Seriously Fascinating Article About Gut Bacteria Link To Obesity

[Jingthing]

I just found this article and I am still digesting it.

I think it has very important information for overweight and obese people and even normal weight people with metabolic syndrome.

The main focus of the article is about evidence linking the composition of GUT BACTERIA to both metabolic syndrome (related of course to obesity) disease issues and also how healthy gut bacteria promotes health and a possible therapy for those already suffering. But there is a lot more to it (please read it).

As I have made no secret, I strongly think simple math equations about calorie intake and exercise are NOT the answer to solve the international obesity epidemic. Nor are morality lectures that all fat people are fat because it's their choice and their fault. In reality, the biology of it is clearly much more COMPLEX and we are probably in the early days of effective solutions (short of bariatric surgery) for most fat people.

But progress (more knowledge via SCIENCE) is definitely being made, and I think some of this information can be helpful RIGHT NOW to many people.

Personally, I have gotten into prebiotics and probiotics in recent months as well as the other stuff I've been doing. No I am not saying this article has the final answer on obesity. But it's a lot more helpful than doctors telling everyone, just go home and diet and exercise, when they know such general advice for the most part fails and in fact usually BACKFIRES.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss?page=1

Why are we increasingly prone to obesity? The long-dominant
explanation is simply that too little exercise and too many calories
equals too much stored fat. The solution: more exercise and a lot more
willpower. But there's a problem with this theory: In the developed
world, most of us consume more calories than we really need, but we
don't gain weight proportionally.

A pound of body fat contains roughly 3,500 calories. If you run a
daily surplus of just 500 calories—the amount in a bagel with a generous
serving of cream cheese—you should, judging by the strict
calorie-in-must-equal-calorie-out model, gain a pound of fat per week.
Most of us do run a surplus in that range, or even higher, but we either
gain weight much more slowly, or don't gain weight at all.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[smokie36]

I remain at my usual weight. In spite of my booze intake...my swimming regime continues unabated.

Bad diet and exercise....that's where its at!

[smokie36]

I am listening JT...but I find these kinds of things hocus pocus in the extreme without a full randomised blind study lasting a few years.

Edited April 23, 2013 by smokie36

[David48]

If it's a personal story, and I don't know if it is ... maybe your issue stems from ...

I just found this article and I am still digesting it.*

Man ... you have to cut back on those articles!

* BTW ... nice pun ...

.

[Kalbo]

If it's a personal story, and I don't know if it is ... maybe your issue stems from ...

I just found this article and I am still digesting it.*

Man ... you have to cut back on those articles!

* BTW ... nice pun ...

.

Forgive me, but most of these articles just add to the crock o' <deleted> that is already brimming with silliness. The simple fact, and it remains unchanged, is that if you are not calorie deficit, you will not lose weight, and vice versa. Some people may require more or less calories on a daily basis, but the equation remains the same. All, (and I mean 100%) of the fat people I know, eat large amounts of horrible food. in the same breath, all (again 100%) the people I know who are in shape, tend to intake far less calories than their overweight counterparts, and /or do a lot of exercise. I've told this story before , about a significantly overweight friend of mine, who always complains about his weight, and how he walks about 10kms 4-5 times a week. I went to his house one day, and his cupboards are full of chocolates, cakes, potato chips etc, and he ate a rather large amount of said food during the short time I was there. Now, does that tell you anything ?

[robblok]

It still does not mean that engergy in vs energy out is wrong it only means that in some people the burn rate is less then in others. Problem is when you got a lower burn rate plus hunger stimulus. I have seen research about people who are faster hungry then others. So yes you can have your cards stacked against you but that does not mean you can't win.

I got a low thyroid and i count calories and I got there, yes took me a lot of effort most would not do it. Still it can be done.

Now take my always skinny brother who was close to anorexia in his youth now is fat. This happened the last few years.. why eating and drinking too much plus a slower metabolism because of age. Yo don't wake up one day 20kg overweight that happens over time and at any time you can stop the weight gain.

So please don't act like your not responsible for your own body. And yes i agree some people have a much harder time then others but a large part are just too lazy to change.

I have once researched that there is a 20% difference between people with slow thyroid and those with real fast thyroids. So that would mean that some people would 1800 cals where the ones in the top group would burn 2200 cals. But on average 200 cals difference. What i found more interesting was that there were people who just did not have the same hunger stimuli as others, that is much more interesting.

Too bad sibutramine is not safe as it really does cut a lot of those hunger stimuli away and levels the playing field.

[robblok]

After reading the article it is clear JT did some serious cherry picking as basically it says if you eat the wrong foods high fats and such you can get the bacteria that (according to them) cause obesity. So by eating healthy you don't get them, guess who controls what he or she eats.

Also an other part of the article states that we should exercise even though its not an effective calorie burner but it is anti inflammatory and helps against these bacteria. So again I can state fat people dont exercise enough..

So with the same article as JT i come to other conclusions.

Fact is still your responsible for your own body but if this is true this information would help because basically it says eat healthy and exercise and you will kill those bad bacteria.... hint hint hint JT.

But I guess you just a a pill and be absolved form all things you control yourself.

Edited April 24, 2013 by robblok

[robblok]

To be fair there are things that can really be bad for someone trying to loose weight. For some its easy for others its not. However most people can loose the weight but don't want to put in the effort.

Things that really can work against you

- Thyroid (believe me i know)

- Hunger stimuli (hard to describe but seen in some BBC documentary that some people just don't get hungry easy and others do)

- Disability (harder to exercise when you have a problem

- Age.. body slows it metabolic rate down

For me i think nr 2 would be hardest i do know that i often have the urge to eat others i know have that far less, I even know people who have it more then me.

Thyroid even though its just a small amount of calories (by exercising half an hour you can make up for it) it adds up day after day after day.

Though by lowering your intake you can beat most of them also eating healthy helps. But it sure does not feel fair when others can eat loads more as you and don't gain as much. But life has never been fair and at least its something you can change unlike your height.

So I do agree partly with JT but I am more a believer in freedom of choice and master of your own destiny.

I know for a fact that if i start consuming alcohol again ill gain weight. Just a matter of how important things are.

[Tolley]

Calories in calories out is really way too simplistic.

There are too many variables that it is difficult to know where to start.

There are so many other things that effect us like digestive issues. Poor digestion can lead to lower weight as food is not properly digested which in turn puts stress on the liver and lowers immune function leading to all sorts of possible long term health problems.

Thyroid problems can lead to both being overweight or underweight.

How many middle aged men would have a gut if their T levels were ramped up? Not a lot is the answer so low testosterone can also influence fat levels.

Liver problems can also cause weight problems and the same with kidney problems making people retain fluid.

And the list goes on and on and on.....

That is why underlying medical conditions near to be adressed otherwise trying to lose or even gain weight might not be possible long term.

The human body is a whole organism and simplistic notions of calories in and calories out are not enough to explain weight loss or gain for many people.

[robblok]

Calories in calories out is really way too simplistic.

There are too many variables that it is difficult to know where to start.

There are so many other things that effect us like digestive issues. Poor digestion can lead to lower weight as food is not properly digested which in turn puts stress on the liver and lowers immune function leading to all sorts of possible long term health problems.

Thyroid problems can lead to both being overweight or underweight.

How many middle aged men would have a gut if their T levels were ramped up? Not a lot is the answer so low testosterone can also influence fat levels.

Liver problems can also cause weight problems and the same with kidney problems making people retain fluid.

And the list goes on and on and on.....

That is why underlying medical conditions near to be adressed otherwise trying to lose or even gain weight might not be possible long term.

The human body is a whole organism and simplistic notions of calories in and calories out are not enough to explain weight loss or gain for many people.

Tolly, but the base of calories in and out still stands firm, this only changes the numbers it does not invalidate it.

You cant get a gut no matter how low your test is if your not on a caloric surplus. Problem is knowing where that is.

I never contested that here are reasons why one's metabolic rate can change from an others and that there are things that can be done.

But you can always cut your calories a bit and improve on yourself or get a checkup.

[Kalbo]

Calories in calories out is really way too simplistic.

There are too many variables that it is difficult to know where to start.

There are so many other things that effect us like digestive issues. Poor digestion can lead to lower weight as food is not properly digested which in turn puts stress on the liver and lowers immune function leading to all sorts of possible long term health problems.

Thyroid problems can lead to both being overweight or underweight.

How many middle aged men would have a gut if their T levels were ramped up? Not a lot is the answer so low testosterone can also influence fat levels.

Liver problems can also cause weight problems and the same with kidney problems making people retain fluid.

And the list goes on and on and on.....

That is why underlying medical conditions near to be adressed otherwise trying to lose or even gain weight might not be possible long term.

The human body is a whole organism and simplistic notions of calories in and calories out are not enough to explain weight loss or gain for many people.

It's simplistic because it's very simple. Underlying conditions, or glandular problems will either increase or decrease your metabolic rate, but the underlying fact remains the same. If you consume more calories than you need, you will put on weight, and if you are calorific deficit, you will lose weight. Your examples of low testosterone or low thyroid problems causing weight gain are valid, but only because those conditions cause the body to have a lower metabolic rate, hence the need for less calories. Your last example of how kidney disease may cause water retention is moot, because water is not and never will be either visceral or subcutaneous fat. i.e. I've never heard anyone talk about a 'water gut'. Robblok has stated himself here that he has low thyroid function, but he was able to lose a lot of fat because he cut down on calories, albeit at a higher rate than 'normal' thyroid functioning individuals.

[robblok]

Thing is for some people it is harder if there are underlying conditions, i totally agree with that but it does not mean its impossible. I would try to treat those underlying conditions. I have since 1 month started taking thyroid medicine but so far i haven't seen a change in my metabolic rate but even if there is a change it will be a minor change (i do feel more energetic and such).

Many bodybuilders have experimented with t3 (thyroid medicine) and generally spoken they say it can increase your MBR up to 5 percent. As i am taking t4 and much less as what bodybuilders use i dont expect much change. Maybe it will be the more because its repairing an underlying condition. But I dont expect too much.

[Tolley]

Calories in calories out is really way too simplistic.

There are too many variables that it is difficult to know where to start.

There are so many other things that effect us like digestive issues. Poor digestion can lead to lower weight as food is not properly digested which in turn puts stress on the liver and lowers immune function leading to all sorts of possible long term health problems.

Thyroid problems can lead to both being overweight or underweight.

How many middle aged men would have a gut if their T levels were ramped up? Not a lot is the answer so low testosterone can also influence fat levels.

Liver problems can also cause weight problems and the same with kidney problems making people retain fluid.

And the list goes on and on and on.....

That is why underlying medical conditions near to be adressed otherwise trying to lose or even gain weight might not be possible long term.

The human body is a whole organism and simplistic notions of calories in and calories out are not enough to explain weight loss or gain for many people.

Tolly, but the base of calories in and out still stands firm, this only changes the numbers it does not invalidate it.

You cant get a gut no matter how low your test is if your not on a caloric surplus. Problem is knowing where that is.

I never contested that here are reasons why one's metabolic rate can change from an others and that there are things that can be done.

But you can always cut your calories a bit and improve on yourself or get a checkup.

Yes you could starve yourself to death and you would probably lose the weight!

If you restrict your dietary intake too much then you might end up suffering other health issues so that is not really an answer for many people.

I recommend getting a battery of blood tests done and then finding yourself a good naturopath who are skilled in diet and who take a wholistic approach to the body.

[Kalbo]

Calories in calories out is really way too simplistic.

There are too many variables that it is difficult to know where to start.

There are so many other things that effect us like digestive issues. Poor digestion can lead to lower weight as food is not properly digested which in turn puts stress on the liver and lowers immune function leading to all sorts of possible long term health problems.

Thyroid problems can lead to both being overweight or underweight.

How many middle aged men would have a gut if their T levels were ramped up? Not a lot is the answer so low testosterone can also influence fat levels.

Liver problems can also cause weight problems and the same with kidney problems making people retain fluid.

And the list goes on and on and on.....

That is why underlying medical conditions near to be adressed otherwise trying to lose or even gain weight might not be possible long term.

The human body is a whole organism and simplistic notions of calories in and calories out are not enough to explain weight loss or gain for many people.

Tolly, but the base of calories in and out still stands firm, this only changes the numbers it does not invalidate it.

You cant get a gut no matter how low your test is if your not on a caloric surplus. Problem is knowing where that is.

I never contested that here are reasons why one's metabolic rate can change from an others and that there are things that can be done.

But you can always cut your calories a bit and improve on yourself or get a checkup.

Yes you could starve yourself to death and you would probably lose the weight!

If you restrict your dietary intake too much then you might end up suffering other health issues so that is not really an answer for many people.

I recommend getting a battery of blood tests done and then finding yourself a good naturopath who are skilled in diet and who take a wholistic approach to the body.

The answer to losing weight is to restrict the diet so that you are calorie deficit.That deficit could be 500 calories a week or 5000 calories. Either way, the weight will come off. No-one is suggesting going on the 'Somalian Crash Course Diet'. You could consult all the naturopaths in the world and they could provide a completely wholistic approach to an individuals diet, but the fact that remains constant is that you need to be calorie deficit in order to lose weight.

[robblok]

Tolly,

I think you have no hands on experience here and attribute too much to underlying health problems, its a matter of 5-10% and 5-10% less calories as an other will never lead to starvation but will make things a lot harder if hunger kicks in.

You should do some good research on for instance thyroid and you will see that people taking those medicines will get slimmer but slow because its not a major inpact. The difference would certainly not put you in the starving mode as that is way lower.

But a 5% less burn day in day out would make things a lot harder as you will have to work harder then.

[tropo]

This article screams at me: DON'T FORGET YOUR DAILY KEFIR!

Every article that extols the benefits of kefir will include fat loss as a benefit.

[Jingthing]

Yes I agree that a justification for taking action to improve the balance and kind of your GUT BACTERIA is a huge focus of the article. Those who assert this is the same old same old, it's only calories and energy expended and nothing else matters, it's only about will power and the weak morality of fat people, are just voicing a deeply held orthodoxy that most of us have been brainwashed about since childhood that actually doesn't mesh with more CURRENT research.

Another particular fascinating thing about the article and you can find this other places, is that bariatric surgery, the ONLY largely effective therapy that more mainstream doctors have, is about a lot more than just restricting calories! Even that doesn't always work but when it does evidence is showing the way that it works is not nearly as simple (the tired old simple calorie energy math) as most people assume. I think bariatric surgery is horrible but I also think the research from these patients is going to prove very important in research to help more people WITHOUT such extreme measures.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Yes I agree that taking action to improve the balance and kind of your GUT BACTERIA is a huge focus of the article. For those who assert this is the same old same old, it's only calories and energy expended and nothing else matters, are just voicing a deeply held orthodoxy that doesn't mesh with more CURRENT research.

Your a funny guy you just want to be absolved, in the end it is calories in vs calories out its a law of nature.

However there are things that hamper it the question is in what degree and how to fix it but that still does not invalidate the calories in vs calories out it just changes the calories out amount.

If you are so sure give me some peer reviewed stuff that shows calories in vs calories out won't work.

[Jingthing]

We'll have to agree to disagree. The article CLEARLY supports my point of view. The orange juice experiment for example is classic. This tired old orthodoxy, what help has it been in the world? Obesity increasing massively every year impacting more and more countries, to the point of being a national security threat in places like the USA and UK, and most people buying the tired old morality based theories about what is happening and why it is happening. I don't buy it and I never will.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[robblok]

We'll have to agree to disagree. The article CLEARLY supports my point of view. The orange juice experiment for example is classic. This tired old orthodoxy, what help has it been in the world? Obesity increasing massively every year impacting more and more countries, to the point of being a national security threat in places like the USA and UK, and most people buying the tired old morality based theories about what is happening and why it is happening. I don't buy it and I never will.

This article might support your point of view but one article is not yet a science revolution and even in this article they say that exercise will help you and eating less too. So you can read here what you want. It also stated that eating fat is bad for those bacteria.. so maybe JT your eating too much fat and are not exercising (cheap shot i know but just showing you you can twist an article every way you want)

I never ever say that here are no variables that influence the rate someone burns his calories (i know there are) but if you know you burn them slower you eat less and / or try to remove the reason why you burn slower. (if possible) it is still something you control. I bet nobody woke up one day 20kg overweight its something that happens gradual and at any point you can try to do something about it.

I always have the feeling (and i can be wrong) that you want to find reasons why it is not your fault and you can keep on doing what you want. While i am of the opinion you can change it if you want but it will require change. If you eat healthy and exercise and you still don't loose weight then you go check other things like thyroid ect ect. But I still believe most of the people who are overweight have nobody but themselves to blame and yes there is a small number that can't help themselves but they are not a large group compared to those who eat or drink (alcohol) too much.

[Jingthing]

...

But I still believe most of the people who are overweight have nobody but themselves to blame and yes there is a small number that can't help themselves but they are not a large group compared to those who eat or drink (alcohol) too much.

We know. We know.

[robblok]

...

But I still believe most of the people who are overweight have nobody but themselves to blame and yes there is a small number that can't help themselves but they are not a large group compared to those who eat or drink (alcohol) too much.

We know. We know.

JT did you wake up one night 20kg too heavy.. i know I did not.. and at any point i could have changed or looked for help to change medical or else. So who is to blame for that oversight ?

And nice job ignoring everything else but this.

[Jingthing]

...

But I still believe most of the people who are overweight have nobody but themselves to blame and yes there is a small number that can't help themselves but they are not a large group compared to those who eat or drink (alcohol) too much.

We know. We know.

JT did you wake up one night 20kg too heavy.. i know I did not.. and at any point i could have changed or looked for help to change medical or else. So who is to blame for that oversight ?

And nice job ignoring everything else but this.

I was actually born a fat baby and was a fat child into a cultural and emotional situation where food was EVERYTHING. So I have no idea what you're talking about. The thing is I like to look at this in the context of the global obesity epidemic and how it continues to go in the WRONG DIRECTION regardless of the tired morality lectures, and more macro solutions that can REALISTICALLY help the most people. Going on a severely restricted calorie regime for life and being a gym rat for life is something less than one percent of people are EVER going to do! Especially when the internal mechanisms of their bodies are wired to FIGHT THEM on that at every turn. You do realize you lose fat but you do not lose fat cells, right? There has got to be a better way that can really realistically work for more people. I think science is seriously starting to point in very productive better ways.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Exercise, meanwhile, is anti-inflammatory, which may explain why a brisk walk can immediately improve insulin sensitivity. Exercise may also fortify healthy brown fat, which burns off calories rather than storing them, like white fat does. This relationship may explain how physical activity really helps us lose weight. Yes, exercise burns calories, but the amount is often trivial. Just compensating for that bagel you ate for breakfast—roughly 290 calories—requires a 20-minute jog. And that's not counting any cream cheese. Sleep deprivation may have the opposite effect, favoring white fat over brown, and altering the metabolism.

From your own article.. so you need to exercise.

To prove the principle, he gave mice a low dose of endotoxin, that molecule that resides in the outer walls of certain bacteria. The mice's livers became insulin resistant; the mice became obese and developed diabetes. A high-fat diet alone produced the same result: Endotoxin leaked into circulation; inflammation took hold; the mice grew fat and diabetic. Then came the bombshell. The mere addition of soluble plant fibers called oligosaccharides, found in things like bananas, garlic, and asparagus, prevented the entire cascade—no endotoxin, no inflammation, and no diabetes.

Linking the problems to too much fat in a diet again from your own article.

So who but you controls both exercise and fat intake in your diet.. ?

Edited April 24, 2013 by robblok

[robblok]

...

But I still believe most of the people who are overweight have nobody but themselves to blame and yes there is a small number that can't help themselves but they are not a large group compared to those who eat or drink (alcohol) too much.

We know. We know.

JT did you wake up one night 20kg too heavy.. i know I did not.. and at any point i could have changed or looked for help to change medical or else. So who is to blame for that oversight ?

And nice job ignoring everything else but this.

I was actually born a fat baby and was a fat child. So I have no idea what you're talking about. The thing is I like to look at this in the context of the global obesity epidemic and more macro solutions that can REALISTICALLY help the most people. Going on a severely restricted calorie regime for life and being a gym rat for life is something less than one percent of people are EVER going to do! Especially when the internal mechanisms of their bodies are wired to FIGHT THEM on that at every turn. There has got to be a better way that can really realistically work for more people. I think science is seriously starting to point in very productive better ways.

Thing is JT i do agree with you that there are other things that influence it all, however you can take steps to resolve it. There is such a thing as free will and you can take steps. Same with everyone else, but yes you have to restrict your calories and exercise.. guess what that is normal humans were born to use their body and not sit as much as we do now.

But if there are other things wrong with people sure go after these too but don't use them as an excuse not to do other things.

[Jingthing]

I never said you shouldn't exercise and I think you know that. I am saying that this personal morality dogma that you developed, severe self deprivation, lifetime severe calorie restriction and gym rat obsession, will NEVER work for most people. I would bet the house on that and evidence is on my side.

I actually think we agree pretty much on about 80 percent of this stuff. It might actually be a matter of tone and huge cultural differences between us that are the source of this disagreement. I think this morality lecturing and blame game actually is HURTFUL to fat people in their goals to get healthier.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[robblok]

I never said you shouldn't exercise and I think you know that. I am saying that this personal morality dogma that you developed, severe self deprivation, lifetime severe calorie restriction and gym rat obsession, will NEVER work for most people. I would bet the house on that and evidence is on my side.

I would not take that bet but it just means some people have it easier loosing weight and some people are more willing to sacrifice things. In the end we are not all the same.

We knew we ate more; we knew we had gained weight. Now a new study that looked at 30 years of Americans' eating habits has pinned down how many more calories, carbohydrates and fats are eaten daily.

From 1971 to 2000, the study found, women increased their caloric intake by 22 percent, men by 7 percent.

Much of the change was found to be due to an increase in the amount of carbohydrates we have been eating. The findings may reinforce the current trend, among those sometimes known as carb-avoids, of reducing or even eliminating foods like breads and pasta.

And while the percentage of calories Americans get from fat, especially saturated fats, has decreased, the numbers might be deceiving. The actual amount of fat eaten daily has gone up. It just makes up a smaller percentage of the total caloric pie now that we are eating so many more carbs.

The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and reported in the current edition of its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, found that in 1971 women ate 1,542 calories on average, compared with today's 1,877, while men went from 2,450 calories a day to 2,618. Those numbers dwarf the government's recommendations of 1,600 calories a day for women and 2,200 for men.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/health/06CARB.html

This does show calories have something to do with it.

[Tolley]

Tolly,

I think you have no hands on experience here and attribute too much to underlying health problems, its a matter of 5-10% and 5-10% less calories as an other will never lead to starvation but will make things a lot harder if hunger kicks in.

You should do some good research on for instance thyroid and you will see that people taking those medicines will get slimmer but slow because its not a major inpact. The difference would certainly not put you in the starving mode as that is way lower.

But a 5% less burn day in day out would make things a lot harder as you will have to work harder then.

Well I have never been overweight but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about the topic of losing weight.

You are clearly out of step with a lot of research because the calories in calories out is not consistent with a lot of current research.

Here are a few links to keep you going but there is plenty more out there if you choose to look.

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

http://the-healthy-omnivore.com/calorie-in-calorie-out-myth/

[robblok]

Tolly,

I think you have no hands on experience here and attribute too much to underlying health problems, its a matter of 5-10% and 5-10% less calories as an other will never lead to starvation but will make things a lot harder if hunger kicks in.

You should do some good research on for instance thyroid and you will see that people taking those medicines will get slimmer but slow because its not a major inpact. The difference would certainly not put you in the starving mode as that is way lower.

But a 5% less burn day in day out would make things a lot harder as you will have to work harder then.

Well I have never been overweight but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about the topic of losing weight.

You are clearly out of step with a lot of research because the calories in calories out is not consistent with a lot of current research.

Here are a few links to keep you going but there is plenty more out there if you choose to look.

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

http://the-healthy-omnivore.com/calorie-in-calorie-out-myth/

Read them and they still don't go against what I think its still calories in vs calories out. They just ad more variables to the mix nobody says that restricting calories does not work. The only add other things to the mix, i was already aware that we are not machines and that the formula is not exact.

I was also already aware that there are certain foods you should not eat and that things like insulin sensitivity play a role same as thyroid problems. None of these invalidate the basic principle they just fine tune it.

Do you believe that there is a magical food combination there that you can eat as much as you want without gaining weight ? Not me I believe that once you found how much food you need to stay on a weight and you eat less then that amount (i dont look at absolute numbers) you will loose weight.

Like you of course i take my anti oxidants and look for the right foods, i doubt however all these things have more then a 20% impact on your MBR.

In the end you can up your burn a bit but will have to adjust your intake to it and the better stuff you use for intake the better it is.

[Tolley]

This article screams at me: DON'T FORGET YOUR DAILY KEFIR!

Every article that extols the benefits of kefir will include fat loss as a benefit.

Yes good digestive health is paramount. Your whole immune system is compromised without good digestion.