revving up that obesity thread again

[flyingiguana]

I can't find the thread so I'll just start a new thread to post this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150928124400.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

"Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society -- diabetes and obesity. EDCs contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking or otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, EDCs can alter the way cells develop and grow. Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more."

 

Apparently this is building on their previous work.

 

I still have trouble believing the whole calories in/calories out hypothesis.  Just my personal observation -- back when I was in college we ate like pigs in the all you can eat cafeteria, drank huge amounts of full sugar soda, and never got any exercise to speak of.  We were all pretty thin.  I see college students today and a lot of them are what we would have considered huge 20-30 yrs ago.  Yeah, so they're probably sitting around, eating a lot at the all you can eat cafeteria, drinking lots of sugary soda, not getting much exercise..... but why are kids today a lot fatter than my generation was at that age?  The behavior looks exactly the same.  It's just the outcome that's changed.

 

I knew ONE person who might have been considered obese when I was in college.  I knew one girl who was a bit fat and managed to lose 20 pounds.  But that was IT.  These days, there are very few kids I see on college campuses who are as thin as most of the people I hung out with back in college.

 

I can't believe there's been that huge of a behavioral shift.

[flyingiguana]

Another interesting comment from another article :

 

"Sure, our lifestyle has changed over the decades in parallel with the increased use of BPA. Yet scientists have noticed the same fattening trend in newborns, lab rodents, pets and wildlife that live in close proximity to humans. Have babies or mice really changed how much they eat or exercise? Experts highlight this as further evidence that more than just caloric intake is driving the current epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/bpa-chemical-hormone-obesity-diabetes_n_1276996.html

[JumpyTheFrog]

We buy and use natural latex mattress toppers and use them as mattresses in order to avoid the flame retardants sprayed (by law) on all regular mattresses. I figure we spend more than 1/3 of our life on them and I wanted one without all that garbage. (4" medium soft Ergosoft brand natural latex mattress topper from Amazon for anyone interested in getting one) We put it in a zippered case on the floor and it is so much more comfy than a regular mattress.

[Reefgazer]

I think this one has a lot of answers.  For example, college students today don't have to walk to the library, don't have to walk up stairs once they get to the library, don't have to walk down to their friend's dorm rooms (they just text), don't have to lug books (research and classes are online, and a tablet holds textbooks).  Also, there are delivery options for *every* kind of food (24/7), idle activities (video games) have taken the place of even minor movement (walking to the campus center for a movie), and it is more common for kids to have cars than to bike/walk.  In addition to that, convenience food that isn't really filling in the long term has become a staple in vending machines in dorms (which were not even in our dorms when I was in college), portions have become gargantuan, and our 24/7 lifestyle and lack of adequate sleep means we are awake more hours to eat.  Not to say other things don't play a role, but these are the simple and obvious ways we've sabotaged ourselves into obesity.

I can't find the thread so I'll just start a new thread to post this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150928124400.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

"Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society -- diabetes and obesity. EDCs contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking or otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, EDCs can alter the way cells develop and grow. Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more."

 

Apparently this is building on their previous work.

 

I still have trouble believing the whole calories in/calories out hypothesis.  Just my personal observation -- back when I was in college we ate like pigs in the all you can eat cafeteria, drank huge amounts of full sugar soda, and never got any exercise to speak of.  We were all pretty thin.  I see college students today and a lot of them are what we would have considered huge 20-30 yrs ago.  Yeah, so they're probably sitting around, eating a lot at the all you can eat cafeteria, drinking lots of sugary soda, not getting much exercise..... but why are kids today a lot fatter than my generation was at that age?  The behavior looks exactly the same.  It's just the outcome that's changed.

 

I knew ONE person who might have been considered obese when I was in college.  I knew one girl who was a bit fat and managed to lose 20 pounds.  But that was IT.  These days, there are very few kids I see on college campuses who are as thin as most of the people I hung out with back in college.

 

I can't believe there's been that huge of a behavioral shift.

 

[Reefgazer]

I haven't read the article because I am in kind of a hurry this evening, so if the article did address this, I apologize in advance.  But it is entirely possible that the increase in obesity and diabetes of the mothers of these children has resulted in a higher birth weight of these babies (which is a risk of babies born to diabetic moms).  Once a child or adult is obese/overweight, the fat cells alter metabolism and the person is on a vicious cycle of fat-storing (fat is not a metabolically inactive tissue, as was once thought).  And that is not even taking into account the bad food/exercise habits of the parents that are learned very early by their children. 

 

I think this cycle can be broken, but it is *very* difficult to do.  The calories in/calories out model holds for me, personally.  When I think "OMG, I can't lose a pound and am dieting conscientiously", it has *always* been portion-creep that is at fault, and when I start meticulously measuring foods, lo and behold, the weight falls off.  That's not to say calories in/calories out holds for everyone, but I think more people should look more carefully at their portion sizes and other obvious issues of weight gain before defaulting to more complicated explanations.   

Another interesting comment from another article :

 

"Sure, our lifestyle has changed over the decades in parallel with the increased use of BPA. Yet scientists have noticed the same fattening trend in newborns, lab rodents, pets and wildlife that live in close proximity to humans. Have babies or mice really changed how much they eat or exercise? Experts highlight this as further evidence that more than just caloric intake is driving the current epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/bpa-chemical-hormone-obesity-diabetes_n_1276996.html

 

[Mergath]

I haven't read the article because I am in kind of a hurry this evening, so if the article did address this, I apologize in advance.  But it is entirely possible that the increase in obesity and diabetes of the mothers of these children has resulted in a higher birth weight of these babies (which is a risk of babies born to diabetic moms).  Once a child or adult is obese/overweight, the fat cells alter metabolism and the person is on a vicious cycle of fat-storing (fat is not a metabolically inactive tissue, as was once thought).  And that is not even taking into account the bad food/exercise habits of the parents that are learned very early by their children. 

 

I think this cycle can be broken, but it is *very* difficult to do.  The calories in/calories out model holds for me, personally.  When I think "OMG, I can't lose a pound and am dieting conscientiously", it has *always* been portion-creep that is at fault, and when I start meticulously measuring foods, lo and behold, the weight falls off.  That's not to say calories in/calories out holds for everyone, but I think more people should look more carefully at their portion sizes and other obvious issues of weight gain before defaulting to more complicated explanations.   

 

But how do you explain the wildlife exposed to these substances also being fatter? Is the local wildlife ordering in pizza and texting their friends? 

[kiana]

I think this cycle can be broken, but it is *very* difficult to do.  The calories in/calories out model holds for me, personally.  When I think "OMG, I can't lose a pound and am dieting conscientiously", it has *always* been portion-creep that is at fault, and when I start meticulously measuring foods, lo and behold, the weight falls off.  That's not to say calories in/calories out holds for everyone, but I think more people should look more carefully at their portion sizes and other obvious issues of weight gain before defaulting to more complicated explanations.   

 

Or as I saw someone put it, "Don't look for zebras when the horse is standing on your foot."

[ktgrok]

Another interesting comment from another article :

 

"Sure, our lifestyle has changed over the decades in parallel with the increased use of BPA. Yet scientists have noticed the same fattening trend in newborns, lab rodents, pets and wildlife that live in close proximity to humans. Have babies or mice really changed how much they eat or exercise? Experts highlight this as further evidence that more than just caloric intake is driving the current epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/bpa-chemical-hormone-obesity-diabetes_n_1276996.html

 

Yup. One of Dr. Lustig's big things is that we have an epidemic of obese 6 month olds. How on earth are they eating more and moving less than the 6 months old of yore? 

[Pawz4me]

Another interesting comment from another article :

 

"Sure, our lifestyle has changed over the decades in parallel with the increased use of BPA. Yet scientists have noticed the same fattening trend in newborns, lab rodents, pets and wildlife that live in close proximity to humans. Have babies or mice really changed how much they eat or exercise? Experts highlight this as further evidence that more than just caloric intake is driving the current epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/bpa-chemical-hormone-obesity-diabetes_n_1276996.html

 

Working with and observing dogs and cats over the years--both my own and those I've fostered--is one thing that convinces me that CICO works.  I've never had or fostered a dog or cat who didn't lose weight, and usually quite easily, with reduced calories and/or increased activity.

 

Now as far as why more pets are so overweight than they used to be?  I suspect there are several reasons for that.  The most obvious ones to me are --

 

Fewer dogs and cats are allowed to roam loose, so they probably get significantly less exercise than in the "good old days."

People who tend to overeat themselves or have lost touch with appropriate portion sizes tend to overfeed their pets.

Pet owners who are sedentary have pets who don't get enough exercise.

[Tsuga]

I am very concerned about environmental toxins.

 

However, I think that one reason wildlife is getting fatter is that they have access to our waste/excess and also, thanks to population control, there are fewer famines.

 

I think that averages also obscure what is going on. There are fewer hungry babies because of WIC. Thank god for that!!! So the average weight for height will go up, as will the mode, and the median, in every ethno-racial group. That is why there are bigger babies in general. Now, some people are giving their babies pop in a bottle (I've seen it) and I don't know how prevalent that is, but my guess is that the averages are different due to a lot of improvement on the lower end of weight. Can't breastfeed, can't afford formula? We will help you. That is a good thing. As for the increase in obese six month olds, I don't buy that. BMI was not meant to be applied to children; the norms were based on a different population entirely (one that was hungrier); and they didn't base the norms on long-term health of the babies in question. I have real doubts about the application of the term "obese" to babies under 1 year, even under 2 years.

 

So it is entirely possible that we had way more hungry babies in the past and that brought down the average. I know in the poor countries I've lived in, you'd see way more skinny babies but I also saw plenty of roly-poly babies that could hardly clap their hands they were so fat. 100% breastfed from mothers who lived in the hills of Asia. Don't tell me that was "obesity". Babies are supposed to be squishy. If you're eating a healthy diet and nursing your baby or feeding a baby formula properly, no solids, no candy, then they're just growing as they were meant to grow.

 

Now, kids on the other hand, that's a different story. I do see a lot of sedentary kids, sitting at a computer, not building muscle, and eating total crap and then "making up for it" by drinking low fat milk. Same with adults.

 

And people gain weight early and then it's hard to lose. If you go into adolescence slim, your chances of gaining at that time are low. Some people get fat when they have babies, some people when depressed, but most people who end up very overweight start gaining very early.

 

I don't have anything in the CICO game. I eat 2,000 - 3,000 calories per day. I'm a 5'5" woman, I have a lifestyle that hovers between "sedentary" and "moderately active" with some spurts of "active" on vacations. I work out for months at a time. Then I do nothing sometimes. I don't gain weight unless I lift weight or literally eat sugar constantly. My thyroid is normal. Everything is "perfect" according to tests. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying, don't look at me to defend CICO. It doesn't work with me, either. I believe I have great gut health thanks to a mother who set me in the dirt with a hunk of whole wheat bread and genetics. My kids are skinny too. They also don't eat a lot of crap, and we eat real food twice a day at least (low-sugar cereal I would count as junk, but we eat it with whole milk). I eat more than my partner and he is almost a foot taller than me and weighs about 70 lbs more. And I don't gain, but if he doesn't cut back, he gains slowly. He, too, was raised by a bread-baking, loving mother who took him outdoors, enrolled him in sports, and strictly limited video games. (I do think she's a better cook, though.... don't tell my mom. :) )

[Ausmumof3]

Or as I saw someone put it, "Don't look for zebras when the horse is standing on your foot."

Oh but when science looks at the animal on your foot and notices it has black and white stripes your meant to keep saying it's a horse?

 

Sorry I don't mean to be snarky. I know cico works for so many people. But when someone's kid has a peanut allergy you don't tell them - well we did xyz and my kids are fine. You assume their kids has something different about the way their bodies react. You don't tell someone with major depression - when I feel down I pray more, walk more or whatever, you accept that something's gone wrong and look for proper help. But people who have managed to keep the weight in check often assume that someone else struggling hasn't tried the same strategies instead of realising that different bodies really do react differently. And when scientists start finding reasons why it still gets denied.

[ktgrok]

To be clear, the person making the statments about obese 6 month olds is a pediatric endocronologist. I'm assuming he has some idea of what is normal and what isn't in children when it comes to obesity. 

[kiana]

Oh but when science looks at the animal on your foot and notices it has black and white stripes your meant to keep saying it's a horse?

 

Sorry I don't mean to be snarky. I know cico works for so many people. But when someone's kid has a peanut allergy you don't tell them - well we did xyz and my kids are fine. You assume their kids has something different about the way their bodies react. You don't tell someone with major depression - when I feel down I pray more, walk more or whatever, you accept that something's gone wrong and look for proper help. But people who have managed to keep the weight in check often assume that someone else struggling hasn't tried the same strategies instead of realising that different bodies really do react differently. And when scientists start finding reasons why it still gets denied.

 

What you appear to be hearing is actually not what I am saying.

 

I think that regardless of what problems they have, people should investigate the obvious causes before they go looking for obscure causes. I am making no statements about whether you personally have done so or not.

 

But I see a lot of people who are reluctant to even try even though they've never done it before, because all they hear about is the people who say it doesn't work. And I think that reducing intake (not necessarily CICO) is especially worth a shot and especially likely to succeed when the person doesn't have much to lose and/or has never seriously tried before. These people are underrepresented in the weight loss data, because the weight loss data tends to be focused around people who have already been unsuccessful and are now seeking medical/behavioral/paid intervention. It's a lot less worth a shot when someone has a history of yoyo dieting or unsuccessful attempts.

[ktgrok]

What you appear to be hearing is actually not what I am saying.

 

I think that regardless of what problems they have, people should investigate the obvious causes before they go looking for obscure causes. I am making no statements about whether you personally have done so or not.

 

But I see a lot of people who are reluctant to even try even though they've never done it before, because all they hear about is the people who say it doesn't work, when what they really mean is that it didn't work for them. And I think that reducing intake (not necessarily CICO) is especially worth a shot and especially likely to succeed when the person doesn't have much to lose and/or has never seriously tried before. These people are underrepresented in the weight loss data, because the weight loss data tends to be focused around people who have already been unsuccessful and are now seeking medical/behavioral/paid intervention.

 

I've never even met a woman who hasn't tried dieting, ever. EVERY woman I know, other than the very thin, have tried. Where are these people that are overweight and have never tried cutting back on intake?

[8circles]

I am very concerned about environmental toxins.

 

However, I think that one reason wildlife is getting fatter is that they have access to our waste/excess and also, thanks to population control, there are fewer famines.

 

I think that averages also obscure what is going on. There are fewer hungry babies because of WIC. Thank god for that!!! So the average weight for height will go up, as will the mode, and the median, in every ethno-racial group. That is why there are bigger babies in general. Now, some people are giving their babies pop in a bottle (I've seen it) and I don't know how prevalent that is, but my guess is that the averages are different due to a lot of improvement on the lower end of weight. Can't breastfeed, can't afford formula? We will help you. That is a good thing. As for the increase in obese six month olds, I don't buy that. BMI was not meant to be applied to children; the norms were based on a different population entirely (one that was hungrier); and they didn't base the norms on long-term health of the babies in question. I have real doubts about the application of the term "obese" to babies under 1 year, even under 2 years.

 

So it is entirely possible that we had way more hungry babies in the past and that brought down the average. I know in the poor countries I've lived in, you'd see way more skinny babies but I also saw plenty of roly-poly babies that could hardly clap their hands they were so fat. 100% breastfed from mothers who lived in the hills of Asia. Don't tell me that was "obesity". Babies are supposed to be squishy. If you're eating a healthy diet and nursing your baby or feeding a baby formula properly, no solids, no candy, then they're just growing as they were meant to grow.

 

Now, kids on the other hand, that's a different story. I do see a lot of sedentary kids, sitting at a computer, not building muscle, and eating total crap and then "making up for it" by drinking low fat milk. Same with adults.

 

And people gain weight early and then it's hard to lose. If you go into adolescence slim, your chances of gaining at that time are low. Some people get fat when they have babies, some people when depressed, but most people who end up very overweight start gaining very early.

 

I don't have anything in the CICO game. I eat 2,000 - 3,000 calories per day. I'm a 5'5" woman, I have a lifestyle that hovers between "sedentary" and "moderately active" with some spurts of "active" on vacations. I work out for months at a time. Then I do nothing sometimes. I don't gain weight unless I lift weight or literally eat sugar constantly. My thyroid is normal. Everything is "perfect" according to tests. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying, don't look at me to defend CICO. It doesn't work with me, either. I believe I have great gut health thanks to a mother who set me in the dirt with a hunk of whole wheat bread and genetics. My kids are skinny too. They also don't eat a lot of crap, and we eat real food twice a day at least (low-sugar cereal I would count as junk, but we eat it with whole milk). I eat more than my partner and he is almost a foot taller than me and weighs about 70 lbs more. And I don't gain, but if he doesn't cut back, he gains slowly. He, too, was raised by a bread-baking, loving mother who took him outdoors, enrolled him in sports, and strictly limited video games. (I do think she's a better cook, though.... don't tell my mom. :) )

 

...To have whatever it is that you have.  I'm honestly, seriously jealous.

 

I eat about 1200 - 1500 calories a day - mostly plants.  Am not sedentary - moderately active.  I gain, & gain, & gain.  Doctor says my thyroid is fine.  There is no horse on my foot.  

[kiana]

I've never even met a woman who hasn't tried dieting, ever. EVERY woman I know, other than the very thin, have tried. Where are these people that are overweight and have never tried cutting back on intake?

 

I'd never tried before I was 30, at which point I was obese and edging closer to morbidly obese.

 

And to be clear, I'm not talking about "lose 5 pounds and get tired of it", but rather the sort of person who diets off 50, gains 60, diets off 70, and so on.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think you can assume the situation of the university students today is the same as it was. As you observed, university students have always tended to eat crap. If a lot seem fat compared to 20 years ago, what you need to look at is what they were eating at home.  Portion sizes in restaurants have doubled, or more, in the last 20 years.  And sugar intake is much higher as well.  I'd say those kids are arriving fat.   

[Mergath]

To be clear, the person making the statments about obese 6 month olds is a pediatric endocronologist. I'm assuming he has some idea of what is normal and what isn't in children when it comes to obesity. 

 

And I would also guess that when they're studying these kinds of things, they would be smart enough to control for factors such as gestational diabetes in the mothers.

[Mergath]

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to admit that environmental toxins might be a factor in obesity rates. Are some people obese because they drink a gallon of pop every day and never exercise? Of course. But why is it that people will readily admit that the chemicals we are exposed to can cause cancer, autoimmune disease, early puberty, and on and on... but when the list gets to obesity, so many people are like, "Oh no. Obese people just need to eat less." Why is obesity different? My guess is that people want to feel like they can control the size of their body, and admitting there are environmental factors outside of our control makes people uneasy. 

[Ausmumof3]

What you appear to be hearing is actually not what I am saying.

 

I think that regardless of what problems they have, people should investigate the obvious causes before they go looking for obscure causes. I am making no statements about whether you personally have done so or not.

 

But I see a lot of people who are reluctant to even try even though they've never done it before, because all they hear about is the people who say it doesn't work. And I think that reducing intake (not necessarily CICO) is especially worth a shot and especially likely to succeed when the person doesn't have much to lose and/or has never seriously tried before. These people are underrepresented in the weight loss data, because the weight loss data tends to be focused around people who have already been unsuccessful and are now seeking medical/behavioral/paid intervention. It's a lot less worth a shot when someone has a history of yoyo dieting or unsuccessful attempts.

I just don't know too many people in this category. Basically everyone I know healthy weight or fat has taken some kind of measure to try to take control of it - some with long term success and some without. The only couple I know who don't have intolerances that mean their food intake is already restricted. I do agree that it's all easy to deal with if you tackle it earlier rather than later.

 

Eta women not men. I think men are less likely to do it without encouragement because the judgement to fat men is less.

[kiana]

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to admit that environmental toxins might be a factor in obesity rates. Are some people obese because they drink a gallon of pop every day and never exercise? Of course. But why is it that people will readily admit that the chemicals we are exposed to can cause cancer, autoimmune disease, early puberty, and on and on... but when the list gets to obesity, so many people are like, "Oh no. Obese people just need to eat less." Why is obesity different? My guess is that people want to feel like they can control the size of their body, and admitting there are environmental factors outside of our control makes people uneasy. 

 

Oh, I do actually think that they are a factor. I 100% believe that. I do not believe that they are the only factor, and they are also out of my control.

 

So I control what I can and let the rest go because there's not anything I can do about it.

[Mergath]

Oh, I do actually think that they are a factor. I 100% believe that. I do not believe that they are the only factor, and they are also out of my control.

 

So I control what I can and let the rest go because there's not anything I can do about it.

 

But the effect they have may vary from person to person. It's like with cancer-causing agents. One person might get lung cancer from working in a smoky bar for a couple years in college. Another person can chain smoke for a lifetime and die cancer-free at a hundred.

 

I think it's probably the same with these chemicals and obesity. One person might be exposed to a large amount and still find it relatively easy to maintain a healthy weight. Another person might have a much smaller exposure and find that it vastly increases their susceptibility to weight gain. So while it's fine to say that everyone should eat a healthy diet and get a decent amount of exercise (and really, everyone should do that no matter what size they are) that doesn't mean it will prevent obesity for everyone, just as a healthy lifestyle won't prevent cancer for everyone. 

[purplejackmama]

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to admit that environmental toxins might be a factor in obesity rates. Are some people obese because they drink a gallon of pop every day and never exercise? Of course. But why is it that people will readily admit that the chemicals we are exposed to can cause cancer, autoimmune disease, early puberty, and on and on... but when the list gets to obesity, so many people are like, "Oh no. Obese people just need to eat less." Why is obesity different? My guess is that people want to feel like they can control the size of their body, and admitting there are environmental factors outside of our control makes people uneasy.

Exactly. Thank you for saying this, so well.

[purplejackmama]

So while it's fine to say that everyone should eat a healthy diet and get a decent amount of exercise (and really, everyone should do that no matter what size they are) that doesn't mean it will prevent obesity for everyone, just as a healthy lifestyle won't prevent cancer for everyone.

This is exactly where I am in my life. At the ripe old age of almost 40 I've accepted that skinny/thin is not in my cards. So, I will eat healthy and move my overweight body.

 

Although the other thread has me wishing I could afford to live in NYC because no weight problems there. ;)

[Guest]

What if we are just meant to be bigger?? Supermodels are rare. I spend many hours a day sitting in rooms full of women waiting for children; maybe 1 in 20 is thin. The majority are either plump, overweight or very overweight. Where did the idea come from that we are supposed to be thin? Where did the numbers on the BMI charts come from??

[purplejackmama]

Where did the idea come from that we are supposed to be thin? Where did the numbers on the BMI charts come from??

Hell. They came from the pits of hell. ;)

[kiana]

What if we are just meant to be bigger?? Supermodels are rare. I spend many hours a day sitting in rooms full of women waiting for children; maybe 1 in 20 is thin. The majority are either plump, overweight or very overweight. Where did the idea come from that we are supposed to be thin? Where did the numbers on the BMI charts come from??

 

Mostly from where the health risks for various diseases increase. Being slightly overweight doesn't really do much, but the more over you are, the more your risk of cumulative disease increases. These boundaries should be somewhat race-based as well -- Asians tend to be in more danger at a lower weight. Interesting article with references: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ethnic-differences-in-bmi-and-disease-risk/

 

As always, these are statistical and many overweight people do not suffer from them, whilst many of normal weights do. It is more a matter of increased risk than individual experience.

[abacus2]

What you appear to be hearing is actually not what I am saying.

 

I think that regardless of what problems they have, people should investigate the obvious causes before they go looking for obscure causes. I am making no statements about whether you personally have done so or not.

 

But I see a lot of people who are reluctant to even try even though they've never done it before, because all they hear about is the people who say it doesn't work. And I think that reducing intake (not necessarily CICO) is especially worth a shot and especially likely to succeed when the person doesn't have much to lose and/or has never seriously tried before. These people are underrepresented in the weight loss data, because the weight loss data tends to be focused around people who have already been unsuccessful and are now seeking medical/behavioral/paid intervention. It's a lot less worth a shot when someone has a history of yoyo dieting or unsuccessful attempts.

I don't think failure to care enough to try a diet is an obvious cause of the obesity epidemic, especially given the ridiculously harsh social pressure to be not healthy, but thin, and the massive dieting industry. The statistics say that very nearly every person who diets either comes out more obese or is yo-yo dieting.

 

I seriously dieted once, in my early 20s. I am convinced I am worse off for it. I believe I messed up my metabolism and have less muscle now because of it. I kept the weight off for two years easily and then suddenly started gaining for no apparent reason. I tried to halt the gain with no luck and then I got pregnant. I got thinner during the pregnancy, my pattern, but immediately afterward gained 20 additional pounds before my thyroid condition was diagnosed. With medication, my weight stabilized and has stayed within 10 lbs of that weight for the past 11 years. I now range between 20 and 40 lbs heavier than I was when I started my diet in my 20s. I believe that if I severely restricted my calories, I could lose, but I also think that if I do so below my maintenance range that I will end up heavier than I am now within a few years. I just don't believe that I will be in the single% that keep the weight off long term. So until science figures out something better, I will stick to pursuing better quality eating and exercise without pursuing significant loss.

[kiana]

But the effect they have may vary from person to person. It's like with cancer-causing agents. One person might get lung cancer from working in a smoky bar for a couple years in college. Another person can chain smoke for a lifetime and die cancer-free at a hundred.

 

I think it's probably the same with these chemicals and obesity. One person might be exposed to a large amount and still find it relatively easy to maintain a healthy weight. Another person might have a much smaller exposure and find that it vastly increases their susceptibility to weight gain. So while it's fine to say that everyone should eat a healthy diet and get a decent amount of exercise (and really, everyone should do that no matter what size they are) that doesn't mean it will prevent obesity for everyone, just as a healthy lifestyle won't prevent cancer for everyone. 

 

I'm not actually sure where we disagree as I agree with everything you've said here.

 

The people who are overweight due to these environmental factors are in an unfortunate bind. Through no real fault of their own, they are at risk for many additional diseases, and need to go through a fair amount of suffering to lose weight if they are able to at all.

 

But not everyone is overweight primarily due to environmental factors. Specifically, not everyone who is overweight is already eating a healthy diet (including reasonable portions) and getting a decent amount of exercise.

 

I am specifically not saying that a healthy diet and exercise it will prevent obesity for everyone. Of course it will not. Starvation would, but that would be stupid (in case it is not obvious, I do not recommend this). But if you're not *already* doing this, it should be your first place to look, and if you don't have a lot of experience calculating portions, weighing/measuring for a while so you know just how much you are eating is probably a good idea. If you do need to seek medical advice because it doesn't work, you'll have the data to show the doctor as well.

[Abeille]

If you do need to seek medical advice because it doesn't work, you'll have the data to show the doctor as well.

 

Unfortunately, even if you do that many doctors won't believe the data you bring them. I've tried doing exactly this three different times, with three different doctors. Each time, it was clear that they didn't believe I was being truthful. Probably because if I were really eating just what I said I did (and I was), then I *should* be losing weight. The last one actually lectured me: "You have to write down every single bite, even just a few Pringles will throw these numbers off." I was writing down every.single.bite and every sip of non-water liquids too. I hadn't eaten a darn potato chip in over a year, and had already told her I was eating low-carb. She just couldn't let go of her preconception that an obese patient must be either lying, or be too ignorant to be able to record intake accurately. I would have switched doctors, but my insurance only allows that every six months. After that incident, I've pretty much given up on asking doctors to help me figure out why it's so hard for me to lose weight. I don't have the emotional energy to try again with a new one.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, just sharing a personal experience that people without serious weight problems may not have experienced. Measuring and recording what you eat is a very helpful tool and one I still use. I don't write down everything every day anymore, but I go back to it every few weeks just to touch base and make sure I'm not taking in more than I think I am.

[Reefgazer]

I have not seen peer-reviewed articles addressing wildlife obesity.  Not saying they don't exist, but I haven't seen them, so I honestly haven't given it that much thought until now.  But wildlife *is* living in closer proximity to humans and human garbage, and has access to human crap food, so....  For example, the natural food of Canada Geese and ducks isn't crackers and Cheetos, but when I walk along the river here, I see people feeding exactly that to the geese and ducks.  All those cookie-cutter housing developments that have fake ponds with fountains in the center provide habitat for the birds, but not necessarily a natural diet.  Considering that many BPAs that find their way into humans come from our canned good linings and plastic water bottles, and considering I haven't yet seen a duck crack open an Aquafina and a can of tomatoes for dinner, I'm inclined to look for different and more obvious reasons for fat geese and ducks (and bears, and pet dogs, and etc...). 

But how do you explain the wildlife exposed to these substances also being fatter? Is the local wildlife ordering in pizza and texting their friends? 

 

[Reefgazer]

There are a lot of poorly designed medical and scientific studies out there, so given that we don't know the parameters of the study, I wouldn't assume that at all.

And I would also guess that when they're studying these kinds of things, they would be smart enough to control for factors such as gestational diabetes in the mothers.

 

[Tsuga]

To be clear, the person making the statments about obese 6 month olds is a pediatric endocronologist. I'm assuming he has some idea of what is normal and what isn't in children when it comes to obesity. 

 

I disagree.

 

Doctors are not scientists nor are they trained as such. They are more like the engineers, and less like they physicists.

 

Many doctors take that chart as THE TRUTH and don't have very much training in interpreting science at all. They can't tell you about the population the chart was derived from; they can't tell you why statisticians who invented the statistical methods would say never apply these to an individual.

 

They know the chart, they know what they were taught, and they know that they are doctors and everybody else is not.

 

In my experience, they don't think about the fact that science works because it changes and that everything we think we know not only could change but should change.

 

So they don't think about the fact that (a) the samples were taken from populations gestated during wartime and in the case of African Americans, pre-civil-rights, or (b) the statisticians explicitly said that normed scores were meant to apply to populations and not individuals, or (c ) that quite frankly, there's been one or two charts and even when science comes back and says, "actually, women seem to have less iron than men and also, it seems that women with a bit more fat live longer" they DON'T UPDATE THE STANDARDS FOR DECADES. (Sorry, I get pissed about that one.)

 

It's based in many cases on old, old science, and it's not been updated as it ought to have been.

 

So, I think the pediatric endocrinologist could have been wrong. S/he might know everything that was written in books, but s/he doesn't know what's not in books. S/he doesn't know when the books are wrong. None of us do.

 

All I know is that those charts violate everything I learned about gathering data (for any purpose) and using statistics on human populations, so they can bite me.

 

The advice given based on those charts has led to nothing but increasingly poor health and less appetizing food on this continent.

 

 

 

? Where did the numbers on the BMI charts come from??

 

I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED!!!! Because it's certainly not from excellent science. :)

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

 

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_05_09.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations<- BOOM shakalaka

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/07/beyond_bmi.html

 

To summarize: 

 

It seemed like a good idea 200 years ago; some insurance people and some government-funded scientists collected data on a small and not necessarily representative sample about 40-50 years ago; they put it together and used it to pretend they knew what they hell they were doing because it's a number and simple to remember and sell.

 

It sure as HELL was never meant to be used on toddlers, no matter what medical schools say. I was once denied whole milk for my family because "it's not healthy". We were all in the 1st to 5th percentiles weight for height, but the nutritionist told me I needed to lose weight to "get to my goal weight". She had put my pre-pregnancy weight, caused by dysentery, as my "goal weight". ARGH.

 

FTR: I am not making excuses for my fat ass. I happen to have an incredible body and I do jack all for it. Oh, I work out a bit, and I eat healthy, but do I have to work? Nope. Oddly, I have a .7 waist:hip ratio and I'm technically perfect weight for my height. I find this insane and comical. I love to eat and drink alcohol. Every day I eat what would be a cheat day for many dieters. I have no idea why this is. All I know is, everything they tell me about nutrition, other than "eat fresh fruits and veggies and be active and don't eat 'food' from a factory" is wrong for me.

 

Everything we knew 200 years ago, save a few key points, seems ridiculous to us now. I think the same will be true 200 years from now. I learned that from Star Trek. ;) So I have no qualms saying that maybe doctors are wrong on this one. I know they're at least mostly wrong--otherwise, there would be no use for science.

[Tsuga]

Also! (!!!!!)

 

http://www.theopavlidis.com/HealthIssues/bmi_0.htm

 

He writes like a crackpot but the resources are good. :)

 

:smash:  

[Laura Corin]

To be clear, the person making the statments about obese 6 month olds is a pediatric endocronologist. I'm assuming he has some idea of what is normal and what isn't in children when it comes to obesity. 

 

I wonder....  I think obesity is common among fully breastfed babies, many of whom are eating enormously for comfort.  Calvin was vast at that age.  He was born skinny and went back to skinny - he was just a really, really hungry/needy breastfed baby.  He's now 5'11 and 110 pounds.

 

I don't know, but could there be a switch in proportions of breastfed babies in his cohort?

[Laura Corin]

I disagree.

 

Doctors are not scientists nor are they trained as such. They are more like the engineers, and less like they physicists.

 

Many doctors take that chart as THE TRUTH and don't have very much training in interpreting science at all. 

 

I had a paediatrician who specialised in child growth tell me that it was impossible for a child of mine and my husband's to be over 5'10".  Calvin is 5'11" and has not stopped growing.  

 

I like the description of 'more like engineers'.

[Joanne]

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to admit that environmental toxins might be a factor in obesity rates. Are some people obese because they drink a gallon of pop every day and never exercise? Of course. But why is it that people will readily admit that the chemicals we are exposed to can cause cancer, autoimmune disease, early puberty, and on and on... but when the list gets to obesity, so many people are like, "Oh no. Obese people just need to eat less." Why is obesity different? My guess is that people want to feel like they can control the size of their body, and admitting there are environmental factors outside of our control makes people uneasy.

Because fat people are clearly overeating, eating emotionally, don't know how to eat correctly, aren't aware of eating less and moving more as the first response to health issues.

 

It's a prettied up version of "stupid and lazy."

[Joules]

I don't understand why people are so reluctant to admit that environmental toxins might be a factor in obesity rates. Are some people obese because they drink a gallon of pop every day and never exercise? Of course. But why is it that people will readily admit that the chemicals we are exposed to can cause cancer, autoimmune disease, early puberty, and on and on... but when the list gets to obesity, so many people are like, "Oh no. Obese people just need to eat less." Why is obesity different? My guess is that people want to feel like they can control the size of their body, and admitting there are environmental factors outside of our control makes people uneasy. 

 

Agree!

CICO for weight loss does work for people who are fat because they eat too much or don't exercise enough.  This weight gain happens to many people when they change to a less active job or start stress eating.

 

Other people have specific health problems that make them gain weight: medications, auto-immune disorders, etc.

 

There is the basic conservation of energy principle at the extreme.  If people are fed little to nothing, they will lose weight no matter what.

 

But the reality of some of these diseases is that restricting calories to the level of weight loss actually makes the symptoms worse, sometimes debilitating.  So using the basic CICO is way worse for health than staying at the current weight.  

 

So, I think, when people say CICO doesn't work they aren't arguing against basic physics, but arguing that (for some people) the low caloric intake required for CICO is not possible while maintaining good health, a job, a family and a household.

[Joanne]

I think this cycle can be broken, but it is *very* difficult to do.  The calories in/calories out model holds for me, personally.  When I think "OMG, I can't lose a pound and am dieting conscientiously", it has *always* been portion-creep that is at fault, and when I start meticulously measuring foods, lo and behold, the weight falls off.  That's not to say calories in/calories out holds for everyone, but I think more people should look more carefully at their portion sizes and other obvious issues of weight gain before defaulting to more complicated explanations.   

 

I have known thousands of (neurotypical, average or better IQ) people. Hundreds of them have been various levels of overweight. From a bit overweight to morbidly obese.

 

I have not known *one* who "defaulted" to more complicated explanations. Not one. I have never met a person who decided to do something about their health, including their weight who was not aware and did not try some form of calorie restriction, portion restriction, or carb restriction. Or a person who did not know basic nutrition in terms of avoiding fast food, sugared soda/drinks. Most knew more nutrition, and many have spent copious amounts of time learning about diet and sometimes exercise. I do not know ONE who woke up fat, wanted to do something about it and declared "CICO doesn't work for me. I must have unique and special circumstances".

 

I have known dozens who have lost sleep, quality of life, peace, and mental health because they believe they emotionally eat, don't have "enough" will power, don't do "enough", aren't diligent "enough."

 

I have, however, known dozens of people who tried - often for YEARS - to lose weight and gain health. I have seen them work diligently and hard and show tremendous psychological strength, willpower, and drive.

 

Being one of those people, I have discovered that there are many of us. Millions. Many of these millions still "believe" that if they move more/eat less, they will finally achieve the life and health they are WORKING for.

 

I am glad that portion control works for you. Portion control got ME to 234 pounds. I realize you won't believe me. Or if you do, you likely won't believe it is a common situation. That's ok. I don't emotionally eat about it. I don't think much about it unless I am in these threads.

 

But for ME to get to a "healthy weight", I would need to restrict my calories AND carbs and workout crazy amounts. Unhealthy, disordered amounts.

[Bluegoat]

I'm not actually sure where we disagree as I agree with everything you've said here.

 

The people who are overweight due to these environmental factors are in an unfortunate bind. Through no real fault of their own, they are at risk for many additional diseases, and need to go through a fair amount of suffering to lose weight if they are able to at all.

 

But not everyone is overweight primarily due to environmental factors. Specifically, not everyone who is overweight is already eating a healthy diet (including reasonable portions) and getting a decent amount of exercise.

 

I am specifically not saying that a healthy diet and exercise it will prevent obesity for everyone. Of course it will not. Starvation would, but that would be stupid (in case it is not obvious, I do not recommend this). But if you're not *already* doing this, it should be your first place to look, and if you don't have a lot of experience calculating portions, weighing/measuring for a while so you know just how much you are eating is probably a good idea. If you do need to seek medical advice because it doesn't work, you'll have the data to show the doctor as well.

 

I think another issue might be that there is a % of people who think they are dieting, but really what they are doing is something totally differemt.

 

My cousin who I mentioned on the other thread came by my place yesterday, she is bigger than ever, and still trying, supposedly, to diet.

 

She was at my place for about an hour.  During that time she ate a filled doughnut, a piece of chocolate cake, and a coffee with two cream and two sugar.  That is pretty typical of her family as well.  So - while they might all say they have spent lots of time dieting, it is difficult to take that very seriously.  IMO they really have very little idea what would happen if they tried to really just eat in a healthy way and become a little more active, without even getting as far as thinking about portions.

 

That is more extreme than some people, but I don't think its unheard of, and those people are being included in statistics and such about self-reported dieting.

[Bluegoat]

I wonder....  I think obesity is common among fully breastfed babies, many of whom are eating enormously for comfort.  Calvin was vast at that age.  He was born skinny and went back to skinny - he was just a really, really hungry/needy breastfed baby.  He's now 5'11 and 110 pounds.

 

I don't know, but could there be a switch in proportions of breastfed babies in his cohort?

 

My observation has been that BF babies are often very roly-poly once they get eating, but then once they start walking or crawling they often get skinny again.  Some doctors seem to get upset about both situations.

[ktgrok]

I think another issue might be that there is a % of people who think they are dieting, but really what they are doing is something totally differemt.

 

My cousin who I mentioned on the other thread came by my place yesterday, she is bigger than ever, and still trying, supposedly, to diet.

 

She was at my place for about an hour.  During that time she ate a filled doughnut, a piece of chocolate cake, and a coffee with two cream and two sugar.  That is pretty typical of her family as well.  So - while they might all say they have spent lots of time dieting, it is difficult to take that very seriously.  IMO they really have very little idea what would happen if they tried to really just eat in a healthy way and become a little more active, without even getting as far as thinking about portions.

 

That is more extreme than some people, but I don't think its unheard of, and those people are being included in statistics and such about self-reported dieting.

 

I will say this. Many obese people have a much greater than normal appetite from years of dieting, and are sugar addicted to boot. So saying' they should just eat less is like telling an alcoholic to just drink a little less. 

[Joanne]

What do you consider too much workout? Most m.o. that I know that succeed put about two hours daily in, but one woman I know with a sedentary job decided to calorie and portion control, eliminated sugar, bread, and starch, ate greens daily, upped her movement via fitbit and treadmill-about an hour of walking per day, and was back at normal weight in three years. Has maintained for 2 so far. Still parks far away so she gets more steps in.

 

I have eaten like that for months on end and worked jobs that include walking, standing and are not "sedentary." I still did not lose weight. In terms of the elimination of "sugar, bread, and starch", I ate a very healthy low carb (meat, non starch veggies) for months and months, using the "wisdom" of seasoned low carbers and still did not lose (though I *did* in my 30's and that served to make me a believer and chant the low carb chant.)

 

I did WW, compliant, and with whole foods (no "food products, not even WW products) and I still do not lose weight.

 

I can't speak for others other than to say I believe people when they say they can't lose weight according to commonly held "wisdom" and shared advice.

[Joanne]

Agree!

CICO for weight loss does work for people who are fat because they eat too much or don't exercise enough.  This weight gain happens to many people when they change to a less active job or start stress eating.

 

Other people have specific health problems that make them gain weight: medications, auto-immune disorders, etc.

 

There is the basic conservation of energy principle at the extreme.  If people are fed little to nothing, they will lose weight no matter what.

 

But the reality of some of these diseases is that restricting calories to the level of weight loss actually makes the symptoms worse, sometimes debilitating.  So using the basic CICO is way worse for health than staying at the current weight.  

 

So, I think, when people say CICO doesn't work they aren't arguing against basic physics, but arguing that (for some people) the low caloric intake required for CICO is not possible while maintaining good health, a job, a family and a household.

 

I get a fun, private giggle everytime you (with your username) post in these threads.

 

It's the simple things.

 

:laugh:

[Annie G]

What do you consider too much workout? Most m.o. that I know that succeed put about two hours daily in, but one woman I know with a sedentary job decided to calorie and portion control, eliminated sugar, bread, and starch, ate greens daily, upped her movement via fitbit and treadmill-about an hour of walking per day, and was back at normal weight in three years. Has maintained for 2 so far. Still parks far away so she gets more steps in.

 

In dh's case, his body adjusts within a month. So he has a very sedentary job and was eating a normal heart healthy diet per his cardiologist's recommendations. He got a fitbit and tracked his usual activity for a few weeks so he knew what his typical step count was. Then he started making changes. Changed his diet from what the doc recommended to a lower carb one, but higher fat (eggs for breakfast!), set a timer to walk more, and we joined a gym. 

 

His step count at the beginning was in the 3000 range. He's now in the 8,000 to 10,000 range when he comes home from work.   Like I said, we joined a gym in December, and are there doing hard workouts five days a week. 45 minutes on the treadmill, weight training, HIIT workouts under the guidance of a trainer.  Dh lost about 15 pounds in three months then stalled. (started losing, and it slowed down after a month, and by month three, no changes)

 

So he added a morning workout also- 45 minutes on a his bike that's on a trainer.  

 

Even if he's underestimating what his calorie intake is (and he eats the same thing for breakfast and lunch each day so dinner is the only variable), it doesn't make sense that he keeps adding workouts and is not losing. 

 

So on a typical day, M-F, he rides his bike 45 minutes in the morning and does a 15 minute strength workout, and some stretching exercises. Then he gets about 8000 steps during his workday, and then goes to the gym for a 45 minute treadmill session and another 40 minutes of weights, HIIT, or trainer session.    That is a lot of exercising for a guy working a full time job.    

 

He's doing all the 'right' things but it's not working.  And it's frustrating because doctors and even friends don't believe him. (Except our dentist, who is at the gym when we are...that guy is super fit and he mentioned the other day how he can't figure out why dh isn't dropping weight. Can't tell you how much that meant to dh to hear that even though the guy is a dentist and not a cardiologist) 

[Joanne]

I will say this. Many obese people have a much greater than normal appetite from years of dieting, and are sugar addicted to boot. So saying' they should just eat less is like telling an alcoholic to just drink a little less. 

 

I do agree that in some (many, perhaps) a sugar/carb addiction functions in the body very much like alcohol in an alcoholic body: with a NEED for more that does NOT happen in other-bodied persons. I believe this to be a physiological reality and not a psychological one (in both cases of alcohol and sugar/carb addiction.) The drinking or eating is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

[Joanne]

In dh's case, his body adjusts within a month. So he has a very sedentary job and was eating a normal heart healthy diet per his cardiologist's recommendations. He got a fitbit and tracked his usual activity for a few weeks so he knew what his typical step count was. Then he started making changes. Changed his diet from what the doc recommended to a lower carb one, but higher fat (eggs for breakfast!), set a timer to walk more, and we joined a gym. 

 

His step count at the beginning was in the 3000 range. He's now in the 8,000 to 10,000 range when he comes home from work.   Like I said, we joined a gym in December, and are there doing hard workouts five days a week. 45 minutes on the treadmill, weight training, HIIT workouts under the guidance of a trainer.  Dh lost about 15 pounds in three months then stalled. (started losing, and it slowed down after a month, and by month three, no changes)

 

So he added a morning workout also- 45 minutes on a his bike that's on a trainer.  

 

Even if he's underestimating what his calorie intake is (and he eats the same thing for breakfast and lunch each day so dinner is the only variable), it doesn't make sense that he keeps adding workouts and is not losing. 

 

So on a typical day, M-F, he rides his bike 45 minutes in the morning and does a 15 minute strength workout, and some stretching exercises. Then he gets about 8000 steps during his workday, and then goes to the gym for a 45 minute treadmill session and another 40 minutes of weights, HIIT, or trainer session.    That is a lot of exercising for a guy working a full time job.    

 

He's doing all the 'right' things but it's not working.  And it's frustrating because doctors and even friends don't believe him. (Except our dentist, who is at the gym when we are...that guy is super fit and he mentioned the other day how he can't figure out why dh isn't dropping weight. Can't tell you how much that meant to dh to hear that even though the guy is a dentist and not a cardiologist) 

 

{{Annie and Annie's GH}} I understand you and your DH's frustration at the situation and with the medical and other people who don't believe you. Please know I understand.

 

I am exercising "anyway" because it feels better and I am better, and I hope that your DH is enjoying the benefits of being very fit.

 

[Joanne]

My observation has been that BF babies are often very roly-poly once they get eating, but then once they start walking or crawling they often get skinny again.  Some doctors seem to get upset about both situations.

 

Knowledge about healthy and normal with regard to breastfed babies (and their mothers) is still dismal.

[Abeille]

What do you consider too much workout? Most m.o. that I know that succeed put about two hours daily in, but one woman I know with a sedentary job decided to calorie and portion control, eliminated sugar, bread, and starch, ate greens daily, upped her movement via fitbit and treadmill-about an hour of walking per day, and was back at normal weight in three years. Has maintained for 2 so far. Still parks far away so she gets more steps in.

 

 

The only time in my life that I got down anywhere near my goal weight (as determined by the health/weight charts), I was working out an average of three hours each weekday. I would wake up at 5am to be at the gym by 6, do cardio/weights for 75 minutes, then shower and commute to work. After work, I would head straight back to the rec center and do a step aerobics class, have a short rest break and either take a strength/endurance class or go into the gym for an hour of interval training on the bike. I'd have another short break while I waited for water aerobics class, do that class, and then head home, fall into bed and repeat the next day. I lived about a mile from the rec center, so add the walks there in the early am and back at night. Those were my weekdays. Weekends were lighter because there were fewer classes scheduled and the gym was unpleasantly busy - usually only one aerobics or strength training class on Saturday, then Sunday was a rest day from formal exercise. I also walked a lot because I didn't have a car and could only afford busfare for work. My job kept me on my feet most of the workday.

 

With all that, the lowest weight I could ever get to was 175; I'm 5'6" and the healthy BMI range for my age then is 114.6 lbs - 154.9 lbs. The trainers at the gym were mystified. I still looked chunky even though I was in excellent shape. My body composition was no longer changing and I couldn't shed a pound. They had me keep food diaries, they changed up my workouts frequently, but my progress stalled and eventually I got burnt out. I was tired of having virtually no social life, and having no time for anything outside of the rec center. Once I cut back my workouts to 3 days a week, I began gaining again even though I was still following a strict diet. Looking back, I do think my workouts were disordered. I was obsessed with diet and exercise, and it had consumed my life.

[ktgrok]

Knowledge about healthy and normal with regard to breastfed babies (and their mothers) is still dismal.

 

The context of the discussion around obese 6 month olds was in regards to fructose in formula, not breastfed babies.