Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[Scarlett]

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.

 

 

I think the 'shaming' vocabulary is a little out of control.  

 

I think if I was overweight....especially to a dangerous degree.....I would not be surprised if people judged me.  Because we are a planet full of imperfect people.  

 

I do always hope people can feel good about themselves and be healthy.  

[goldberry]

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. 

 

 

My sister who is morbidly obese will readily admit that if she follows WW she can lose the weight and not feel hungry.  She doesn't do it because, to put it bluntly, she was "tired of that sh*t".  Is that everyone's case?  Of course not.  Is that the case for some people?  Sure it is. 

 

OF COURSE weight loss would benefit from more research to help people who can't lose weight without unhealthy restrictions.  It doesn't mean that others don't benefit from learning about healthy food, portion control, and yes, CICO.  Because it doesn't work for everyone doesn't make it flawed science.  In truth, CICO is the way it *should* work if the body is functioning as it should in other ways.  So yes, investigate those other interfering factors so that maybe they can be addressed.

 

The idea that we should drop that method or stop discussing it because "it doesn't work for everybody" is not reasonable.  Should people be more conscious of not making assumptions about another person's weight struggles?  Absolutely.  That is a much more reasonable position than "everyone who mentions calories is fat shaming".

 

The idea of squashing the societal conversation about obesity (so we don't stray into fat-shaming) will not help more research get done or people become more understanding.  If obesity just became "accepted" as part of society, do you really think the research would *ever* get done?  It's a conversation that needs to take place.

[poppy]

I think the 'shaming' vocabulary is a little out of control.  

 

I think if I was overweight....especially to a dangerous degree.....I would not be surprised if people judged me.  Because we are a planet full of imperfect people.  

 

I do always hope people can feel good about themselves and be healthy.  

 

What the heck does that mean?  We have rape and murder and child abuse too, because we are imperfect people. 

 

And what do you think a "dangerous" degree is, anyway?

[Joanne]

I think the 'shaming' vocabulary is a little out of control.  

 

I think if I was overweight....especially to a dangerous degree.....I would not be surprised if people judged me.  Because we are a planet full of imperfect people.  

 

I do always hope people can feel good about themselves and be healthy.  

 

 

I'm not surprised.

I am, however, disgusted at the level of defense associated with protecting the right to continue to assume that overweight people "eat too much and move too litttle" and the quick to dismiss the reality that overweight people are *constantly* viewed through a moral lens - particularly one that values the protestant work ethic and will power.

[Scarlett]

I'm not surprised.

I am, however, disgusted at the level of defense associated with protecting the right to continue to assume that overweight people "eat too much and move too litttle" and the quick to dismiss the reality that overweight people are *constantly* viewed through a moral lens - particularly one that values the protestant work ethic and will power.

I am not assuming you eat too much and move too little. I just wonder what is wrong that a person who wants to lose weight can't.

[Scarlett]

What the heck does that mean? We have rape and murder and child abuse too, because we are imperfect people.

 

And what do you think a "dangerous" degree is, anyway?

If your life is in danger that seems pretty dangerous.

 

And surely you aren't comparing murderers to this topic.

[Annie G]

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?

 

I think obesity is just a more difficult hurdle to overcome. Dh also works for a Fortune 500 company and every year we have to do a health screening- the things you list are checked.  The hurdles are getting more difficult every year...first it was taking the assessment. Second year we had to enroll in a series of phone consultations if we didn't meet the standard in one area. I had borderline high blood pressure so I had to do the phone calls.  The next year the bar was raised and I had to go on blood pressure drugs to keep my discount.  Every year they threaten to require those with an out of range BMI to lose 10% of their body weight before the next year or pay a higher premium.  We don't know if it'll really happen for this next year. 

 

So dh, who has a lot of weight to lose but works out nearly every day and eats a super healthy diet, would need  to lose 25 pounds next year. Then the following year he's still out of range so he has to lose more weight...it can be much harder to achieve these goals than the other metrics they measure. 

 

Me taking blood pressure medication lowers my blood pressure. Same with cholesterol. Our insurance company mails me those medications at no charge to me.   Smokers can avoid the additional premium if they just ENROLL in a smoking cessation program.   This is a lot easier to 'fix' than the weight thing. 

 

Our insurance punishes us with a surcharge, instead of yours that gives a discount for meeting goals, but the end result is the same. Don't meet the metrics, pay more.   And I get that- but weight doesn't tell the whole story. Dh works out twice a day four days a week and then two more days a week he works out once.  He eats healthy, per his cardiologist's instructions.   It's frustrating and expensive. 

[scoutingmom]

I think the 'shaming' vocabulary is a little out of control.

 

I think if I was overweight....especially to a dangerous degree.....I would not be surprised if people judged me. Because we are a planet full of imperfect people.

 

I do always hope people can feel good about themselves and be healthy.

So maybe I misunderstand, but that says to me that you think that morbidly obese people should be judged.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[poppy]

If your life is in danger that seems pretty dangerous.

 

And surely you aren't comparing murderers to this topic.

 

Let me see if I was reading your post correctly.  I read it as "If I were really overweight, like REALLY overweight, I wouldn't be surprised to be judged" .... in the context of the concept of shaming being "out of control." 

 

In other words, it's not shaming, it's just people being imperfect.   

But everyone should be..... OK with that? Because it's not shaming, because shaming isn't really a thing?  I think? I'm flailing here.

 

Thinking further, I think I've figured it out: "Don't be surprised if people judge you for your dangerous overweightness. No one's perfect."? Yes?

[mommymilkies]

If food did not have any taste, I would be very skinny. Not adding to the conversation much, but just wanted to state that.

I used to think that.  Then after ear surgery, I lost part of my sense of taste.  Everything tastes of aspirin.  What this has instead translated to is me putting more salt and flavors into my food to try to get some taste out of it. This is usually worse during allergy season when everything is all inflamed. 

 

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.

One reason I really think my thyroid is screwed up again is because this *doesn't* work for me. Last year to this spring I had some rather bad IBS issues and I've had a recurring ulcer.  I did not feel like eating 90% of the time.  In fact the very thought fills me with dread.  But I'd force myself to eat something because the gnawing empty stomach feeling somehow was worse.  While most people lose weight with ulcers and IBS, I actually gained and can't get it to go away.  I would sit there and cry from pain and frustration while I ate less than 1000 calories a day (tracked when it was bad so I could see how much I'd have to force myself to eat more to be alive). 

[scoutingmom]

Nm

[Scarlett]

So maybe I misunderstand, but that says to me that you think that morbidly obese people should be judged.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

No, not really. But it seems to me if I was morbidly obese, what other people think of me would be the least of my worries. I don't understand all the focus on people judging overweight people.

[ktgrok]

No, not really. But it seems to me if I was morbidly obese, what other people think of me would be the least of my worries. I don't understand all the focus on people judging overweight people.

 Because going through life knowing that every single time you leave your house people are probably thinking you are lazy, unmotivated, slovenly, have psychological issues, etc is really freaking awful. It's AWFUL to be embarrassed twenty four seven of the way you look. It is so awful that I assure you, if it was just a matter of "wanting" to lose weight, we would. In a heartbeat. Because being fat sucks. It just really really really sucks. 

[Scarlett]

Because going through life knowing that every single time you leave your house people are probably thinking you are lazy, unmotivated, slovenly, have psychological issues, etc is really freaking awful. It's AWFUL to be embarrassed twenty four seven of the way you look. It is so awful that I assure you, if it was just a matter of "wanting" to lose weight, we would. In a heartbeat. Because being fat sucks. It just really really really sucks.

I am sorry for your pain. :(.

[Laurie4b]

No, not really. But it seems to me if I was morbidly obese, what other people think of me would be the least of my worries. I don't understand all the focus on people judging overweight people.

 

Could that maybe be *because* you've never been obese? I'm not sure why you can't hear what people are saying. It's bad enough to be obese (not sure I know anyone who likes it), but to have people also look down on you is just piling on.  I think to keep debating with people who have been there, done that with what you imagine you would feel if you had is a pretty weak argument. I'm not sure why you are holding on to it. 

 

Maybe this would help: I had bad acne as a teen. A friend with a gorgeous complexion commented that maybe I should wash my face more thoroughly. Yeah, like I had never cared enough to try that. Then, I was using a skin-toned medication that the doctor had prescribed for me (it was benzol peroxide) and she said, (We were at camp) well if I had acne, I wouldn't be slathering that stuff all over my face. So acne shaming. Did it make it worse what people thought of me? Absolutely. That's kind of the point. If society thought either acne or morbid obesity was attractive, it would be unlikely that someone would dislike it in themselves. It's having something that others find visually aversive AND which they blame you for that is a double-whammy. 

[scoutingmom]

Nm

[Scarlett]

Well I am sorry for those who have such a hard time. Really I am and I don't consider myself to be a shamer.

[Joanne]

No, not really. But it seems to me if I was morbidly obese, what other people think of me would be the least of my worries. I don't understand all the focus on people judging overweight people.

 

 

I am morbidly obese. I have 3 children; one launched, one in college, one a Junior in HS. I have 4 jobs. I am close with my family of origin. I have a rich spiritual life. I am very close with 6+ people, and relatively close with a dozen more.

My biometrics, with the exception of weight, are in ideal or excellent range.

 

I don't "focus on" people judging me, but I did start this thread on it and focus on fatness as it plays out in this culture when I am participating in this thread.

Tell me, what is it that should be "my worries" relative to my weight? What should I be focusing on?

[poppy]

No, not really. But it seems to me if I was morbidly obese, what other people think of me would be the least of my worries. I don't understand all the focus on people judging overweight people.

 

I think some folks are reading this wrong. It isn't that they aren't judged. ("All the focus" = acknowledgement of judging).  It's that judging isn't the issue they should care about versus the horribleness of the obesity itself.

[scoutingmom]

Nm

[scoutingmom]

Nm

[EmseB]

And as I pointed out.... it is possible to do both.... and very hard not to. It is horrible to live this way. It is also horrible to feel the judgement. To have people have the attitude that you made your bed now you can lie in it.

 

We care that we are this way. We care that people blame us about it too. We have tried to fix it.

 

For comparison.... would you expect a blind person to ignore or not get hurt if it was the culture to call them names, talk behind their back, or in front of them, gave them advice on how to see better, and say that if they just tried harder their sight would improve? Hey Blindso, maybe if you didn't look so much you wouldn't be so blind? Ok, it isn't exactly the same, but still.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Are you saying that gaining weight for most people is the equivalent of going or being blind? I'm confused about the "but still". Are you saying this discussion has an element of the insults you're talking about?

[scoutingmom]

Nm

[Carol in Cal.]

Although did someone say it is the answer for everyone? 

 

I don't think it's easy for everyone, obviously not!

 

But in fact, objectively, eating less calories than you expend is truly how weight is lost, objectively, for everyone.  The problems are myriad with implementing a plan that accomplishes this, but that doesn't mean that it's not an objective fact.  Everyone who loses weight does so by having a calorie deficit.  But the factors that effect this are not just what people eat and how much they move around, and one of the things that makes this so hard is that we automatically adjust, it seems to using calories more efficiently when we try to lose weight, which is tremendously counterproductive.  So although this is true, it is not easy and it's not a particularly helpful thing to say, and it's downright insulting to imply that it's easy.  

[Audrey]

I don't believe that CICO = fat shaming, at all, Joanne.  I think that was an unfortunate leap in your logic. 

 

I have been heavy since I was a teen and morbidly obese in my late 20's and into my 30's and early 40's.  I am now, simply, fat, or if you prefer, overweight, but I call myself fat for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that word reminds me not to be a cocky little shit about having lost over 100 pounds and keeping it off for over 5 years now. 

 

I think part of the failure of CICO is that many people do not understand balance in nutrition.  It isn't as simple as CICO, but CICO is most definitely part of any sensible, realistic long-term weight loss plan.  I do not think that weight loss fads are helpful to the truly obese -- people like me.  I look at it much like alcoholics.  They're always alcoholics and will always have to control that.  I will always have to control my fatness.  Fads do not help because they aren't sensible, realistic, long-term plans that have the necessary elements for lifelong weight loss and maintenance.  I believe that those elements include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CICO and physical activity.  The physical activity does not need to be hours of aerobics or weight lifting, but movement is an important part of the functioning of our guts.  A body that does not move regularly will not MOVE regularly either.  A body that doesn't poop regularly and well isn't healthy and isn't going to lose weight, nor maintain weight loss.  Too many fad diets lead to constipation.  You can go too far the other way, too, and end up with a diet that gives you the runs -- equally as bad a result. 

 

All that is to say, that one cannot ever lose weight and keep it off without exploring what works for them and in that you are completely right, Joanne.  I don't think articles are going to give you answers.  You have to figure it out for yourself.  Try something.  Record results.  And, finally, be real with yourself as to whether or not YOU can do that lifestyle forever.  That's what it all comes down to in the end anyway.  If YOU won't or can't do it long-term, then all the articles and fads and advice in the world aren't going to do you one fart's worth of good. 

 

Having known you for a long time, I am sure you can get a handle on this and figure it out.  I encourage you not to completely disregard CICO, but also don't focus on it as the only part of a plan for you.  It may take some experimentation and some failures, but I encourage you to keep at finding that sensible plan that is right for you.  I'm glad I did, even if I did really screw it up and fall off the wagon many times along the road to finding the plan that works for me.

[albeto.]

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.

 

And yet when Joanne corrects the erroneous assumptions regarding the correlation between size and character [the pervasive, albeit often indirect belief that obesity is linked to attributed to being "lazy, stupid, and lacking will power"], it's suggested she's being unnecessarily defensive. This gives the impression of trying to persuade her, and others like her, to stop correcting this misinformation when it comes up. My question is, why should the onus be on someone like Joanne to politely, patiently, listen to this stuff without speaking up, rather than on the person promoting the misinformation to politely, patiently consider that information? 

[Audrey]

 Because going through life knowing that every single time you leave your house people are probably thinking you are lazy, unmotivated, slovenly, have psychological issues, etc is really freaking awful. It's AWFUL to be embarrassed twenty four seven of the way you look. It is so awful that I assure you, if it was just a matter of "wanting" to lose weight, we would. In a heartbeat. Because being fat sucks. It just really really really sucks. 

 

 

See. I don't get that.  Even at my fattest I didn't think about what other people thought of my fatness.  I realize that is part of some people's fatness, but it isn't part of mine.  It isn't a universal feeling of all fat people that they are ashamed to go out because of what others will think of them. 

 

The bolded, though... totally true. But, for me, it sucks not because of what others think, but because of how I feel.  Physically, fat sucks life right away from you.  It seems like it does it in small enough doses, but over time it just eats away at your physical abilities to live. 

[Audrey]

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?

 

Absolutely.

[EmseB]

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.

I can say I don't assume that when I talk about cico. Many people in this thread trying to have the discussion have talked about how people's cico "system" gets messed up and is working improperly and that's one of the reasons weight loss doesn't happen.

 

I think if one discounts cico entirely because of what they think other people's assumptions are they may have trouble (maybe) getting help with true medical issues that may be preventing their cico "system" as it were from working optimally. I have a friend who was able to get a significant condition diagnosed because she couldn't lose weight no matter how much she starved herself. She realized that according to cico she should have been underweight, but wasn't, and was able to get help precisely because she didn't ignore cico as a general guideline.

[abba12]

Haven't read the other posts, but did read the slate article. 

 

I think the big thing is, there's a difference between unhealthy weight gain, and a body's natural size being variable. 

 

I was skinny until I got pregnant and had hyperemesis (severe morning sickness) with all three. I lost 15% of my body weight with each pregnancy in the first trimester. After my first pregnancy my body began gaining, and then stabilized, holding me at a level considered to be 'slightly overweight', about a BMI of 26. Throughout three pregnancies now I have come back to that weight, give or take 5 pounds. I am accepting that this is MY body's 'healthy weight'. 

 

However, around 7 months ago I began eating very poorly. I ate less vegetables, more empty calories, drank more soda, and was eating larger portions, my body was no longer telling me I was full so I was having huge meals, larger than my husband who works an active job. I gained 20 pounds. This was an unhealthy weight gain, this effected my health. 

 

two months ago I went on a short 'detox' to reset my body, which led to me feeling full at the end of a normal portion again so I was no longer overeating portions. I turned my diet back to a decent, veggie filled diet with wholegrains, no crash dieting, just choosing the normal healthy foods I have always tried to choose but stopped choosing while stressed. I brought soda back to being a weekly treat instead of a daily habit, fast food back to being a once a week thing instead of three times a week, and I lost weight rapidly, the 20 pounds dropped off within about 8 weeks, but then, I stablized and stopped losing weight, right back at that 'slightly overweight' weight my body has been holding for years. 

 

So, I believe, for my body, my BMI of 26ish is likely where I need to be. I don't understand the science, I don't understand the need or reasoning, but I DO understand that forcing my body to do something it doesn't want to do is usually a bad idea. My body was very happy to easily lose a certain amount of weight, but then it stopped, and refused to keep losing, even though I was doing the same things and still 'overweight' by medical standards. So I'm going to trust my body on this and trust that God created it to act this way for a reason. The fact I lost the unhealthy weight SO easily tells me that unhealthy weight shouldn't be terribly hard to lose, and the fact I stabilized back at that same number, not lower or higher.... I think there's some reasoning here. The slate article mentions that people who are overweight with medical issues tend to live longer, Is it possible people who are overweight and have health issues are overweight as part of the body's way of coping with those health issues, rather than the weight causing them?

 

Having said that. Someone who eats takeout and drinks soda all the time and is overweight is probably not their bodies healthy weight. Someone who eats very large portions is probably not their bodies healthy weight, but has, rather, suppressed their bodies natural fullness response. Someone who is truly medically OBESE is probably not their bodies healthy weight. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the people bedbound and eating 10 pizzas a day until they die are healthy. But if you're eating reasonable portions of a healthy diet and are still overweight, then maybe that's how your body is supposed to be. 

[Carol in Cal.]

We are all tough, somewhat countercultural parents who homeschool or homeschooled our kids.  We are already rising above a lot of dreck to do that.  We are already ignoring a lot of what the culture and other people say about this decision, and we are effective and capable despite that.

 

So I think we should also rise about the dreck of feeling so bad about what the culture and other people say about our bodies, too.  We are effective and capable whether we are obese or not.  We are smart and we think for ourselves.  We don't have to read stupid women's magazines with unrealistic bodies throughout.  We don't have to listen to anyone else about this.  We already ignore them to homeschool; this is just the logical next step.

[Carol in Cal.]

She realized that according to cico she should have been underweight, but wasn't, and was able to get help precisely because she didn't ignore cico as a general guideline.

See, in this case it sounds like it was the 'calories out' side that was the problem, as is often the case.  That doesn't invalidate CICO; rather, it says to look at both sides of the equation.

[abba12]

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.

 

 

Went back to read some of the posts, and I think this is a huge thing. Portion sizes, and people stretching their stomachs, or snacking at the slightest twinge of hunger, or expecting to feel completely full after a meal, are things that have become culturally normal but aren't healthy. Feeling stuffed after every meal stretches the stomach so you need to eat more to feel stuffed, it becomes a terrible cycle. 

 

Teaching people decent portion sizes, and ways to reset their body's fullness indicators, would go a long way to helping people who do not have hormonal issues in managing their weight to a healthy level. Not everyone, definitely not everyone. But many people just plain put too much on their plates and have taught their bodies to expect that much. 

[displace]

I think it was mentioned (way) up thread, but for many people, losing weight and maintaining weight loss are very time consuming. It's time consuming for meal planning, grocery shopping, preparing and having home cooked meals. It's time consuming to find an extra hour in a day to exercise. It's time consuming to measure, weigh, record, reflect on every food item. There are so many things trying to be a priority in life that frequently the time required to do all this is overwhelming.

 

Not to mention mentally exhausting.

 

Lots of people have additional challenges: families that have alternative eating requirements, lack of financial resources, lack of knowledge or foods. Maybe a lot of people on these boards cook every meal and have more control around food in the house for their family.

 

For me, to take time out to research new recipes (I get bored with eating the same healthy foods over and over), grocery plan and shop, cook a whole meal just for myself, analyze, record, plus of course exercise, rinse and repeat: this takes hours daily. Even more if you're not sleeping enough.

 

Is it worth it? Yes, but I lot of times one extra thing blows the whole carefully orchestrated process off track: illness, other medical issues, a desire to relax, family needs, and on and on.

 

Such a complex issue!

[Carrie12345]

I'm not surprised.

I am, however, disgusted at the level of defense associated with protecting the right to continue to assume that overweight people "eat too much and move too litttle" and the quick to dismiss the reality that overweight people are *constantly* viewed through a moral lens - particularly one that values the protestant work ethic and will power.

I absolutely agree that we (this country in particular) have a serious problem with fat shaming.  I think anyone who argues against that fact is insane.  If I ever work up the guts to submit my exams and someday work as a trainer/coach, it will ONLY be as a part of the Body Positive approach, where size never determines success or failure.  But even with the million ways individual theories spin it to make it comfortable, enjoyable, and sustainable, the underlying principle remains CICO.

 

I think this is the important question:  If we were to take the wide variety of possible "other reasons" that people (of any size) have little or no success shedding weight and cure them, would those people then lose weight without any change to their eating habits or physical activity?

[Katy]

I just want to chime in to say two things- 

1. It's now assumed it takes 7,000 calories to lose a pound (always my experience when carefully tracking such things), which makes me wonder if that would make a huge difference for those who say CICO doesn't work.  http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948
2. I have a friend who was a pharmaceutical sales rep for Depo shortly after it came out.  She said the average person who stays on it two years gains SIXTY pounds, which are very difficult to get off.  She also said even the lowest dose hormonal birth control pills make the average person gain twenty pounds, and the more common standard dose ones are closer to 40 pounds.  She'd just lost a bunch of weight and was fervently anti-hormones when she got that job.

[creekland]

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.

 

 

I agree with you overall, but I'm really surprised at your Canadian tourist comment.  We travel to Eastern Canada (Ont - PEI) quite a bit and I have for my whole life (having grown up on the border and considering Canada my second home).  I can't say I've ever seen a difference in the amounts served at any equivalent restaurant from fast food to diners to food trucks to independent restaurants.  Some areas we frequent are tourist areas (Niagara Falls, Brockville, etc), but others are not (like where my step mom lives in NS).

 

 

 

One reason I really think my thyroid is screwed up again is because this *doesn't* work for me. Last year to this spring I had some rather bad IBS issues and I've had a recurring ulcer.  I did not feel like eating 90% of the time.  In fact the very thought fills me with dread.  But I'd force myself to eat something because the gnawing empty stomach feeling somehow was worse.  While most people lose weight with ulcers and IBS, I actually gained and can't get it to go away.  I would sit there and cry from pain and frustration while I ate less than 1000 calories a day (tracked when it was bad so I could see how much I'd have to force myself to eat more to be alive). 

 

I think the difference between us is I don't get sick from eating.  I just never get that gnawing empty stomach feeling any longer. That's what's gone and I hope it stays gone forever!

 

I rarely force myself to eat.  That only happens when I feel super full due to previous (relatively large) meals AND for whatever reason, I feel like I can't skip a meal (like when I'm at my in-laws).

 

I choose to eat to stay healthy - and am still working on what that means TBH.  Fasting for a couple of days per week is sounding attractive to lose weight more quickly, but I don't want to lose my health with any of my choices so I'm making decisions cautiously with a bit of reading about what others have done.

 

Right now I'm not tired (often - as long as you don't count 8-9pm on!).  My immune system seems to be doing well (public school is a veritable petri dish of viruses including the teacher I was just shadowing and roughly 1/5th of her students, but I didn't catch it).  Those are things I want to keep as is - while still dropping weight at a decent clip.

 

For now, I'm focusing on keeping a variety of veggies & protein chucked into the little bit I eat.  

 

Eggs and veggies are my typical breakfast along with a handful of cashews, a multi vitamin, and a turmeric capsule.  After I get blood tests back in mid Sept, I might add Mg.  I want to see what that level is at first.  It's been normal, so time will tell.  I've just been intrigued by some threads on here.

 

Meat and veggies are my typical lunch or supper (pending day).  The other meal I'll eat either really light (piece of fruit) or not at all.  A couple of small dark chocolate bars w/almonds give me a nice tasty snack if I think of them.  ;)  Green tea or water are the only things I drink at home.  On the road I'll splurge with sodas, but that's partially due to wanting the caffeine to handle a later night schedule (and preferring soda to cold tea of any sort).

 

Again, I'll look at the results from my tests in Sept to see how I'm doing with many of those usual things and try to adjust (if needed) accordingly.

 

I can do all of this super easily without those gnawing hunger pains.  I honestly wish I could give that gift to the rest of you.

 

My mom feels hungry all the time.  She's diabetic (on insulin) and has health issues that prevent much in exercise.  I wish I could give that "no-hunger" gift to her too.  Losing weight for her is extremely difficult - perhaps impossible.  She tries some, but isn't interested in making many food changes from what she grew up with.  So yes, technically she eats too much and exercises too little and this may be why she's obese, but her meds and health issues (back issues) confound the situation.  I certainly think no less of her due to her weight.  I wish she would make some food changes for her health (drop the white bread, etc), but she's old enough to make her own decisions and she's probably lived longer than I will (other health issues), so who am I to say she's done anything wrong?

 

My hubby feels normally hungry - hungry around meal times.  His dad has heart issues and it wouldn't surprise me if hubby is on that same track.  He's definitely overweight and, until very recently, has had no interest in changing that.  He also tends to choose unhealthy eating options whenever he can (eating out - fixing his own meals).  NOW, seeing my weight loss, this has changed.  :hurray:  I'm reading all of these diet type threads to try to understand as much as possible and get ideas to help him lose in spite of the hunger bit that I can't relate to.  We've talked a bit about what we want for our future and eating (choices, etc).  Unlike my mom, he likes many healthy options, he just has to choose them.  He also has to not eat because he can (regardless of hunger).  He's pretty much typical I think.  He just doesn't get online to ponder these things.  He'll use any advice or suggestions I find and discuss with him (not nag, real discussions).

 

Considering my own health issues (not related to diet) that could affect my longevity, I'd really like hubby to live quite a while and be there for our boys and grandkids.  Seeing him on the same track as his dad (heart-wise) bugs me.  His dad was fortunate when he had his heart attack and survived it - then changed his diet and life quite a bit.  He's now 86...  I was wanting hubby to make changes BEFORE he had a heart attack.  Up until recently, that hadn't happened, so I'm really hopeful now.

[DawnM]

Wait, WHAT?

 

Twice as many as we have been taught?

 

When I do those "how many calories should I eat" calculators, I always mess with it.  I put in my real height/weight/goal weight and I put in a fictitious one.

 

You know what?  My 4'11" body that needs to lose 50 pounds can eat the same calories as I can if I am 5'11" and need to lose 50 pounds.

 

Nope, I know it isn't true.  I have done the "one size fits all" diets for years and they simply do not work on me.

 

 

 

I just want to chime in to say two things- 

1. It's now assumed it takes 7,000 calories to lose a pound (always my experience when carefully tracking such things), which makes me wonder if that would make a huge difference for those who say CICO doesn't work.  http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948
2. I have a friend who was a pharmaceutical sales rep for Depo shortly after it came out.  She said the average person who stays on it two years gains SIXTY pounds, which are very difficult to get off.  She also said even the lowest dose hormonal birth control pills make the average person gain twenty pounds, and the more common standard dose ones are closer to 40 pounds.  She'd just lost a bunch of weight and was fervently anti-hormones when she got that job.

 

 

[Pawz4me]

Wait, WHAT?

 

Twice as many as we have been taught?

 

When I do those "how many calories should I eat" calculators, I always mess with it.  I put in my real height/weight/goal weight and I put in a fictitious one.

 

You know what?  My 4'11" body that needs to lose 50 pounds can eat the same calories as I can if I am 5'11" and need to lose 50 pounds.

 

Nope, I know it isn't true.  I have done the "one size fits all" diets for years and they simply do not work on me.s.

 

I suspect your error is that you're not adjusting the weight of the taller "you" to reflect the same BMI.

 

For example, I used this calculator to figure out the same BMI for two people, one a foot taller than the other.  Our fictional 4'11" person weighs 150 and has a BMI of 30.3.  To have the same BMI, our fictional 5'11" person would weigh 217.

 

Then I used this calculator (which seems to be widely believed to be one of the most accurate available on the Internet).  The parameters I used for both of our fictional people are 40 years old, female and sedentary.  It gives me the following:

 

For the 4'11" person --

 

BMR - 1260

TDEE - 1512

Daily calorie intake recommended for loss -- 1209

 

For rhe 5'11" person --

 

BMR - 1754

TDEE - 2104

Daily calorie intake recommended for loss -- 1683

 

As you can see, they aren't the same at all.

 

As far as the new study -- I don't really think there's anything surprising there.  Experienced weight watchers have always known that weight loss isn't linear, and that what we know about calories (in foods, that we burn through exercise and deficits for loss) are all estimates.

[Bluegoat]

I have a serious issue with this idea that anyone arguing that CICO is valid is "fat-shaming."  For one thing - it is assuming that this issue is so clear that no one would argue that unless they were being complete idiots or nasty on purpose.  That is poppycock.  People who actually know a fair bit about it have a variety of views that are quite defensible.  You can see that in this discussion - many people who are quite aware of the research, think it is valid, and even who have personal experience trying to lose weight, or who are overweight, have expressed a variety of opinions.  To say that they are all acting out of some kind of socially proscribed desire or imperative to shame is simply not a supportable argument.

 

I really think it is also important to look at where this tendency to claim that anyone who says or does something that makes us feel badly is shaming us.  Yes, we internalize all kinds of things, and sometimes - often - that determines how we contextualize new discussions and experiences.  THat does not however mean that the context we give, that creates our negative emotions, is accurate, or healthy.  There are bad habits of thought that can cripple us, and cause us to see other people as attacking and critical when that is not true.  The child who grows up with constantly critical parents will learn to take criticism as a reflection of worth, or a sign of failure, or lack of love.  That is not a useful or healthy way to go through life, in fact it is crippling.

 

The answer to that in pop culture lately, however,seems to be to assume that our contextualization creates the reality.  There are so many problems with that, the first being that it makes all emotional responses, including ones that actually contradict each other, completely equally valid.  The second being that it means we can't have meaningful conversations about difficult issues.  And the third is that it is psychologically unhealthy.

 

Sometimes when we are having these negative emotional responses that make us feel badly, the better answer is to change our habits of contextualizing things in a particular way.  Recognize that the interpretive method we learned is not serving us, and is not accurate.  Learn a new context.  Not always an easy task, but an important one.

 

Talking about CICO is not simply and always fat shaming, it isn't even unarguably false.  Staring from the premise that it is however will ensure that it always feels that way.

[DawnM]

I see.

 

Yeah, if I put in 200 pounds for a person 5'11" and 200 pounds for a person 4'11", the calories are the same.

 

I do understand the idea of BMI, but it still will not allow me to lose at the same rate.

 

A person 5'11" needs to lose about 40-50 pounds, where the person 4'11" would need to lose 80-100.

 

Eating the same amount of calories will not lose at the same rate.

 

The calories shows 1300-1500.  I can tell you right now, I would not lose much, if anything, on the higher end of that.  I MIGHT lose between .5 of a pound per week on the lowest end of that.  Maybe.

 

I am not quite that heavy, but give me another year or two if I can't figure out what is going on with my body!

 

Dawn

 

 

I suspect your error is that you're not adjusting the weight of the taller "you" to reflect the same BMI.

 

For example, I used this calculator to figure out the same BMI for two people, one a foot taller than the other.  Our fictional 4'11" person weighs 150 and has a BMI of 30.3.  To have the same BMI, our fictional 5'11" person would weigh 217.

 

Then I used this calculator (which seems to be widely believed to be one of the most accurate available on the Internet).  The parameters I used for both of our fictional people are 40 years old, female and sedentary.  It gives me the following:

 

For the 4'11" person --

 

BMR - 1260

TDEE - 1512

Daily calorie intake recommended for loss -- 1209

 

For rhe 5'11" person --

 

BMR - 1754

TDEE - 2104

Daily calorie intake recommended for loss -- 1683

 

As you can see, they aren't the same at all.

 

As far as the new study -- I don't really think there's anything surprising there.  Experienced weight watchers have always known that weight loss isn't linear, and that what we know about calories (in foods, that we burn through exercise and deficits for loss) are all estimates.

 

[creekland]

Interesting post Heigh Ho - thanks for writing it.

 

Your thoughts from your mo relatives match my mom (and her family) a bit.  There probably isn't much hope of change for them as they don't really want to make any changes when it comes down to it.  Oh well.  I love them all anyway.  I just don't want to end up in their position (mainly due to the added health issues - not clothing size issues).

 

I'm thankful hubby is willing to change...

 

And I still don't get any of those hunger feelings (since radiation - I had them all before it).  I can easily make a meal and let others eat it with no wistfulness at all.

 

Well, maybe without enough salt in my diet my salt cravings would qualify as a type... but it's not food I want then as much as the salt.  Keeping salt in my diet ends the cravings.

 

I can get thirsty at times.

[LisaKinVA]

 

I just want to chime in to say two things- 

1. It's now assumed it takes 7,000 calories to lose a pound (always my experience when carefully tracking such things), which makes me wonder if that would make a huge difference for those who say CICO doesn't work.  http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948
2. I have a friend who was a pharmaceutical sales rep for Depo shortly after it came out.  She said the average person who stays on it two years gains SIXTY pounds, which are very difficult to get off.  She also said even the lowest dose hormonal birth control pills make the average person gain twenty pounds, and the more common standard dose ones are closer to 40 pounds.  She'd just lost a bunch of weight and was fervently anti-hormones when she got that job.

 

Man, I feel lucky to have only gained 20# during my one year of Depo. But yes, those pounds are incredibly difficult to get off, and come back extremely easily.  Depo really screwed me up.  

 

My body likes being between 145-155 pounds.  It just does (assuming exercise).  Getting below 140 pounds takes a monumental effort that is just not worth it to me (At 145, I usually wear a size 6 skirt...never below an 8-10 blouse/dress needs tailoring).

[displace]

 

I just want to chime in to say two things-

• It's now assumed it takes 7,000 calories to lose a pound (always my experience when carefully tracking such things), which makes me wonder if that would make a huge difference for those who say CICO doesn't work. http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948
• I have a friend who was a pharmaceutical sales rep for Depo shortly after it came out. She said the average person who stays on it two years gains SIXTY pounds, which are very difficult to get off. She also said even the lowest dose hormonal birth control pills make the average person gain twenty pounds, and the more common standard dose ones are closer to 40 pounds. She'd just lost a bunch of weight and was fervently anti-hormones when she got that job.

Re: that study: falling over emoticon here!

[Pawz4me]

The calories shows 1300-1500.  I can tell you right now, I would not lose much, if anything, on the higher end of that.  I MIGHT lose between .5 of a pound per week on the lowest end of that.  Maybe.

 

I am not quite that heavy, but give me another year or two if I can't figure out what is going on with my body!

 

Dawn

 

See, I think is where perspective (and dare I say it -- please don't flame me -- maybe attitude?) matters.

 

I'm 4'10" (on a good day) and am currently eating right around 1100 calories a day (and walking 3-5 miles most days) in order to lose about half a pound a week.  I don't want to lose a lot, just the 10-12 pounds I gained before I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. I don't see it as being particularly horrible.  It's sure not fun.  But it's do-able and not horrible, and other than my thyroid (which is medicated now and so not an issue) there's nothing "wrong" with my body.  I'm just a short, older female.

 

ETA:  Y'all can feel free to ask me whether or not I think it's horrible in a few months when it's darker and colder.  Not eating when it's hot and humid is a LOT easier for me than when it's colder!

[ktgrok]

 

 

My body was very happy to easily lose a certain amount of weight, but then it stopped, and refused to keep losing, even though I was doing the same things and still 'overweight' by medical standards. So I'm going to trust my body on this and trust that God created it to act this way for a reason. The fact I lost the unhealthy weight SO easily tells me that unhealthy weight shouldn't be terribly hard to lose, 

 

What you are describing is your body's natural "set point". After pregnancy that became your new set point, that bmi of 26. Something about pregnancy changed your set point. When you gained those 20lbs over that your set point didn't change, so it was easy to get back to a bmi of 26, but getting to your old, previous set point before pregnancy wasn't happening. The thing is, with the morbidly obese, as we diet/gain/diet/gain our set point changes. So that now, the set point might be a BMI of 36, or 40, or 50. So eating whole foods, not having soda (can't remember the last soda I had...maybe college?), eating fruits and veggies, etc helps us lose the most recently gained weight,but takes us only as far as our set point. If you try to go below that set point the body fights back by slowing metabolism and increasing appetite. So for you those 20lbs were an easy loss. For me, the first 20lbs was fairly easy too. It's just that I had 90lbs ot lose, so losing 20 didn't do a whole heck of a lot for me. 

 

Hopefully that makes sense. 

[ktgrok]

Went back to read some of the posts, and I think this is a huge thing. Portion sizes, and people stretching their stomachs, or snacking at the slightest twinge of hunger, or expecting to feel completely full after a meal, are things that have become culturally normal but aren't healthy. Feeling stuffed after every meal stretches the stomach so you need to eat more to feel stuffed, it becomes a terrible cycle. 

 

Teaching people decent portion sizes, and ways to reset their body's fullness indicators, would go a long way to helping people who do not have hormonal issues in managing their weight to a healthy level. Not everyone, definitely not everyone. But many people just plain put too much on their plates and have taught their bodies to expect that much. 

 

First, if this is true, it would be hard to fix. It would mean feeling hungry all the time for a long time, if it's just htat their appetite is screwed up. 

 

Second, how does this happen,and why doesn't it happen to other people? Why would one sibling eat a reasonable amount and feel full, but the other keeps going and stretches his stomach? IF this is true, and I've seen zero evidence that it is, why is it happening?

[DawnM]

What do those 1100 calories look like for you?  What do you eat in a day?

 

I used to do 1100 calories and be fine, but I did spend a significant amount of TIME prepping.   And a lot is prepping stuff the rest of my family won't eat, or at least not 3 of them.  My hubby is a picky eater, so the "well, eat it or go hungry" approach doesn't work in our family.  For example, he won't touch a bean and doesn't really like soup.   If I make the WW 0 point soup and add a bit of chicken, it is very filling for me.  

 

I guess I just need to spend the time.  I am just exhausted all the time.  It is a vicious cycle.

 

 

 

 

See, I think is where perspective (and dare I say it -- please don't flame me -- maybe attitude?) matters.

 

I'm 4'10" (on a good day) and am currently eating right around 1100 calories a day (and walking 3-5 miles most days) in order to lose about half a pound a week.  I don't want to lose a lot, just the 10-12 pounds I gained before I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. I don't see it as being particularly horrible.  It's sure not fun.  But it's do-able and not horrible, and other than my thyroid (which is medicated now and so not an issue) there's nothing "wrong" with my body.  I'm just a short, older female.

 

[Bluegoat]

First, if this is true, it would be hard to fix. It would mean feeling hungry all the time for a long time, if it's just htat their appetite is screwed up. 

 

Second, how does this happen,and why doesn't it happen to other people? Why would one sibling eat a reasonable amount and feel full, but the other keeps going and stretches his stomach? IF this is true, and I've seen zero evidence that it is, why is it happening?

 

Different people have different bodies, and different minds.  I guess I don't see why we would expect them to all respond the same way.

 

Portion sizes have increased over time, especially in fast food kind of places.  Sometimes this is used as a gimmick, other times it seems to be just to look better than the other guys.  We have a burger place here that sells the same burgers and other things they did in 1950.  The look diminutive, like a Happy Meal.  People are not generally aware of this though - the tendency is to see what is served to you as a normal serving. If that starts when you are a child, it will impact your whole sense of what food is right, and what your body expects, and how you expect to feel when you eat.

 

How individual bodies respond will depend on their particular make-up, and also their individual family food culture.  But on the level of a population, the more this kind of unhealthy eating becomes normative, the more people will have problems maintaining a healthy eating pattern, and the more people who will be trying to recover, in a biological sense, from unhealthy eating patterns.

 

I also don't think anyone thinks these are the only issues.  Gut heath and the effect of processed foods and too much obsession with sanitation - who knows maybe even the c-section epidemic, might have a role too.  Not enough sleep probably also is a significant factor.

 

But as a preventative strategy, looking at what we consider normal eating is going to be a huge issue, and i think this idea that it isn't part of the problem is dangerous because it steers people away from considering prevention.

[Pawz4me]

What do those 1100 calories look like for you?  What do you eat in a day?

 

I used to do 1100 calories and be fine, but I did spend a significant amount of TIME prepping.   And a lot is prepping stuff the rest of my family won't eat, or at least not 3 of them.  My hubby is a picky eater, so the "well, eat it or go hungry" approach doesn't work in our family.  For example, he won't touch a bean and doesn't really like soup.   If I make the WW 0 point soup and add a bit of chicken, it is very filling for me.  

 

I guess I just need to spend the time.  I am just exhausted all the time.  It is a vicious cycle.

 

Breakfast is one slice of sourdough toast and one slice of cheese.

Or two eggs cooked in a small amount of butter (a teaspoon or less).

And coffee (always coffee!)

 

Lunch is a salad with (carefully weighed and measured) 3 oz. of cooked chicken breast, 2 T feta cheese and 2 T of a lowish calorie/carb dressing.  The green stuff I don't worry so much about weighing/measuring.  Sometimes I have a Carr's whole wheat cracker or two to go with the salad.

 

I cook the chicken in big batches in the crock pot, shred it and freeze it.  So it's easy to take out a container as needed.

 

Dinner is typically 3 or 4 oz. of meat and more veggies or a green salad.  Maybe a small amount of potato or rice, depending on how hungry I am and if I've done any snacking.  But almost all snacking for me now is coffee with 2 T half and half and a couple of packs of Splenda.  That's a 50 calorie snack that I find very satisfying.

 

And I hear you -- It's hard when you've got other people in the house.  Many years ago I was single and morbidly obese and lost down to normal weight.  That wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, but not having to buy and prepare food for other people made it easier.