The Simplicity of Weight Loss

[VincentRJ]

I'm writing this because I see an enormous amount of confusion about the causes of obesity and overweightedness in general.

 

The first principle to understand is that it is normal and healthy for people to put on weight if they eat more than is required to fuel their daily activities. Excess food eaten tends to be turned into fat reserves to enable people to survive during periods of drought and food scarcity.

 

The problem in our modern, developed societies, is that scarcity of food never occurs. We tend to indulge ourselves with a continuous abundance of tasty food as though we are preparing ourselves for some future period of a scarcity of food, which never of course occurs.

 

In the absence of a drought resulting in extreme food shortages, which occurs in certain poor, undeveloped countries, we just keep eating and eating, getting fatter and fatter.
We then tend to go into a state of denial about our overeating, and accept all sorts of expensive remedies and diets in the hope that we can continue to overindulge, but with a different recipe that somehow magically reduces our fat reserves.

 

The junk and processed food industry is huge. The medical industry which prescribes all sorts of medication, with unavoidable side-effects, to counteract the consequences of junk food and general overindulgence in food, is also huge. Both industries have a sort of symbiotic relationship.
If people were to eat sensibly and wholesomely, the processed food industry would collapse and medical expenses would probably halve.
For those who are not already on medication for serious health problems, but are simply overweight, the solution is dead simple. Eat less, and eat wholesome, unprocessed food without the usual additives such as fructose, taste enhancers and other artificial ingredients.

 

If you are really serious about losing weight, then simply fast. A normal person without any serious medical conditions can safely fast for about 30 days. Try a day or two first, then gradually increase the period.

 

Alternatively, just try eating only one meal a day, say around lunch time, with no other snacks during the day. You're not going to die. The ancient Romans traditionally ate one meal a day. They were very successful.
Problem solved, if you want it to be solved. However, I understand, if the desire to continue getting the sensual pleasure of eating tasty food is greater than the desire to lose weight, then you will never lose weight. You must then accept the consequences. It's your choice.
 

[partington]

This seems to be a very materialistic world view.

 

How do you know that they may not discover that a mysterious non-physical force, a "spirit of fat"  if you will , does not affect people's obesity in a way that doesn't depend on the purely materialistic,  physical "amount they eat".

 

After all so little is known of the effects of quantum physics on our world.  Only a few hundred years ago they thought that radio was impossible.  

 

How do you know fat is not controlled by dark energy, and not by what we eat?  When will you be able to prove this is not the case?

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, partington said:

This seems to be a very materialistic world view.

 

How do you know that they may not discover that a mysterious non-physical force, a "spirit of fat"  if you will , does not affect people's obesity in a way that doesn't depend on the purely materialistic,  physical "amount they eat".

 

After all so little is known of the effects of quantum physics on our world.  Only a few hundred years ago they thought that radio was impossible.  

 

How do you know fat is not controlled by dark energy, and not by what we eat?  When will you be able to prove this is not the case?

Yes fat is controlled by dark energy an other word for it is gluttony.

 

Just joking because I agree its not easy for everyone to lose fat, not everyone has the same MBR or the same appetite. This however should not be used as an excuse to do nothing. But it does explain why some have no problem to stay on their weight while others need to put more effort into it.

 

Life just is not fair but we can all be of normal weight (maybe a little bit overweight but not grossly overweight). In the end its largely a lifestyle choice (eating too much not exercising and so on). Sure genes explain some differences but not all of it. Many documentaries on the BBC show that more things play then just calories in and out BUT it still works if you restrict calories and exercise more. It is jut not 100% fair but same can be said for many other things.

 

I know I will have to put in more effort than others to get a well defined 6pack (not beer), that is just life we are not all the same. Some have a good VO2 max.. others can lift weight better and so on. We are all gifted in certain ways so you can't really only compare the end result you have to look at the effort too (IMHO)

 

 

[KNJ]

Whilst the basic equation energy in energy out equal then no weight gain seems reasonable, a better explanation would be:

IN = 6+2+7

out = 15x1

therefore in=out no problem, however the in could be 6 pints, 2 bags of crisp and 7 whiskeys 

What we need to consider is not just the total amount in but the quality of what we are putting in, we need a mix of veg, carbs, ( a pint of beer )  meat, fish pulses etc

I never understand these fad diets, watermelon only, avoid carbs, vegan, vegetarian........ useless

We have incisor teeth designed to eat meet

We have a Gaul bladder to take care of fat

we have insulin system to deal with sugar

But man those 6 pints are very tempting to form a apart of the makeup

[Jingthing]

The OP's suggestion that people go on a 30 day fast for weight loss is idiotic, dangerous, and for most people, if they succeed with it, will radically reset their metabolic set point and BACKFIRE radically.

 

If weight control was so simple, it wouldn't be an international epidemic.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

The OP's suggestion that people go on a 30 day fast for weight loss is idiotic, dangerous, and for most people, if the succeed with it, will radically reset their metabolic set point and BACKFIRE radically.

 

If weight control was so simple, it wouldn't be an international epidemic.

 

You think a 30-day fast sounds simple?

[manfredtillmann]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The OP's suggestion that people go on a 30 day fast for weight loss is idiotic, dangerous, and for most people, if the succeed with it, will radically reset their metabolic set point and BACKFIRE radically.

 

If weight control was so simple, it wouldn't be an international epidemic.

it is. there are millions of people on this planet who not once in their life, from birth to death, will have enough food available to even think they might be 'full'.

[NickJ]

Count calories. When you do so and understand what everything adds up to. Sometimes you find yourself not just slopping down whatever. It all adds up.

Just math. The body is a machine.....

[dontoearth]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The OP's suggestion that people go on a 30 day fast for weight loss is idiotic, dangerous, and for most people, if they succeed with it, will radically reset their metabolic set point and BACKFIRE radically.

 

If weight control was so simple, it wouldn't be an international epidemic.

       I agree no one could start right out with a 30-day fast.  However, strangely enough I thought the same things you are stating about fasting, that it would wreak havoc on your metabolism and harm your body.  Yet.  There is no scientific evidence of that at all.  No matter how many doctors, dieticians, and nutritionist, and self-appointed experts insist this to be true there just isn't any evidence of that at all.   

       Evidently, according to the latest work from Dr. Jason Fung who authored the Obesity Code fasting may be one of the ways to get around set point.  He spends a full chapter in his book on the science he has conducted on fasting patients.  Metabolism increases for some reason.  Protein burning stops.  No your body doesn't burn your muscles for protein or your bones or your skin for energy.  It switches over to fat and does quite well burning it evidently.  The body floods with adrenaline.  There was no drop in electrolytes or nutritional deficiencies.  He got this from blood and urine test of patients he fasted in the hospital with Type II diabetes and kidney problems.  He continues to find metabolic improvements for up to 5 days in the fasting state.  However, he recommends 24 hr or 36 hour fast in his book for someone not working with a doctor.  I think it would be hard to find a doctor that would let you fast.  I see just a google search has Dr.'s out in full force crying heresy and blasphemy.    None of them doing anything other than repeating old wive's tales.  Reminds me of the doctors swearing that the USA would have 10,000's of needless deaths from people following Atkins in the 90's.

         I do read about great success with the 5-2 diet and with those that fast breakfast and sometimes lunch.  They do warn the meal you are eating after a fast needs to be planned.  That would be difficult for those working or traveling.  I have been doing breakfast fast a few weeks.  It doesn't seem to be enough to get me off my plateau.  I am thinking of a longer fast but know it will be difficult.

         I am confident it will not harm me other than some hunger pangs.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You think a 30-day fast sounds simple?

 

Simple, yes.

 

Easy, hell no.

[Jingthing]

It isn't even simple math. The body uses the calories of some foods different than others. For just one example of how it's not simple.

[robblok]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The OP's suggestion that people go on a 30 day fast for weight loss is idiotic, dangerous, and for most people, if they succeed with it, will radically reset their metabolic set point and BACKFIRE radically.

 

If weight control was so simple, it wouldn't be an international epidemic.

 

Its an epidemic because people eat all the tasty food that is available and are tempted too much. Its not a disease its overeating. Though I do agree that some people can get away with more food than others it still basically is eating more than what is burned. Before food was not available everywhere like this. I can remember the times there were far less restaurants with fast food.

 

Its not fair that some burn less than others or are hungry more often than others but that only accounts for part of the difference in weight an other part is just the intake that is too high.I want to bet that MOST people who are overweight are so because of their diet and that only a small amount of people have actually a health problem that causes the weight gain. 

 

 

As for the metabolic slowdown during dieting, there are ways around it.. caloric cycling / carb cycling. Just eat a few days less and then one day more in that one day your leptin and other hormones go up again and your body wont slowdown. There is quite some research showing that this works. I have begun this approach myself and will see how it goes. One thing I have noticed already that its mentally good to have a day where you eat more (but good foods not crap). 

[ClutchClark]

Every time I see a very fat Thai they are stuffing their face with Western junk food like a drink at Starbucks with syrup, whip cream and toppings. 

[VincentRJ]

I see that confusion still reigns. I'm not suggesting that anyone who is not used to fasting should fast for 30 days in order to lose weight. That would be very traumatic.

 

The sensible approach would be to begin with a 24 hour fast every week or so, then maybe try a 48 hour fast, and as you get used to it, try the occasioanl 3 day fast, 4 day fast and 5 day fast.

My maximum fasting period so far is 4 full days with no food whatsoever, apart from water. I'm confident I can manage 5 days, but haven't tried it yet.

 

The purpose of fasting is not just to lose weight. There's a lot of evidence that regular fasting prolongs one's life, fixes any health issues that one might not be aware of, strengthens one's immune system, and can even result in the creation of additional brain cells, for the purpose of survival, by creating a greater perception and awareness of food opportunities.

 

The body has it's own natural intelligence. Free it for a few days of those tedious and burdensome chores of digesting food and getting rid of the toxic chemicals in much of the processed foods we eat, then it can attend to other, more important chores, such as smashing the first signs of cancerous growths and the beginnings of numerous other health issues.

 

Those who are overweight, without serious medical issues, have a marvelous opportunity with regards to fasting, because the advantages are so significant, but would not be recommended for underweight people, who are at a disadvantage.

(1) They save money because they eat less.

(2) They lose weight, look better, and feel better.

(3) They are healthier and live longer.

 

What more could one want?

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, partington said:

This seems to be a very materialistic world view.

 

How do you know that they may not discover that a mysterious non-physical force, a "spirit of fat"  if you will , does not affect people's obesity in a way that doesn't depend on the purely materialistic,  physical "amount they eat".

 

After all so little is known of the effects of quantum physics on our world.  Only a few hundred years ago they thought that radio was impossible.  

 

How do you know fat is not controlled by dark energy, and not by what we eat?  When will you be able to prove this is not the case?

 

Good joke!

 

I assume you are not serious.

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I see that confusion still reigns. I'm not suggesting that anyone who is not used to fasting should fast for 30 days in order to lose weight. That would be very traumatic.

 

The sensible approach would be to begin with a 24 hour fast every week or so, then maybe try a 48 hour fast, and as you get used to it, try the occasioanl 3 day fast, 4 day fast and 5 day fast.

My maximum fasting period so far is 4 full days with no food whatsoever, apart from water. I'm confident I can manage 5 days, but haven't tried it yet.

 

The purpose of fasting is not just to lose weight. There's a lot of evidence that regular fasting prolongs one's life, fixes any health issues that one might not be aware of, strengthens one's immune system, and can even result in the creation of additional brain cells, for the purpose of survival, by creating a greater perception and awareness of food opportunities.

 

The body has it's own natural intelligence. Free it for a few days of those tedious and burdensome chores of digesting food and getting rid of the toxic chemicals in much of the processed foods we eat, then it can attend to other, more important chores, such as smashing the first signs of cancerous growths and the beginnings of numerous other health issues.

 

Those who are overweight, without serious medical issues, have a marvelous opportunity with regards to fasting, because the advantages are so significant, but would not be recommended for underweight people, who are at a disadvantage.

(1) They save money because they eat less.

(2) They lose weight, look better, and feel better.

(3) They are healthier and live longer.

 

What more could one want?

     Also, You don't have to buy special foods!

     You don't have to cook!

     It really doesn't take any extra time!

     You don't have to measure anything or keep a log book.

     

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I see that confusion still reigns. I'm not suggesting that anyone who is not used to fasting should fast for 30 days in order to lose weight. That would be very traumatic.

 

The sensible approach would be to begin with a 24 hour fast every week or so, then maybe try a 48 hour fast, and as you get used to it, try the occasioanl 3 day fast, 4 day fast and 5 day fast.

My maximum fasting period so far is 4 full days with no food whatsoever, apart from water. I'm confident I can manage 5 days, but haven't tried it yet.

 

The purpose of fasting is not just to lose weight. There's a lot of evidence that regular fasting prolongs one's life, fixes any health issues that one might not be aware of, strengthens one's immune system, and can even result in the creation of additional brain cells, for the purpose of survival, by creating a greater perception and awareness of food opportunities.

 

The body has it's own natural intelligence. Free it for a few days of those tedious and burdensome chores of digesting food and getting rid of the toxic chemicals in much of the processed foods we eat, then it can attend to other, more important chores, such as smashing the first signs of cancerous growths and the beginnings of numerous other health issues.

 

Those who are overweight, without serious medical issues, have a marvelous opportunity with regards to fasting, because the advantages are so significant, but would not be recommended for underweight people, who are at a disadvantage.

(1) They save money because they eat less.

(2) They lose weight, look better, and feel better.

(3) They are healthier and live longer.

 

What more could one want?

     I was able to do the 5-2 fast diet.   You have two days of the week when you get just 600 calories that day.  It is pretty famous now.  I didn't seem to get a boost in weight loss.

    I have been able to skip breakfast and delay lunch.  This is called intermittent fasting.  I have not been able to hit the 24 hour fast yet.  It is proving more difficult than I thought.  I really don't see myself as lacking discipline so I am very irritated with myself.  I hope to get a 24 hour fast in the next few days.   Any advice?

[VincentRJ]

On ‎1‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 7:42 AM, dontoearth said:

     I was able to do the 5-2 fast diet.   You have two days of the week when you get just 600 calories that day.  It is pretty famous now.  I didn't seem to get a boost in weight loss.

    I have been able to skip breakfast and delay lunch.  This is called intermittent fasting.  I have not been able to hit the 24 hour fast yet.  It is proving more difficult than I thought.  I really don't see myself as lacking discipline so I am very irritated with myself.  I hope to get a 24 hour fast in the next few days.   Any advice?

 

Most people seem to have no trouble fasting for at least 12 hours a day (except those who feel the need to get up in the middle of the night to tuck into a bowl of ice cream    ).

 

I think the first thing to understand about fasting (in moderation of course) is that it is not inherently a difficult or dangerous thing to do, but a normal and healthy thing to do from the perspective of the body's biological requirements.

The standard practice in many cultures of the past, including the ancient Jews, Romans and Greeks, has been to eat just one meal a day. Three meals a day is sheer gluttony.

 

I think it's revealing that the Roman soldier, who would have to have been amazingly fit and strong to support and defend one of the greatest empires that has ever existed, performed his difficult tasks eating just one meal a day. (He was fit and capable not despite eating one meal a day, but because of it.)

 

Of course, much has been made of the lavish banquets that the upper class Romans sometimes held. But these activities were not the norm, and have probably been exaggerated for the sake of a good story, especially with regard to the 'Vomitorium', which has been mistranslated as a place to vomit so that one can continue eating. As I understand, a Vomitorium is simply an exit through which people leave a building, or place of gathering.

 

The general impression I get, from my research into this issue, is that much of the processed food we eat contains added ingredients which have the effect of interfering with the natural processes that inform our body that we are satiated, ie. have eaten enough. As a consequence, we are able to continue savouring tasty food without that normal discomfort that we would experience if we were getting the normal and healthy signals of satiety or fullness.

 

I believe that one major ingredient of most processed foods we eat, which has this effect of interfering with our sense of fullness when eating, is the form of sugar known as fructose, produced from High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's a huge industry and there's much contoversy about the specific role of fructose in its contribution to obesity, so I won't dwell upon that, except to relate my own anecdotal experience with regard to fructose.

 

For a period of many years I was overweight by around 20kg. That's not a particularly significant amount by today's standards. However, when I felt the weight of a 20kg suitcase whenever I travelled, and imagined what it would be like if that weight were evenly spread over my body so that I was effectively carrying that 20kg suitcase wherever I went, with every step, all day long, I began to realize what an absurd situation that was, and decided to do something about it.

 

Reducing the amount of fructose in my diet was a major change I made. For many years I used to drink 'so-called' fresh and pure fruit juice available in the supermarkets at bargain prices. My reasons for drinking so much fruit juice were largely economical and for health considerations. Fresh fruit is a part of a healthy diet. A 2-litre carton of fresh apple juice might contain about 95% of the nutritional value and goodness of 4 kg of whole apples. That's a bargain I thought.

The trouble was, I often used to drink as much as 2 litres of apple juice a day, when the weather was hot, in addition to some beer and wine. Would any sensible person eat 4kg of whole apples in a day, in addition to other meals and drinks? That was crazy!

 

I can now fast with very little discomfort as a result of excluding all fruit juice from my diet (but not all fruit; an apple a day keeps the doctor away). I've also significantly reduced my wine intake and completely cut out all beer, which I now find distasteful.

 

I always carefully read the labels on all canned products, with particular reference to the amount of sugar and salt added. Labels tend not to differentiate between cane sugar and fructose. Fruit juice is very high in fructose of course.

I also got into the habit of including pure saffron filaments in my diet. Amongst the many claimed health benefits of saffron is its effect on appetite. It appears to raise one's spirits as well as reducing one's appetite, but don't take too much of it. However, if you do take too much, at least you will die laughing.

 

So there you have it. There is now no excuse for anyone not to become a fit, Roman soldier.

[dontoearth]

@VincentRJ,

      Can you tell me a little more about Saffron?  How do you get it?  What do you ingest it with?  How much is a normal dose? etc?  

      I am quite far along on cleaning up my diet.  I drink only water, black coffee, unsweetened tea.  I don't do soda or juice.  Unlike most of the TVF folks I hate alcohol.  I doubt I have more than a celebratory drink a year.   I try to stay away from refined carbs which is much easier here in Thailand.  No bread, no rice, no pasta, no bakery products.  I have cut out fresh fruit and vegetables the last few days.  

      My body seems to be in open rebellion regarding anymore weight loss.  I took off 11 kg's with resistance training, cardio and watching the quality of my diet.   I need to take off another 9 kg's and the battle is now in a stale mate.  

       The weight loss has plateaued several times and each loss is now much smaller than the last.  

       I have looked at enough of the new current research to realize portion control is a total dead end that causes havoc for years on the metabolism.  I do exercise seriously but realize that can not work in the old fashioned view of burning off the extra calories as I am now pushing 60.

       I am working on this slowly as I realize most changes I make now I will be living with for years to come.

       Thanks.

 

[robblok]

The roman solider is a nice story but we don't know how fit he would be if he had 3 meals a day. Bodybuilders know that a constant stream of nutrients is better then 1 meal a day. (to build muscle and lose fat).  No need to go to extremes but a good stream of nutrients while working out and wanting to lose fat is also good thing. Quite some articles written for those that exercise to why 1 meal just does not cut it.

 

But everyone has his own opinion here and some things work better for someone and don't work for an other. From personal experience 3 meals works better for me for fat-loss and building of muscle.

 

I always like the cave man / roman soldier stories they state.. oh they were healthy because.. but you can't say that because you haven't compared how they would have reacted to 3 meals. Also the paleo thing.. you cant eat this because it was not there.. That is just funny in my eyes because just that something was not available back then and it is now does not make it bad besides what people ate back then varied a lot depending on season and place they were. Now if a orange was healthy in summer would it be healthy in winter too.. or did we somehow change by the season.

 

Fact is you can't compare back then even roman soldiers with now.. a good experiment would be 2 groups of those roman soldiers one on 3 meals a day and one group on 1 meal a day and watch the difference. You can't compare us today because we are totally different in what we do and even the foods we have now and then. 

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, dontoearth said:

@VincentRJ,

      Can you tell me a little more about Saffron?  How do you get it?  What do you ingest it with?  How much is a normal dose? etc?  

      I am quite far along on cleaning up my diet.  I drink only water, black coffee, unsweetened tea.  I don't do soda or juice.  Unlike most of the TVF folks I hate alcohol.  I doubt I have more than a celebratory drink a year.   I try to stay away from refined carbs which is much easier here in Thailand.  No bread, no rice, no pasta, no bakery products.  I have cut out fresh fruit and vegetables the last few days.  

      My body seems to be in open rebellion regarding anymore weight loss.  I took off 11 kg's with resistance training, cardio and watching the quality of my diet.   I need to take off another 9 kg's and the battle is now in a stale mate.  

       The weight loss has plateaued several times and each loss is now much smaller than the last.  

       I have looked at enough of the new current research to realize portion control is a total dead end that causes havoc for years on the metabolism.  I do exercise seriously but realize that can not work in the old fashioned view of burning off the extra calories as I am now pushing 60.

       I am working on this slowly as I realize most changes I make now I will be living with for years to come.

       Thanks.

 

 

Congrats on your weight loss but to completely eliminate fruit & vegetables is not a healthy diet.

[ClutchClark]

22 hours ago, partington said:

This seems to be a very materialistic world view.

 

How do you know that they may not discover that a mysterious non-physical force, a "spirit of fat"  if you will , does not affect people's obesity in a way that doesn't depend on the purely materialistic,  physical "amount they eat".

 

After all so little is known of the effects of quantum physics on our world.  Only a few hundred years ago they thought that radio was impossible.  

 

How do you know fat is not controlled by dark energy, and not by what we eat?  When will you be able to prove this is not the case?

 

Its all a matter of genetics, calories in/out and bacteria. 

 

The dark force is micro-flora found on and within every human being.

Edited September 2, 2016 by ClutchClark

[SaintLouisBlues]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Its all a matter of genetics, calories in/out and bacteria. 

 

The dark force is micro-flora found on and within every human being.

Poo injections are the coming thing, In fact the very first article via a Google search is dated 2010

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Poo injections are the coming thing, In fact the very first article via a Google search is dated 2010

 

I am not really sure how to respond to that news.

 

 

[dontoearth]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Congrats on your weight loss but to completely eliminate fruit & vegetables is not a healthy diet.

  Only the last few days to increase my protein and fat intake and shock the body.  Not something I plan on using as any part of a diet plan.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, dontoearth said:

@VincentRJ,

      Can you tell me a little more about Saffron?  How do you get it?  What do you ingest it with?  How much is a normal dose? etc?  

   

 

The cheapest safron is saffron powder which I suspect is adultered with other ingredients, so I don't use it. I use the pure saffron filaments which are bright red in colour. If you steep just a pinch (say a quarter of a teaspoon) in hot water for several minutes, the water will gradually turn red/orange. You can then add that to a herbal tea, or add it to a glass of milk, if you like drinking milk. Sometimes I add it to my breakfast mix of All Bran, Wheat Germ and fruit.

 

Saffron filaments tend to be very expensive in the supermarkets, but cheaper in Indian grocery shops. The cheapest prices are usually found on the internet where I buy it, usually 20 grams at a time in a sealed tin.

I began taking saffron as a result of scientific research demonstrating a beneficial effect in reducing macular degeneration. It was only when searching for the best price on the internet that I discovered that saffron-extract tablets are also used to reduce appetite for those who want to lose weight.

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, robblok said:

The roman solider is a nice story but we don't know how fit he would be if he had 3 meals a day. Bodybuilders know that a constant stream of nutrients is better then 1 meal a day. (to build muscle and lose fat).  No need to go to extremes but a good stream of nutrients while working out and wanting to lose fat is also good thing. Quite some articles written for those that exercise to why 1 meal just does not cut it.

 

 

The basic principle which so many overweight people are in denial about, is that one can't become overweight without eating too much. This is the source of the confusion. People like to think that it's not their fault they are overweight, and that it's just their genes. They therefore search for some miraculous food or pill which will burn their fat so they can continue overeating.

 

The body, in the interests of survival, converts excess food into fat reserves. This is normal and healthy. Some people can eat too much and not put on weight. This is less normal and in circumstances of famine, such people would probably not survive.

 

Whether one eats one meal a day or three meals a day, the significant point is the total amount of food eaten. If one eats more than the body needs for its regular functioning, whether one meal, 3 meals or 10 snacks a day, one will either put on weight or sh*t the excess food down the toilet.

 

Whilst one's genes will determine which category one belongs to, there's no gene that would allow one to put on weight without eating too much. That would be against the laws of Physics.

If you want to put on fat like a Sumo wrestler, you have to eat lots of rice. If the purpose is to create muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger, you have to do hard exercise for hours a day in the gym. The energy expended, which results in the creation of bigger muscles, requires lots of food.

If you eat like a body-builder, but don't exercise, you'll become fat. It's really quite simple.

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

The basic principle which so many overweight people are in denial about, is that one can't become overweight without eating too much. This is the source of the confusion. People like to think that it's not their fault they are overweight, and that it's just their genes. They therefore search for some miraculous food or pill which will burn their fat so they can continue overeating.

 

The body, in the interests of survival, converts excess food into fat reserves. This is normal and healthy. Some people can eat too much and not put on weight. This is less normal and in circumstances of famine, such people would probably not survive.

 

Whether one eats one meal a day or three meals a day, the significant point is the total amount of food eaten. If one eats more than the body needs for its regular functioning, whether one meal, 3 meals or 10 snacks a day, one will either put on weight or sh*t the excess food down the toilet.

 

Whilst one's genes will determine which category one belongs to, there's no gene that would allow one to put on weight without eating too much. That would be against the laws of Physics.

If you want to put on fat like a Sumo wrestler, you have to eat lots of rice. If the purpose is to create muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger, you have to do hard exercise for hours a day in the gym. The energy expended, which results in the creation of bigger muscles, requires lots of food.

If you eat like a body-builder, but don't exercise, you'll become fat. It's really quite simple.

 

Sure I agree that the basic problem is that people wont accept its because of eating too much. Yes what is too much for one is not too much for an other (there are genetic differences and so on) however even if we take those into account it does not account for the massive difference in weight. That is just because of overeating.

 

I agree its about the total amount of food eaten for sure no discussion possible (and quality of food)

 

If you want to become like Arnold you must have genes like him.. take some chemical aids like him and workout a lot for many hours. 

 

I have lost my fat and become lean and gained quite some muscle from working out hard. Still i burn far less then someone with my amount of muscle should (have done thyroid tests and just bad luck got a thyroid problem). Instead of moaning about it a lot I take my medicine that helps a bit and just eat less and accept this is what it is instead of complaining how unfair the world is and eating what i want and getting fat.

 

I do workout sessions that last close to two hours (cardio included) for 4 times a week it helps keep me in shape... its all about choices.

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

The basic principle which so many overweight people are in denial about, is that one can't become overweight without eating too much. This is the source of the confusion. People like to think that it's not their fault they are overweight, and that it's just their genes. They therefore search for some miraculous food or pill which will burn their fat so they can continue overeating.

 

The body, in the interests of survival, converts excess food into fat reserves. This is normal and healthy. Some people can eat too much and not put on weight. This is less normal and in circumstances of famine, such people would probably not survive.

 

Whether one eats one meal a day or three meals a day, the significant point is the total amount of food eaten. If one eats more than the body needs for its regular functioning, whether one meal, 3 meals or 10 snacks a day, one will either put on weight or sh*t the excess food down the toilet.

 

Whilst one's genes will determine which category one belongs to, there's no gene that would allow one to put on weight without eating too much. That would be against the laws of Physics.

If you want to put on fat like a Sumo wrestler, you have to eat lots of rice. If the purpose is to create muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger, you have to do hard exercise for hours a day in the gym. The energy expended, which results in the creation of bigger muscles, requires lots of food.

If you eat like a body-builder, but don't exercise, you'll become fat. It's really quite simple.

 

Sure I agree that the basic problem is that people wont accept its because of eating too much. Yes what is too much for one is not too much for an other (there are genetic differences and so on) however even if we take those into account it does not account for the massive difference in weight. That is just because of overeating.

 

I agree its about the total amount of food eaten for sure no discussion possible (and quality of food)

 

If you want to become like Arnold you must have genes like him.. take some chemical aids like him and workout a lot for many hours. 

 

I have lost my fat and become lean and gained quite some muscle from working out hard. Still i burn far less then someone with my amount of muscle should (have done thyroid tests and just bad luck got a thyroid problem). Instead of moaning about it a lot I take my medicine that helps a bit and just eat less and accept this is what it is instead of complaining how unfair the world is and eating what i want and getting fat.

 

I do workout sessions that last close to two hours (cardio included) for 4 times a week it helps keep me in shape... its all about choices.

[dontoearth]

I stopped accepting the simplistic idea of the formula Calories IN- Calories Out.  It won't work  when  it is put to controlled lab tests in humans.  The HBO special The Quest to Understand the Biology of Weight Loss was really enough proof for the National Institute of Health.  That is enough for me.   On the other hand 61% of the public believes in the Calories IN - Calories Out and MOVE theory.  I say a hearty congratulations to McDonald's, Pepsi and Coke which have continued to push this scientifically dead theory.  And contributed about 15 million dollars to the big Michelle Obama Let's Move program.  You might notice how the public service announcements are very specific that you can indeed enjoy your favorite foods if u just walk once in awhile and eat a raw carrot.  Complete bull hockey.  I believe but I didn't document this that 99 of the last 100 independent Calories In and Calories Out studies have failed.  I think Jason Fung said this in one of his presentations.  I will try to find it.  If anyone else knows which presentation it is in please post it.

 

The theory doesn't explain the wild variation in results among individuals.  It doesn't explain the unusual results from various diet plans.  We just don't understand food very well.  Why do diets that withhold one of the basic classifications (no-carbs) work so well?  Our classification of calories is not advanced enough or sophisticated enough to give us good measurements.   The calorie theory is based on just burning food and the amount of time it takes to burn it.  Your tummy has no bunson burner in it!  

 

We don't understand the digestive process at all.   Your stomach is a nice pot of warm acids, enzymes and bacterias and this simple food burning model doesn't explain it.  Further everyone has a different stomach mix.  Our poster VincentRJ was not being very elegant but he was telling the truth, indeed many people with serious weight gain have been treated by having waste (poop) from a healthy nonobese individual mixed and transferred into their system by enema or by (horrifying) flavored shakes.   This is being done by doctors just now.  It actually does work!  They can't say why!  They believe some severely obese people have damaged gut flora.  

 

This doesn't explain it all.  This does just lead us further away from old theories that have not proven out to be fact.  I am leaning toward the latest research on insulin resistance.  Obesity may be  a downhill disease in that the fatter you get the fatter you are going to get.   As your weight goes up you become more and more insulin resistant and the increased insulin your body pumps out causes weight gain year after year.  This has been proven by doctors treating Type II diabetics by  dieting and creating calorie deficient programs in advanced of dispensing insulin to Type II Diabetics.  A recent program was created that  cut daily calories by 350 calories for new patients.  In a year they had gained a shocking 9-16 lbs even with the calorie restriction.  Are we to believe that after they got Type II diabetes they stopped walking?  working out?  doing yoga?  I was shocked when I read this research.  We know they cut their calories.  What we know now is that insulin and the hormone system are playing a big role in weight gain.  Doctors which regularly treat diabetics were not shocked.  This is one of the detailed studies explain in the Jason Fung book.

 

This means that programs to lower insulin sensitivity like severely modified diets like KETO and timing food eating and fasting may indeed give some results that are not expected.  Letting insulin levels go down every few days can reverse insulin sensitivity.  These newer diet plans and techniques are allowing lots of people to eliminate Type II diabetes and loose weight in the process.

 

So I welcome the info on fasting.  I will skip the poop shake for now.

 

I really see the obesity picture now as a "Big Tent" problem.  Yeah, it is sugar!  Yeah, it is fast food!  Yeah, it is not enough exercise!   Yeah, it is eating the wrong foods!  Yeah, it is fast food!  Yeah, it is snacking between meals.  Yep, it may be internal stomach problems.  It might be insulin or other hormones.  Including hormones that have been measured in the brain that show some obese actually light up areas of the brain like an opiate addict when they are given or offered or shown food!  This is where big pharma is heading!  They would love to find a drug that turns off that area of the brain and keeps those hormones from being pumped into the body.   This would mean obese people on their new not yet invented meds would not be at Starbucks buying whipped cream drinks.  If they get it right everything will work out.  If they get it wrong as they often do with psychiatric drugs...stay home and shelter in place!

 

It might also be the chicken and the egg!  Does the obesity cause these problems?  Do these variables cause the obesity?   I am leaning toward vicious circle.

 

BTW, when I was younger I repeated the Calories IN - Calories Out and Move Mantra, and I think I have some people to apologize too.  One of the reasons I repeated this mantra was my own slim frame and ability to keep the weight down into my mid 40's.    So even now I don't look obese compared to friends and relatives that were experiencing their weight problems much earlier in life.   Obesity is cumulative.  

 

 I also hope to learn something that will help them as I work on my own weight loss.  An apology and a solution.  Evidently, they might like the solution if it involves fasting or poop shakes.