Forget Diet and Exercise - Blame our Hormones!

[partington]

Seriously, this is really a disagreement over words not facts.

It is true that if you use more calories than you consume then you will lose weight. This is a physical law that can't be broken.

It is also true that all people are different in (1) the amount of calories they are able to absorb by digesting foods (2) the amount of calories they use to fuel basal biological functions (metabolic rate) (3) the amount of excess calories they store as fat or turn into heat (4) the amount of hunger they feel after consuming a fixed number of calories (some feel starving, some feel satiated) (5) the degree to which weight loss and diet reset their metabolic handling of calories, feeling of satiation and hunger, distribution of calories to storage or use as fuel.

These are also facts that have been demonstrated time and time again. People begin with widely variant metabolisms anyway, and on top of this dieting and obesity can reset their metabolic rate and prioritisation of energy storage/energy use to wildly different extents.

So while it is quite true to say calories in/calories out must balance, it is not at all true to say that all persons eating 500 excess calories a day must show the same weight gain or loss if they do the same amount of exercise. This clearly does not happen. To believe this is like saying you believe that all cars fuelled with one gallon of petrol will go the same distance. They of course will not, and a person can put on weight eating 1000 calories a day, and not put on weight while eating 2000 calories a day, even if they do the same amount of exercise.

To lose weight some people have to nearly starve while others barely need to do anything. The equation is still right: if calories in is less than calories out weight is is lost. But if you use 5 times more calories sitting watching TV than someone else does walking to the shops then you are not going to get the same result from the same reduction in calories consumed.

This surely is not controversial, as it is demonstrated in nearly every weight loss study that has ever been done!

Edited January 20, 2015 by partington

[h90]

I never said it was false. I am saying it is an important factor but not the ONLY one, and that people's bodies are very different based on their biological histories. I am sure I can't behave exactly the same as a typical person who has never been overweight and not expect to gain weight. I would gain weight ... they wouldn't ... I could easily prove that but I don't want to gain weight so I won't bother.

In more crass terms, they can get away with eating some donuts, I really can't.

I really do think most people who have had long term obesity issues would know exactly what I'm talking about here, but a person who has never been overweight can't possibly understand this unless they have a medical background or some good amount of compassion for the realities that not everyone is the same as they are.

your quote: "and obviously scientifically false"

And it is the ONLY important factor. Everything else is just to make it easier.

And of course you can get away with donuts. I can lock you into the basement and give you 1 donut per day. After 1 month you'll have lost a lot weight on the "donut-diet", because the one and only important factor is that you ate less calories than you burned.

Of course you'll be hungry all the time, but that isn't an important factor. Not being hungry is nice, but complete irrelevant to loosing weight. That is universal true no matter what history...not even only for people, even for all animals it is the same.

No eat=loosing body mass.

Real life is not a donut death camp. Sure you would eventually die on that donut regime. Proving what? I'm talking about the real world outside the bounds of sick sadistic human experiments you might be dreaming up.

A couple of years ago some nut underwent an eat only at Mcdonalds for a month regime. He was allowed to eat exactly what he wanted up to a strict calorie limit. If he exercised that calorie limit was higher. He was overweight when he went in and came out slimmer and apparently in fair good health.

You'd have thought he would have morphed in to a stack of salt, but there we are.

It was widely reported in the press at the time.

The "Katie Hopkins My Fat Story" (on youtube) is also interesting. It also shows clearly that the fat one don't get fat from nothing or bad hormones/genes.....Alone that huge burger is crazy.

[Jingthing]

One grammatical point that may have led to a personality clash here. In the UK we often use "you" in a general sense rather than you the actual person. I am not specifically alluding to JT . In the last instance the. I mean 'no a person wouldn't.

no issue.......JT always get angry if someone claims the solution is eating less......When he out of arguments he insults the others......don't take it serious......

You know, dude, you can dislike me, you can insult me, but I don't appreciate when you totally TWIST what I have been saying. Dude ... I need to EAT LESS than lifetime normal weight people just not to gain weight. Do you even read my posts or are you just here for blood sport?

First I am not your dude. Second I don't like or dislike you. I am here to learn and not to have some good or bad feelings. Third I am not insulting you, if you misunderstood something and feel it is insulting I apologize. Usually you are the one who insult people (see your posting about me dreaming about sick sadistic experiments).

But much more important: Report your findings to the next university as it is the solution for the starvation on this planet. The gain weight with less food than everyone else discovery is almost as important as the announcement of success pf cold fusion.

All that may happen is that the body works a few percent more efficient which is good and for a while you are bit more hungry which is bad. But no magic fat without food. The usual thing is: Eating in the middle of the night and "forgetting" it in the morning. Drinking a lot sweet and/or fat tea/coffee/soup/sodas or alcohol and ignore that these things have a lot calories.

The usual joke, isn't a joke, it really happens: fat women sitting at a rich coffee eating cake and explain each other that they gain weight even they ONLY eat salad with basically no calories.

You are now deliberately distorting what I've been saying.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I never said it was false. I am saying it is an important factor but not the ONLY one, and that people's bodies are very different based on their biological histories. I am sure I can't behave exactly the same as a typical person who has never been overweight and not expect to gain weight. I would gain weight ... they wouldn't ... I could easily prove that but I don't want to gain weight so I won't bother.

In more crass terms, they can get away with eating some donuts, I really can't.

I really do think most people who have had long term obesity issues would know exactly what I'm talking about here, but a person who has never been overweight can't possibly understand this unless they have a medical background or some good amount of compassion for the realities that not everyone is the same as they are.

your quote: "and obviously scientifically false"

And it is the ONLY important factor. Everything else is just to make it easier.

And of course you can get away with donuts. I can lock you into the basement and give you 1 donut per day. After 1 month you'll have lost a lot weight on the "donut-diet", because the one and only important factor is that you ate less calories than you burned.

Of course you'll be hungry all the time, but that isn't an important factor. Not being hungry is nice, but complete irrelevant to loosing weight. That is universal true no matter what history...not even only for people, even for all animals it is the same.

No eat=loosing body mass.

Real life is not a donut death camp. Sure you would eventually die on that donut regime. Proving what? I'm talking about the real world outside the bounds of sick sadistic human experiments you might be dreaming up.

A couple of years ago some nut underwent an eat only at Mcdonalds for a month regime. He was allowed to eat exactly what he wanted up to a strict calorie limit. If he exercised that calorie limit was higher. He was overweight when he went in and came out slimmer and apparently in fair good health.

You'd have thought he would have morphed in to a stack of salt, but there we are.

It was widely reported in the press at the time.

The "Katie Hopkins My Fat Story" (on youtube) is also interesting. It also shows clearly that the fat one don't get fat from nothing or bad hormones/genes.....Alone that huge burger is crazy.

Proves nothing to scientists.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Seriously, this is really a disagreement over words not facts.

It is true that if you use more calories than you consume then you will lose weight. This is a physical law that can't be broken.

It is also true that all people are different in (1) the amount of calories they are able to absorb by digesting foods (2) the amount of calories they use to fuel basal biological functions (metabolic rate) (3) the amount of excess calories they store as fat or turn into heat (4) the amount of hunger they feel after consuming a fixed number of calories (some feel starving, some feel satiated) (5) the degree to which weight loss and diet reset their metabolic handling of calories, feeling of satiation and hunger, distribution of calories to storage or use as fuel.

These are also facts that have been demonstrated time and time again. People begin with widely variant metabolisms anyway, and on top of this dieting and obesity can reset their metabolic rate and prioritisation of energy storage/energy use to wildly different extents.

So while it is quite true to say calories in/calories out must balance, it is not at all true to say that all persons eating 500 excess calories a day must show the same weight gain or loss if they do the same amount of exercise. This clearly does not happen. To believe this is like saying you believe that all cars fuelled with one gallon of petrol will go the same distance. They of course will not, and a person can put on weight eating 1000 calories a day, and not put on weight while eating 2000 calories a day, even if they do the same amount of exercise.

To lose weight some people have to nearly starve while others barely need to do anything. The equation is still right: if calories in is less than calories out weight is is lost. But if you use 5 times more calories sitting watching TV than someone else does walking to the shops then you are not going to get the same result from the same reduction in calories consumed.

This surely is not controversial, as it is demonstrated in nearly every weight loss study that has ever been done!

You've got it but not completely. We're not machines.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[up-country_sinclair]

People can blame their hormones all they want, but the reality is that they're fat because they eat too much and don't do enough exercise.

Unstrap the feedbag and spend some time at the gym, and the pounds will disappear.

[mommysboy]

Seriously, this is really a disagreement over words not facts.

It is true that if you use more calories than you consume then you will lose weight. This is a physical law that can't be broken.

It is also true that all people are different in (1) the amount of calories they are able to absorb by digesting foods (2) the amount of calories they use to fuel basal biological functions (metabolic rate) (3) the amount of excess calories they store as fat or turn into heat (4) the amount of hunger they feel after consuming a fixed number of calories (some feel starving, some feel satiated) (5) the degree to which weight loss and diet reset their metabolic handling of calories, feeling of satiation and hunger, distribution of calories to storage or use as fuel.

These are also facts that have been demonstrated time and time again. People begin with widely variant metabolisms anyway, and on top of this dieting and obesity can reset their metabolic rate and prioritisation of energy storage/energy use to wildly different extents.

So while it is quite true to say calories in/calories out must balance, it is not at all true to say that all persons eating 500 excess calories a day must show the same weight gain or loss if they do the same amount of exercise. This clearly does not happen. To believe this is like saying you believe that all cars fuelled with one gallon of petrol will go the same distance. They of course will not, and a person can put on weight eating 1000 calories a day, and not put on weight while eating 2000 calories a day, even if they do the same amount of exercise.

To lose weight some people have to nearly starve while others barely need to do anything. The equation is still right: if calories in is less than calories out weight is is lost. But if you use 5 times more calories sitting watching TV than someone else does walking to the shops then you are not going to get the same result from the same reduction in calories consumed.

This surely is not controversial, as it is demonstrated in nearly every weight loss study that has ever been done!

Good posting. .

If person A and person B are opposites, what would the widest difference be in the rate of calorie use at rest, any idea?

And likewise what would the widest variance be in terms of fat storage? The latest programme I listened to stated it was 5% variance.

Sitting here guessing, I would say 10% variance max. But even then that 10% could make a big difference after all we all know how interest mounts up on a loan at small rates.

My guess is that we are really talking about perceptions about what is normal in terms of portion, and desensitisation to what is normal in terms of feeling full up, so that someone so far down the road needs to really shovel it back in order to feel full, this certainly is a pattern in most addictions.

[mommysboy]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

[partington]

Seriously, this is really a disagreement over words not facts.

It is true that if you use more calories than you consume then you will lose weight. This is a physical law that can't be broken.

It is also true that all people are different in (1) the amount of calories they are able to absorb by digesting foods (2) the amount of calories they use to fuel basal biological functions (metabolic rate) (3) the amount of excess calories they store as fat or turn into heat (4) the amount of hunger they feel after consuming a fixed number of calories (some feel starving, some feel satiated) (5) the degree to which weight loss and diet reset their metabolic handling of calories, feeling of satiation and hunger, distribution of calories to storage or use as fuel.

These are also facts that have been demonstrated time and time again. People begin with widely variant metabolisms anyway, and on top of this dieting and obesity can reset their metabolic rate and prioritisation of energy storage/energy use to wildly different extents.

So while it is quite true to say calories in/calories out must balance, it is not at all true to say that all persons eating 500 excess calories a day must show the same weight gain or loss if they do the same amount of exercise. This clearly does not happen. To believe this is like saying you believe that all cars fuelled with one gallon of petrol will go the same distance. They of course will not, and a person can put on weight eating 1000 calories a day, and not put on weight while eating 2000 calories a day, even if they do the same amount of exercise.

To lose weight some people have to nearly starve while others barely need to do anything. The equation is still right: if calories in is less than calories out weight is is lost. But if you use 5 times more calories sitting watching TV than someone else does walking to the shops then you are not going to get the same result from the same reduction in calories consumed.

This surely is not controversial, as it is demonstrated in nearly every weight loss study that has ever been done!

You've got it but not completely. We're not machines.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well I understand that point of view but don't share it.

I personally believe we are machines, obeying the same physical and chemical laws that can be used to predict the motions of the planets, the efficiency of an engine or the rate of a chemical reaction. Given all the data ( and getting or understanding it all is admittedly very difficult) I believe it would be possible to perfectly predict the weight loss or gain of any person under any circumstances, just as it is possible to write equations that allow people to land a spacecraft on Mars.

I couldn't see the point of doing science if that were not the case.

But this is a bit off topic, and I agree with the points you are trying to make in this thread about weight loss.

[mommysboy]

This on wiki:

"Evidence to support the view that some obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is limited. On average, obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass.^[4][5]"

I can see why overweight people might feel short changed then. It means the more successful they are, they get to eat even less of what we enjoy.! Bum deal.

[His Masters Voice]

Well just being candid about all aspects of my diet. I think that is why I think exercise is so important.

Please be candid. Everyones experience is different.

I just ask that we are polite and respect the other person's experience, which maybe be different to ours.

Have to say, that is a lot of tea you drink. Do you have sugar and milk?

[mommysboy]

Well just being candid about all aspects of my diet. I think that is why I think exercise is so important.

Please be candid. Everyones experience is different.

I just ask that we are polite and respect the other person's experience, which maybe be different to ours.

Have to say, that is a lot of tea you drink. Do you have sugar and milk?

It is an awful lot. I have it English style, dash of milk, and no sugar.

On top of this I can knock a couple of coffees back too, American style sugar and milk.

Liptons tea only has 10mg per back of caffeine which is very low, and I often squeeze 2 cups out of one bag.

Just wondering whether all that hot liquid makes my body burn more calories! Or whether it might be the other way round.

[His Masters Voice]

The food I eat is bad but the point is I don't overeat.

Calories in/ Calories out.

I sort of agree.

The French enjoy a peice of deliciously sweet cake, but their portion size is small.

Sort of like having an expresso coffee (AKA Short Black). Intense, rich, flavoursum.

You can enjoy the pleasures of food, but be a glutton and don't feel guilty.

The old adage, 'Eat to Live - Don't Live to Eat'.

My weakness is beer. But, true to my first post (this, or the other thread), I have reduced that intake by more then half.

[His Masters Voice]

As i said earlier, the latest BBC podcast 'Inside Science' has a very comprehensive report on every aspect, the realities and myths.

People have been getting hot under the collar. Nothing wrong with healthy argument by the way.

Is it possible to get that link? It might add to the debate?

I have a lot of time for what the BBC produces. Usually quality stuff.

[partington]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

Don't get too caught up in the effect of metabolic rate on weight gain: no-one is saying this is the only factor: it is one of many factors ( I mentioned several other possibilities) which influence the absolute effect of a specific intake of calories on weight in different individuals. Some are known and some are not.

Since obesity is clearly heritable (70%), there are a constellation of genetic factors that influence susceptibility to obesity, that is susceptibility to weight gain from excess calories.

The main point to be taken from this is: all people are not the same in their responses to eating excess calories, for whatever reason. This means that simplistic arguments about person X eating 1000 calories per day and not gaining weight cannot be used to argue that person Y must be eating more than 1000 calories per day because he is gaining weight.

People differ in their responses, partly due to genetics and partly due to environment: this is not disputed. So some people have to limit their calories far more than others to get the same effect on body mass. This is all that is being said. The exact reasons will be studied for decades to come.

In all cases eating fewer calories than you use will help. How much it will help is the variable.

[His Masters Voice]

Real life is not a donut death camp. Sure you would eventually die on that donut regime. Proving what? I'm talking about the real world outside the bounds of sick sadistic human experiments you might be dreaming up.

A couple of years ago some nut underwent an eat only at Mcdonalds for a month regime. He was allowed to eat exactly what he wanted up to a strict calorie limit. If he exercised that calorie limit was higher. He was overweight when he went in and came out slimmer and apparently in fair good health.

You'd have thought he would have morphed in to a stack of salt, but there we are.

It was widely reported in the press at the time.

I've never actually watched that movie. Will have to get around to it one day.

Surprised to see that it was released more then a decade ago.

[mommysboy]

As i said earlier, the latest BBC podcast 'Inside Science' has a very comprehensive report on every aspect, the realities and myths.

People have been getting hot under the collar. Nothing wrong with healthy argument by the way.

Is it possible to get that link? It might add to the debate?

I have a lot of time for what the BBC produces. Usually quality stuff.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/drkarl/drkarl_20150117-2347a.mp3

[cdmtdm]

the Quality of the Calories is the key !!! nutrient dense calories , unprocessed, combined with light exercise will result in not only weight loss but also dramatic improvement in general health ...

[Tolley]

The very simplistic calories in calories out theory will appeal to many who like simple answers to complex issues.

Just as those who see humans akin to machines will always be disappointed when their theories just don't work on complex human beings.

Firstly on calories. Not all calories are equal and the type of calories and how they are eaten can make a big difference when it comes to weight loss/gain.

Have you noticed how many people don't even chew their foods which means they are probably not getting that many nutrients in their body and are not really digesting properly their food. They might be eating a lot but not getting any weight gain because they are not assimilating their food.

People can be underweight overweight for a variety of medical reasons that may be sub clinical like thyroid issues, hormonal issues, insulin issues, liver/ kidney issues, digestive issues ie small intestine full of mucous coating food not being absorbed properly, low stomach acid, high stomach acid etc

Then we have individual metabolic type, and genetic factors that may all influence weight loss gain regardless of food intake.

Then we have the calories themselves. You could eat a high calories type diet and still keep your weight down depending on what you eat and how you combine the food you eat. You could also eat a high carb diet much lower in calories and put on more weight than someone eating a paleo type diet.

Finally the idea that humans are akin to machines neglects the emotional and spiritual factors that can also influence the food we eat the way we eat and weight loss/gain.

All food for thought really.

[robblok]

Seriously, this is really a disagreement over words not facts.

It is true that if you use more calories than you consume then you will lose weight. This is a physical law that can't be broken.

It is also true that all people are different in (1) the amount of calories they are able to absorb by digesting foods (2) the amount of calories they use to fuel basal biological functions (metabolic rate) (3) the amount of excess calories they store as fat or turn into heat (4) the amount of hunger they feel after consuming a fixed number of calories (some feel starving, some feel satiated) (5) the degree to which weight loss and diet reset their metabolic handling of calories, feeling of satiation and hunger, distribution of calories to storage or use as fuel.

These are also facts that have been demonstrated time and time again. People begin with widely variant metabolisms anyway, and on top of this dieting and obesity can reset their metabolic rate and prioritisation of energy storage/energy use to wildly different extents.

So while it is quite true to say calories in/calories out must balance, it is not at all true to say that all persons eating 500 excess calories a day must show the same weight gain or loss if they do the same amount of exercise. This clearly does not happen. To believe this is like saying you believe that all cars fuelled with one gallon of petrol will go the same distance. They of course will not, and a person can put on weight eating 1000 calories a day, and not put on weight while eating 2000 calories a day, even if they do the same amount of exercise.

To lose weight some people have to nearly starve while others barely need to do anything. The equation is still right: if calories in is less than calories out weight is is lost. But if you use 5 times more calories sitting watching TV than someone else does walking to the shops then you are not going to get the same result from the same reduction in calories consumed.

This surely is not controversial, as it is demonstrated in nearly every weight loss study that has ever been done!

Good posting. .

If person A and person B are opposites, what would the widest difference be in the rate of calorie use at rest, any idea?

And likewise what would the widest variance be in terms of fat storage? The latest programme I listened to stated it was 5% variance.

Sitting here guessing, I would say 10% variance max. But even then that 10% could make a big difference after all we all know how interest mounts up on a loan at small rates.

My guess is that we are really talking about perceptions about what is normal in terms of portion, and desensitisation to what is normal in terms of feeling full up, so that someone so far down the road needs to really shovel it back in order to feel full, this certainly is a pattern in most addictions.

What I have read is that its about 20% between the extremes. That is quite a lot, i know i got a fairly slow metabolic rate and that I eat not much at all. Even with all my muscle and my hard workouts its quite possible that you even eat more. But even 10 percent is huge day in day out burning half a meal more as someone else without doing anything. That ads up over the years.

[robblok]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

Don't get too caught up in the effect of metabolic rate on weight gain: no-one is saying this is the only factor: it is one of many factors ( I mentioned several other possibilities) which influence the absolute effect of a specific intake of calories on weight in different individuals. Some are known and some are not.

Since obesity is clearly heritable (70%), there are a constellation of genetic factors that influence susceptibility to obesity, that is susceptibility to weight gain from excess calories.

The main point to be taken from this is: all people are not the same in their responses to eating excess calories, for whatever reason. This means that simplistic arguments about person X eating 1000 calories per day and not gaining weight cannot be used to argue that person Y must be eating more than 1000 calories per day because he is gaining weight.

People differ in their responses, partly due to genetics and partly due to environment: this is not disputed. So some people have to limit their calories far more than others to get the same effect on body mass. This is all that is being said. The exact reasons will be studied for decades to come.

In all cases eating fewer calories than you use will help. How much it will help is the variable.

Correct, I have even watched a Bbc documentary where an asian guy was forced to gain weight (lot of previous skinny guys were) and he was overeating massively but he would not gain fat. They tested this with the body pod. It was fun to see also how some kids would not take a sweet while others could not help themselves.

I know for a fact that my metabolic rate is slow, I got hypothyroidism taking some medicine for it does not help that much. I just have to go to far more extremes as others to get the same results. I am gifted muscle wise but screwed on my metabolic rate.

I have also read research where they increased the metabolic rate by slowly eating more (real slow) and because the body likes homeostasis it started to burn faster as not to get fatter. (but was done real slow and real small steps).

Point is that its harder for some but not impossible for anyone. I always envy the really skinny guys for good muscle tone. I cant complain much but still room for improvement.

[mommysboy]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

Don't get too caught up in the effect of metabolic rate on weight gain: no-one is saying this is the only factor: it is one of many factors ( I mentioned several other possibilities) which influence the absolute effect of a specific intake of calories on weight in different individuals. Some are known and some are not.

Since obesity is clearly heritable (70%), there are a constellation of genetic factors that influence susceptibility to obesity, that is susceptibility to weight gain from excess calories.

The main point to be taken from this is: all people are not the same in their responses to eating excess calories, for whatever reason. This means that simplistic arguments about person X eating 1000 calories per day and not gaining weight cannot be used to argue that person Y must be eating more than 1000 calories per day because he is gaining weight.

People differ in their responses, partly due to genetics and partly due to environment: this is not disputed. So some people have to limit their calories far more than others to get the same effect on body mass. This is all that is being said. The exact reasons will be studied for decades to come.

In all cases eating fewer calories than you use will help. How much it will help is the variable.

Correct, I have even watched a Bbc documentary where an asian guy was forced to gain weight (lot of previous skinny guys were) and he was overeating massively but he would not gain fat. They tested this with the body pod. It was fun to see also how some kids would not take a sweet while others could not help themselves.

I know for a fact that my metabolic rate is slow, I got hypothyroidism taking some medicine for it does not help that much. I just have to go to far more extremes as others to get the same results. I am gifted muscle wise but screwed on my metabolic rate.

I have also read research where they increased the metabolic rate by slowly eating more (real slow) and because the body likes homeostasis it started to burn faster as not to get fatter. (but was done real slow and real small steps).

Point is that its harder for some but not impossible for anyone. I always envy the really skinny guys for good muscle tone. I cant complain much but still room for improvement.

It is amazing what you have done, but there is a specific medical reason for you to become overweight easily, which is valid.

And it is the same for truly obese people, for some reason they have really tripped a few switches, and their hormone and insulin levels have gone awry, leading to much the same effect as someone with a thyroid problem. Medical help and counselling is best. Not a happy situation at all.

For most it is simply too much food on the plate. For some reason they seem to lose their basic stomach sense and simply can not exercise any self restraint. On average if someone eats too much they feel queasy or nauseous, for some reason overweight people can go on and on, much as an alcoholic does without puking or passing out.

Yes slower metabolic rate as outlined makes a difference, but a small one for those without a thyroid problem, but it should result in most people just feeling fuller for longer, eating less frequently, and having less on their plate. In theory they are the lucky ones.

No for some reason, what most people experience as a normal satisfying portion, overweight people experience as starvation rations and feel hard done by. In the main then I still find it difficult to see that it is anything other than having too much food on the plate, and doing very little or any exercise.

And both in UK and Thailand I am around some overweight people and I see what goes on the plate with my own eyes.

Yesterday, I took my walk late afternoon and did the length of a main road. I saw kids playing and running around, not one adult walking for any period of time, not one, there were a few on bikes and a couple in a park jogging. However, the vast majority, hundreds perhaps a thousand or more were on motor bikes or in cars and buses.

It really is difficult for me not to conclude that for most we really are talking about over eating and under exercising. And when I listen to the media, or read a health article that is the resounding message.

[mommysboy]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

Don't get too caught up in the effect of metabolic rate on weight gain: no-one is saying this is the only factor: it is one of many factors ( I mentioned several other possibilities) which influence the absolute effect of a specific intake of calories on weight in different individuals. Some are known and some are not.

Since obesity is clearly heritable (70%), there are a constellation of genetic factors that influence susceptibility to obesity, that is susceptibility to weight gain from excess calories.

The main point to be taken from this is: all people are not the same in their responses to eating excess calories, for whatever reason. This means that simplistic arguments about person X eating 1000 calories per day and not gaining weight cannot be used to argue that person Y must be eating more than 1000 calories per day because he is gaining weight.

People differ in their responses, partly due to genetics and partly due to environment: this is not disputed. So some people have to limit their calories far more than others to get the same effect on body mass. This is all that is being said. The exact reasons will be studied for decades to come.

In all cases eating fewer calories than you use will help. How much it will help is the variable.

Correct, I have even watched a Bbc documentary where an asian guy was forced to gain weight (lot of previous skinny guys were) and he was overeating massively but he would not gain fat. They tested this with the body pod. It was fun to see also how some kids would not take a sweet while others could not help themselves.

I know for a fact that my metabolic rate is slow, I got hypothyroidism taking some medicine for it does not help that much. I just have to go to far more extremes as others to get the same results. I am gifted muscle wise but screwed on my metabolic rate.

I have also read research where they increased the metabolic rate by slowly eating more (real slow) and because the body likes homeostasis it started to burn faster as not to get fatter. (but was done real slow and real small steps).

Point is that its harder for some but not impossible for anyone. I always envy the really skinny guys for good muscle tone. I cant complain much but still room for improvement.

Talking about experiments, on that same radio programme I linked there was an experiment where people ate from an ever full bowl of soup, as they ate more soup was pumped in from the bottom. Everybody ate more, and I think the average was 70%.

I suppose the simple conclusion was we eat what is in front of our eyes regardless.

[h90]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

This is the first study I came across. It does note individual differences but comes out resoundingly in the calorie in/calorie out camp.

Tellingly for me, it states that, "Physical activity is by far the most variable of the factors that determine how many calories you burn each day".

And, "But contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh".

Interesting read.

It was just the first link I clicked on.

Don't get too caught up in the effect of metabolic rate on weight gain: no-one is saying this is the only factor: it is one of many factors ( I mentioned several other possibilities) which influence the absolute effect of a specific intake of calories on weight in different individuals. Some are known and some are not.

Since obesity is clearly heritable (70%), there are a constellation of genetic factors that influence susceptibility to obesity, that is susceptibility to weight gain from excess calories.

The main point to be taken from this is: all people are not the same in their responses to eating excess calories, for whatever reason. This means that simplistic arguments about person X eating 1000 calories per day and not gaining weight cannot be used to argue that person Y must be eating more than 1000 calories per day because he is gaining weight.

People differ in their responses, partly due to genetics and partly due to environment: this is not disputed. So some people have to limit their calories far more than others to get the same effect on body mass. This is all that is being said. The exact reasons will be studied for decades to come.

In all cases eating fewer calories than you use will help. How much it will help is the variable.

Correct, I have even watched a Bbc documentary where an asian guy was forced to gain weight (lot of previous skinny guys were) and he was overeating massively but he would not gain fat. They tested this with the body pod. It was fun to see also how some kids would not take a sweet while others could not help themselves.

I know for a fact that my metabolic rate is slow, I got hypothyroidism taking some medicine for it does not help that much. I just have to go to far more extremes as others to get the same results. I am gifted muscle wise but screwed on my metabolic rate.

I have also read research where they increased the metabolic rate by slowly eating more (real slow) and because the body likes homeostasis it started to burn faster as not to get fatter. (but was done real slow and real small steps).

Point is that its harder for some but not impossible for anyone. I always envy the really skinny guys for good muscle tone. I cant complain much but still room for improvement.

It is amazing what you have done, but there is a specific medical reason for you to become overweight easily, which is valid.

And it is the same for truly obese people, for some reason they have really tripped a few switches, and their hormone and insulin levels have gone awry, leading to much the same effect as someone with a thyroid problem. Medical help and counselling is best. Not a happy situation at all.

For most it is simply too much food on the plate. For some reason they seem to lose their basic stomach sense and simply can not exercise any self restraint. On average if someone eats too much they feel queasy or nauseous, for some reason overweight people can go on and on, much as an alcoholic does without puking or passing out.

Yes slower metabolic rate as outlined makes a difference, but a small one for those without a thyroid problem, but it should result in most people just feeling fuller for longer, eating less frequently, and having less on their plate. In theory they are the lucky ones.

No for some reason, what most people experience as a normal satisfying portion, overweight people experience as starvation rations and feel hard done by. In the main then I still find it difficult to see that it is anything other than having too much food on the plate, and doing very little or any exercise.

And both in UK and Thailand I am around some overweight people and I see what goes on the plate with my own eyes.

Yesterday, I took my walk late afternoon and did the length of a main road. I saw kids playing and running around, not one adult walking for any period of time, not one, there were a few on bikes and a couple in a park jogging. However, the vast majority, hundreds perhaps a thousand or more were on motor bikes or in cars and buses.

It really is difficult for me not to conclude that for most we really are talking about over eating and under exercising. And when I listen to the media, or read a health article that is the resounding message.

yes they tripped a few switches, but as soon as they eat less they get slimmer and all the health issues fade away. They of course gain weight again easier than others. But all overweight people I know just eat too much of the wrong things. If they diet away most of their weight, they are afterwards starting again to eat the same junk.

After you were overweight you can never go back and eat full speed fast food.....And you'll be hungry sometimes.

[Chonburiram]

...I suppose the simple conclusion was we eat what is in front of our eyes regardless.

For me, this is so true.

2 bottles beer or a case of it... gone in no time,

a pack of chips (crisps) for 10 or 30฿, eaten in nearly the same time,

a cake or just a pice of it, same same,

a scoop of ice cream or the whole tray, dont ask.

I make a point of it, throwing away food/leftovers religiously (needed a lot of retraining for a post-war child), dont buy for "storage" or get the smallest size available.

I'm a firm believer in the children's portion, I eat slow, chew often. I once read, that after 20 min your appetite is satisfied and for me that's correct.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Chonburiram

[robblok]

...I suppose the simple conclusion was we eat what is in front of our eyes regardless.

For me, this is so true.

2 bottles beer or a case of it... gone in no time,

a pack of chips (crisps) for 10 or 30฿, eaten in nearly the same time,

a cake or just a pice of it, same same,

a scoop of ice cream or the whole tray, dont ask.

I make a point of it, throwing away food/leftovers religiously (needed a lot of retraining for a post-war child), dont buy for "storage" or get the smallest size available.

I'm a firm believer in the children's portion, I eat slow, chew often. I once read, that after 20 min your appetite is satisfied and for me that's correct.

Same problem, I eat whatever is in front of me. That is why restaurants are a problem. At home I can pretty much control it by cooking for myself and weighing what I eat .. eating the same most of the time.

[h90]

...I suppose the simple conclusion was we eat what is in front of our eyes regardless.

For me, this is so true.

2 bottles beer or a case of it... gone in no time,

a pack of chips (crisps) for 10 or 30฿, eaten in nearly the same time,

a cake or just a pice of it, same same,

a scoop of ice cream or the whole tray, dont ask.

I make a point of it, throwing away food/leftovers religiously (needed a lot of retraining for a post-war child), dont buy for "storage" or get the smallest size available.

I'm a firm believer in the children's portion, I eat slow, chew often. I once read, that after 20 min your appetite is satisfied and for me that's correct.

It is a shame to throw away perfect good food (and even more for a post-war child) just because lack of will power. If you don't want to eat it finish stop, or if you can't don't buy it. Or eat it finish and drop the next meal instead.

Think what your parents or grandparents would have told you about putting perfect good fresh food in the junk and they would have been right. It is a sin.

[samuibeachcomber]

It's all BS

Eat less + Exercise more = weigh less

If you are too lazy to exercise more and too weak willed to eat less, you have no hope of losing weight.

so true.I made all my meals much smaller,drank more water and lost 1 kilo every month for 17 months and went from 82.8 kg down to 66 kg......it was so easy to do.

cut out snacks,most sugar,reduced carbohydrates,no more chocolate and yellow cheese,cut down bread intake it was so easy,ate more salads etc etc.

[h90]

It's all BS

Eat less + Exercise more = weigh less

If you are too lazy to exercise more and too weak willed to eat less, you have no hope of losing weight.

so true.I made all my meals much smaller,drank more water and lost 1 kilo every month for 17 months and went from 82.8 kg down to 66 kg......it was so easy to do.

cut out snacks,most sugar,reduced carbohydrates,no more chocolate and yellow cheese,cut down bread intake it was so easy,ate more salads etc etc.

that's the spirit! Congratulations! from 83 to 66 is nice

[mommysboy]

Yes congrats. What a great achievement. One question. I notice when peeps diet they nearly all cut out bad foods. But it is these foods we really like. I would be the same I find moderation torture and am left with a stark choice do it or chuck it, there is no mid ground as that is too painful for me.

When I had a problem with red wine I couldn't just drink a glass or 2 and be satisfied. No the loss of the third glass was hell to bear. So I had to just stop which was surprisingly easy but not ideal really as it left a deficit. Same cigs.

As I said weight is not an issue for me but I want to eat healthier. I reckon I am in for a real struggle unless I give up the bad food entirely.

Has anybody found a happy medium? Is there such a thing. Or us the issue with moderation insurmountable with things like cakes, choc, biccies, and crap in general.