

In general, I've started following threads like these because hubby has now joined me in wanting to lose weight and because I wish my mom would lose weight for her health.  He's "normal" with his hunger.  She's "always" hungry.  I appreciate all of you who have shared personally so I can glean ideas from them, for them.

 

I also appreciate those of you sharing some nutrition info.  I don't want to lose health while losing weight - for any of us.

 

But I still wish I could share the lack of hunger bit... it would help significantly for many.  Hopefully scientists will make inroads soon.

[SparklyUnicorn]

If I had a bowl of oat meal only for breakfast I would be shaky within the hour.  I have to have something like nuts or eggs.

 

Yep, and I have always been this way. 

[Scarlett]

I have gone through times of no appetite.  When I was going through a difficult life upheaval I literally lost 20 pounds in one month.  Down to 112 pounds.  Interestingly I continued to cook meals for my then 9 year old son but it was like I was cooking imaginary food.  I had zero interest in it.  My neighbor practically spoon fed me at times to get me to eat. 

 

I don't recommend that way.  But it did clue me into the fact that I have to take a different view of food if I want to keep the weight off.  I concentrate on eating the things I pre plan to eat to insure I have enough nutrition and energy.  Beyond that I put food out of my mind.  

 

Agree to about the other triggers....social ones.  Here have a cookie, here eat because everyone else is.  Here have ice cream at Braums after Bible Study mid week.  I just say no.  Usually I prefer to spend my calories on things I really like or that are really healthy for me.  

[ktgrok]

 

 

Maybe instead of desperately needing to be *right* with evangelical furor that one must start a thread to insist that anyone who disagrees is wrong and therefore guilty of fat shaming people, one could simply say "this worked for me, that didn't" and leave space for other people to say the same even if that means that they're talking about your preferred method of weight loss.

 

 

 

But when people say that it's about reducing calories/exercising more they are not saying that it worked for them, if they say it is about CI/CO they are saying it is true for everyone. And it isn't. 

 

I'm not denying AT ALL that some people can lose weight just reducing calories. I'm saying that for most morbidly obese people, as in, 100 lbs too heavy, that isn't what works. 

[Scarlett]

But when people say that it's about reducing calories/exercising more they are not saying that it worked for them, if they say it is about CI/CO they are saying it is true for everyone. And it isn't. 

 

I'm not denying AT ALL that some people can lose weight just reducing calories. I'm saying that for most morbidly obese people, as in, 100 lbs too heavy, that isn't what works. 

 

 

What does?  And I am asking with no snark or judgment.  

[creekland]

Agree to about the other triggers....social ones.   here eat because everyone else is.    

 

This was my biggest one - and realizing one can watch TV/movies without eating and the shows are still pretty good!

 

Both my mom and my in-laws insist on eating tons every few hours.  Overcoming them can still be a challenge.  My mom is slightly better now.  My in-laws still don't really get it.  Hubby is fine - and starting to adapt some of my ways.

[VaKim]

I lost taste and smell three years ago and gained weight. I eat healthier than ever, only when hungry, and never too much. Doesn't matter at all.

And it just shows again how we are all different. I actually eat very little as far as food in general is concerned. But when it comes to sweets and junk that I love the taste of, I am a ravenous monster. I can eat that kind of stuff nonstop. If it didn't taste good, I wouldn't want it. If I ate everything the way I eat sweets, I would weigh 900 pounds by now.

[Catwoman]

But I think that's the problem. I don't think most people try to fat-shame, but it's become such a common part of our society that it happens all.the.time. even if people don't realize they're doing it.

Perhaps, but I also think some people tend to look for ill intent where it does not exist, and get offended and defensive over comments that they may be misinterpreting as a result of their own personal preconceptions.

 

I guess my point is this -- if you know a person has good intentions and that he or she is not trying to fat-shame, why would you still consider their comments or suggestions to be fat-shaming?

 

I think there is a lot to be said for assuming that most people are not intentionally fat-shaming, nor do they believe that overweight people are -- as Joanne mentioned -- lazy, stupid, lacking in willpower, or having emotional problems. If someone is obviously being mean, that's clearly very wrong, but if, as you said, most people aren't trying to fat-shame, I think you should consider their intentions before getting upset and if you know they mean well and don't realize that they are saying anything wrong, you can educate them by telling them why their comments hurt your feelings rather than going on the defensive about how you were fat-shamed.

 

BTW, when I say "you," I mean it as a general you; I don't mean you personally. :)

 

I know fat-shaming exists; I'm just suggesting that some people seem to go out of their way to look for it instead of trying to give people the benefit of the doubt if they seem to have good intentions, rather than immediately getting defensive about it and assuming the worst.

[kitten18]

But when people say that it's about reducing calories/exercising more they are not saying that it worked for them, if they say it is about CI/CO they are saying it is true for everyone. And it isn't. 

 

I'm not denying AT ALL that some people can lose weight just reducing calories. I'm saying that for most morbidly obese people, as in, 100 lbs too heavy, that isn't what works. 

 

And there is always an underlying judgement that people are morbidly obese because they ate too much and moved too little.  In other words, they were lazy pigs.

What we're finding is that there is a fat storage problem.  There is something wrong in the endocrine system (insulin is a big part) that is causing their bodies to store fat.

[albeto.]

Perhaps, but I also think some people tend to look for ill intent where it does not exist, and get offended and defensive over comments that they may be misinterpreting as a result of their own personal preconceptions.

 

I guess my point is this -- if you know a person has good intentions and that he or she is not trying to fat-shame, why would you still consider their comments or suggestions to be fat-shaming?

 

I think there is a lot to be said for assuming that most people are not intentionally fat-shaming, nor do they believe that overweight people are -- as Joanne mentioned -- lazy, stupid, lacking in willpower, or having emotional problems. If someone is obviously being mean, that's clearly very wrong, but if, as you said, most people aren't trying to fat-shame, I think you should consider their intentions before getting upset and if you know they mean well, you can educate them by telling them why their comments hurt your feelings rather than going on the defensive about how you were fat-shamed.

 

BTW, when I say "you," I mean it as a general you; I don't mean you personally. :)

 

I know fat-shaming exists; I'm just suggesting that some people seem to go out of their way to look for it instead of trying to give people the benefit of the doubt if they seem to have good intentions, rather than immediately getting defensive about it and assuming the worst.

 

Why should the onus be on the person to politely and patiently endure more shaming? 

 

ETA: This isn't just about size. It's about all kinds of things that defy conventional assumptions. People tend to assume their personal experiences are indicative of the way the world works. When information conflicts with this assumption, people are going to be wrong. Humans have been through this with regard to seizures, autism, mental health, sexual orientation and identity, and size is no different. People are going to be wrong when they assume their opinions are more valid than objective facts. Why should the person being shamed politely accept it? Why should people not promote knowledge and reason over tradition? 

[Catwoman]

Why should the onus be on the person to politely and patiently endure more shaming?

Because it isn't shaming. It's someone using a phrase that was not intended to be shaming, but that was interpreted by someone as being offensive.

 

If someone is deliberately shaming someone, obviously that person shouldn't "politely endure" it. And as I already mentioned, even if it wasn't deliberate, if the person's feelings were hurt, there is no reason why they shouldn't explain why the comment upset them.

[ktgrok]

What does?  And I am asking with no snark or judgment.  

 

Honestly, not sure I know. We need so much more research into this. But eliminating sugar and processed carbs helps. It's not enough for many, but it helps. 

 

I went with surgery after spending a lifetime literally battling food. It was at the point that good food terrified me, because I knew it would just make me fat. Now I can eat small portions of certain foods. Other foods I no longer care for much. And it's still not easy. 

 

And I suppose I should say at SOME level calorie restriction works. Fasting works eventually. If I eat 600-800 calories a day I lose 2lbs a week. But that's not reasonable or truly doable for most people, and we have to figure out why the metabolism is so messed up that that level of calorie restriction becomes needed. 

[albeto.]

Because it isn't shaming. It's someone using a phrase that was not intended to be shaming, but that was interpreted by someone as being offensive.

 

If someone is deliberately shaming someone, obviously that person shouldn't "politely endure" it. And as I already mentioned, even if it wasn't deliberate, if the person's feelings were hurt, there is no reason why they shouldn't explain why the comment upset them.

 

I disagree that intent is necessarily the variable by which these decisions ought to be made, but in general, what's wrong with correcting ignorance? 

 

I'm not suggesting one should point out how another is being discourteous and hostile, I'm suggesting correct erroneous information. 

[foxbridgeacademy]

Does it have to be all or nothing?  I think assuming that obesity is EITHER caused by excess calories OR caused by inflammation/hormonal imbalance/etc is a false dichotomy.  It is very likely some combination of both.  

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

[Catwoman]

I disagree that intent is necessarily the variable by which these decisions ought to be made, but in general, what's wrong with correcting ignorance?

 

I'm not suggesting one should point out how another is being discourteous and hostile, I'm suggesting correct erroneous information.

I never suggested that there was anything wrong with correcting erroneous information. I specifically stated that if someone is upset by something someone said, they should explain to that person why their feelings were hurt.

[kroe1]

Technically, CICO will work for everyone, there just has to be some major assumptions:

 

1. Everyone has different rates for CO depending on muscle mass. All striated muscle burns calories at about the same rate, no matter who it is attached to. They are the main calorie burners of the body. Everything else is almost negligible in the grand scheme of things. The bigger the muscle, the more calories burned. For humans the biggest muscles are the quadriceps. Those quadricep loving sports like intense cycling have higher caloric needs than other sports like ballroom dancing.

 

2. Many people feel aerobic sports should burn lots of calories. But not all do. One can get a heart rate up to 150 in an out of shape jogger and compare it to a fit person doing squats not even breaking a heart rate of 70. The squatter will be burning tons more calories than the jogger. The reason goes back to the quadriceps. Bigger muscles being worked hard and fast burn more calories than small muscles like the cardiac muscle in the heart. Obese people may have harder times getting good muscle resistance, making some of the same exercises less effective.

 

3. As we age past 50, muscle atrophy accelerates faster than we make/repair muscle. When that happens, and there is no increase in weight training, our daily caloric needs plummet. No adjustment in intake means we will get that matronly figure, we swore we would never get.

 

4. People assume that satiety corresponds with daily caloric and/or nutrient needs. That is a big misconception. Does our desire for a cigarette correspond with daily needs? Or a glass of wine? Our brain's desires are multifactorily determined and not always in our best interest. Everyone has different triggers and desires for food. Just like the addict, we must regulate our intake based on what we physically need, not what our brain would like. There are several accidental medications which seem to work relatively well at eliminating hunger. But, this still does not eliminate desire. We are all different creatures in this regard. Those with little willpower must do drastic things like not buying food, lock up food, get a hobby that has no access to food, etc. Yeah, I have already heard every excuse why this is not possible. So be it. Stay overweight.

 

5. Hormones, especially thyroid hormones, cortisol, insulin and other indigenous molecules really effect weight. These are not dynamic and change day by day as well as year by year. Knowing what is going on in one's own body and fighting what one can is essential. Unfortunately, some of the treatments can actually cause more weight gain, I.e. taking insulin for diabetes. There is no great answer here. Those in this club will have to manage a very tiny caloric intake with nutrient supplements.

 

6. There have been several retrospective studies on obese people who lost massive amounts of weight and kept it off for over 5 years. There were some surprising common elements. On the whole, major lifestyle changes were made such as eating tiny portions 5 times per day along with an extensive workout that lasted several hours a day. Many ended up with athletic type jobs such as teaching classes all day at the gym. Crazy as it seems, there seems to be a ridiculous increase of activity coupled with a massive decrease in caloric intake required for most obese to stay thin. Ouch.

 

7. All too many get frustrated with slow or no results. Of course. It took from birth to age 40 to obtain 250 pounds. It goes to reason that it might take many years to take off half of that. Fat cells are filled with fat globules full of fatty acids just waiting for us to quit consuming calories. And the fat cells do not vanish after we consume the month or two worth of fatty acid contained within one. The fat cell hangs around for life. it might even divide in two if we starve too much too soon. After all, that is a protective survival mechanism we humans have to protect us in times of famine. Patience is key here. It might take 6 months, a year, or even five years to see results, but perseverance pays off.

 

8. With all the research, diets, books by money making wannabes, prescriptions, and Body by Jakes, bariatric surgery is still the only proven long term weight loss method for the most number of people. So be it. We have a long way to go to solve the obesity epidemic in this country.

[purplejackmama]

Me, too.

 

And it well and truly sucketh. But it is what it is.

This makes no sense. If it all comes down to a calorie in calorie out equation then what does the carbohydrate count matter. I think you contradicted yourself.

[Pawz4me]

This makes no sense. If it all comes down to a calorie in calorie out equation then what does the carbohydrate count matter. I think you contradicted yourself.

 

Nope, I don't think so.

 

Go back to post #5 where I said that calories in/calories out isn't the same thing as all calories are created equally.

 

Watching carbs helps keep my blood sugar steady, which helps keep my hunger under control, which helps me keep my calorie intake at a deficit.  I could lose weight eating higher carb as long as I maintained a calorie deficit (and I have lost weight very successfully eating a high carb diet in the past).  Lower carb just requires a bit less will power at this point in my life. But it still comes down to eating at a calorie deficit.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I believe no sweeping statement about what will work for everyone makes any sense. Habits, gut biome, genetic differences, and 1000 other things play into it. I like carbs. Fat makes me feel gross. Carbs make me happy. YMMV. No S works for me. Eating is never about hunger for me, just reward. I've kept 40 pounds off so it works for me. For anyone else? Probably not.

[Joanne]

Because it isn't shaming. It's someone using a phrase that was not intended to be shaming, but that was interpreted by someone as being offensive.

 

If someone is deliberately shaming someone, obviously that person shouldn't "politely endure" it. And as I already mentioned, even if it wasn't deliberate, if the person's feelings were hurt, there is no reason why they shouldn't explain why the comment upset them.

 

No, it is not "interpreted as being offensive." The culture around obesity and fat people assumes they eat "too much" and "move too little." People continually reinforce this with seemingly innocuous and seemingly helpful advice (that for many thousands of overweight people) is not even accurate.

 

There is research that also suggests that fat people are assumed to be stupider than non fat people.

 

The hostile environment for fat persons isn't made up, exaggerated, or "being too senstive." It exists. I am absolutely treated differently when I am thinner vs. now.

 

Discrimination - overt and covert - towards fat people is a thing. It's not a "Joanne thing". I didn't make it up. One example: "Do you think that you'd do better in private practice if you were thinner? A fat therapist............"

[purplejackmama]

Nope, I don't think so.

 

Go back to post #5 where I said that calories in/calories out isn't the same thing as all calories are created equally.

 

Watching carbs helps keep my blood sugar steady, which helps keep my hunger under control, which helps me keep my calorie intake at a deficit. I could lose weight eating higher carb as long as I maintained a calorie deficit (and I have lost weight very successfully eating a high carb diet in the past). Lower carb just requires a bit less will power for me to do that at this point in my life. But it still comes down to eating at a calorie deficit.

Ok I disagree.

[Bluegoat]

But why are people eating it? Why don't they just feel full on a smaller amount of calories? Why do some people eat half and say "wow, I'm stuffed" and other people eat the whole thing and want dessert? It's not just that the food is there. There is something driving some people to eat more and more and never be satisfied. 

 

I think at least one element in this is what people are used to.  If you are used to eating a larg amount, or eating until you actually feel full rather than just no longer hungry, or even a small amount of hunger means snacking, that's what you'll do.  A lot of those things have become cultural norms.

 

I think in part that cultural content comes out of an idea that bigger is better - its found in a lot of areas of life but in this case it is transferred to food.  Serving sizes in restaurants have become larger as a way to indicate value for money, It's something Canadian tourists notice a lot when they go to the US - serving sizes when they eat out are huge compared to what we get (and ours are still too big as well.).  Over time, the sizes and what seems normal have crept up. 

 

If we are used to eating a lot, the stomach accommodates that, and we also come to expect to finish a meal feeling stuffed.

 

Anyway - I don't think that is the only thing going on, but its one that should be relatively simple to do something about if we are really aware of it that can help prevent problems in young people.

 

[poppy]

 

 

And I suppose I should say at SOME level calorie restriction works. Fasting works eventually. If I eat 600-800 calories a day I lose 2lbs a week. But that's not reasonable or truly doable for most people, and we have to figure out why the metabolism is so messed up that that level of calorie restriction becomes needed.

 

 

600-800 calories a day is INSANE.   Is that number because of the bariatric surgery?

[EmseB]

No, it is not "interpreted as being offensive." The culture around obesity and fat people assumes they eat "too much" and "move too little." People continually reinforce this with seemingly innocuous and seemingly helpful advice (that for many thousands of overweight people) is not even accurate.

 

There is research that also suggests that fat people are assumed to be stupider than non fat people.

 

The hostile environment for fat persons isn't made up, exaggerated, or "being too senstive." It exists. I am absolutely treated differently when I am thinner vs. now.

 

Discrimination - overt and covert - towards fat people is a thing. It's not a "Joanne thing". I didn't make it up. One example: "Do you think that you'd do better in private practice if you were thinner? A fat therapist............"

Is there any discussion on this issue involving CICO that can be considered not offensive? It is any mention of CICO considered shaming?

[ktgrok]

 

 

600-800 calories a day is INSANE.   Is that number because of the bariatric surgery?

 

 

Yes and no. I can tolerate it because of the bariatric surgery .  But yeah, 800 calories,  that's what it takes for me to lose 2lbs a week. I eat closer to 1,000 many days, which means 1lb a week. Guess it's pretty clear why I wasn't losing before surgery. Oh, and the doctor noted that he had to make my incision significantly larger than normal because my stomach was so big, lol. Obviously, my metabolism is screwed up. So maybe it is calories in, calories out, but to expect people to do that when others who are naturally thin eat twice that much or three times that much is ridiculous. It makes no sense. 

 

We tell fat people they are fat because they are lazy. But if the hormonal stuff is true, then the reason they have so little energy is that they are fat. The energy in the food they eat is shuttled straight to fat cells, instead of being utilized for energy. So they are hungry again because they have no calories to burn for energy. If they resist that urge and deal with being hungry via will power their metabolism slows down to counteract that effort, AND their appetite hormones increase to try to force them to eat. So yeah,  Maybe they do eat too much and move too little,but we need to find out WHY, not just stop there. Because comparing that situation to a person 20lbs overweight cutting out dessert is just mean. 

[Scarlett]

Yes and no. I can tolerate it because of the bariatric surgery .  But yeah, 800 calories,  that's what it takes for me to lose 2lbs a week. I eat closer to 1,000 many days, which means 1lb a week. Obviously, my metabolism is screwed up. So maybe it is calories in, calories out, but to expect people to do that when others who are naturally thin eat twice that much or three times that much is ridiculous. It makes no sense. 

 

 

800 a day isn't much.  But I don't think I eat anywhere near 3 times that.  Of course I am 50 so my metabolism has slowed, blah blah blah.

 

I just want people to feel good about themselves.  I don't think people are lazy or stupid just because they are overweight.  But I do wonder what is going on that they don't try to lose the weight and/or don't succeed.

[ktgrok]

800 a day isn't much.  But I don't think I eat anywhere near 3 times that.  Of course I am 50 so my metabolism has slowed, blah blah blah.

 

I just want people to feel good about themselves.  I don't think people are lazy or stupid just because they are overweight.  But I do wonder what is going on that they don't try to lose the weight and/or don't succeed.

 

I can tell you exactly why they don't try. Because they've tried a thousand times already and failed. So why put all that effort into it when you "know" it won't work. 

 

As for why they don't succeed? Probably a huge combination of things. Gut hormones, gut bacteria, food choices, etc. 

[Joanne]

Is there any discussion on this issue involving CICO that can be considered not offensive? It is any mention of CICO considered shaming?

 

 

It is difficult to bifurcate CICO from the context of fat shame that exists.

 

CICO is a flawed and limited science. With it, one assumes a person eats "too much" and moves "too little."

 

The culture of fat shaming (especially for women) is complex, pervasive, and tenacious.