The Simplicity of Weight Loss

[robblok]

@dontoearth

 

Good point about insulin resistance, can be cured by exercise and cutting out carbs. For normal people there is no need to cut out carbs. However if your insulin resistant then yes you need to cut out carbs and exercise more.  There is actually a nice test that you can do HbA1c test I did that test a few times (quite cheap) to track how sports and diet changed my insulin resistance. Its common knowledge that you can combat insulin resistance.. but only if you cut carbs and exercise.

 

That is why cutting out carbs works well for some people (and not for others) If your healthy there is no need to cut out carbs. 

 

Also protein for instance takes more energy to process 20% more that is why calories from protein count for less. The basic formula still works you just have to modify it for individuals. Because it still goes eat too much you get fat its just hard to calculate the out part. I have stopped trying to quantify it in real numbers because we are not a machine and we lose weight in a non linear way. But that does not make the basic rule that if you eat to much you get fat wrong.

 

Yes gut flora things work.. but you can influence your own gut flora by eating right (you can starve the wrong bacteria and feed the right ones) you can also take probiotica like kefir that help. Thing is gutflora are important but you influence them yourself now they just want to make a pill to make it easier. (I hope they do it) But right now you can already help yourself to a large extent. 

 

But all these things are just small differences the max difference measured in burning calories between people is around 20% (is a lot but that is between extremes). Most people can lose a lot weight just by changing their diet and that is a fact. 

 

I really agree about the differences but they are not as big as people want to believe. People want to believe that just that pil would allow them to eat how they eat and still lose weight.. its simply not true in most cases. It would only account for a part of the overweight.. the other part is and will always be diet. 

[partington]

 This lengthy diatribe still does not alter the basic issue. 

 

It is of course always calories in /calories out. All you are saying is that different diets, disease states and behaviours alter the "calories out or burnt part" of the equation. But everyone knows and accepts this.

 

If eating less food slows your metabolism then eating less food has lowered the "calories out/burnt"  side of the equation, because it causes you to burn less. If insulin resistance increases obesity it is because it has altered the"burn calories or turn them into fat"  ratio in favour of deposit.

 

So it is quite possible that eating less will cause less weight loss after a while, and you have to decrease the amount of calories ingested still further. This has no implication that the equation "calories in calories out" no longer applies. It means you are lowering the " calories out value" by lowering  the "calories in" or changing the composition of the "calories in" component.

 

It is incontrovertible that fat deposits come from ingested calories. There is nowhere else for this mass of stored energy to come from. The fact that reducing calories ingested may have no significant effect on weight loss does not in any way contravene this principle.  It means that the "calories in" behaviour has a direct effect on the "calories out" value.

 

Think of it like this: you must believe that a car engine runs on petrol energy, and how far it can travel is dependent on how much petrol it has to burn. But if you put a 4 metric tonne tank of petrol on top of the car roof you may find it does not go as far as if you put a two metric tonne tank full of petrol on the roof. This does  not contravene the laws of physics, it means that how much petrol you are putting in itself has an effect on how much petrol needs to be used to travel a certain distance.

[MissAndry]

Lazy gluttons always want to explain how they aren't lazy gluttons and it isn't really their fault they are fat. It really is as simple as that. Maybe we should start a 'Gluttons anonymous' club.

 

I am fat because I eat too much and exercise too little.

That's the whole process explained for you.

 

[Gulfsailor]

21 hours ago, dontoearth said:

     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.

     

So basically the perfect solution for lazy fat people. That's why I am skinny, too lazy to go out and get food. If there is nothing in the house in the day I just skip breakfast and lunch. Sometimes even dinner. Fasting is awesome and easy. I'm nearly 40 but feel as fit as when I was 20. 

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

So basically the perfect solution for lazy fat people. That's why I am skinny, too lazy to go out and get food. If there is nothing in the house in the day I just skip breakfast and lunch. Sometimes even dinner. Fasting is awesome and easy. I'm nearly 40 but feel as fit as when I was 20. 

 

How do we know you were not really out of shape at 20?

[Gulfsailor]

22 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

How do we know you were not really out of shape at 20?

It's an anonymous Internet forum. How to believe anything someone writes? I may be 60 and morbidly obese. Up to you what you want to believe I guess. 

[mcfish]

There is only one method to lose weight that is scientifically verifiable by the average Joe

Im not going into it here because there is a ton of info on google but suffice to say when you get yourself into a state of 'ketosis' you can pee on a strip that changes color to verify it.

 

Every other diet is based on "hope " alone..

[oxo1947]

On 1/9/2559 at 2:04 PM, manfredtillmann said:

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'.

 

.

Yes also --Tomorrow, many children will wake up to hunger poverty, & disease 

."----Simple solution: Go back to sleep.....................

[tominbkk]

On 9/1/2016 at 3:43 PM, dontoearth said:

       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.

 

Just Finished Fung's book.  It's excellently written and does a great job of explaining the roles of different hormones in how we utilize the calories we take in, which is highly dependent on the type of calories they are, among other things.

 

If you cannot afford the $10 kindle book, then you can get most of the info from his great video series.  Part one is here:

 

 

Watch with an open mind, this guy shows the science, and reveals the politics of the last century on dietary policy which wreaked havoc on the American public.

[tominbkk]

22 hours ago, 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?

 

Look into a ketogenic diet (75% fat, 20% protein, 5% carbs in the form of green veggies mainly).  After a couple weeks of keto you become adapted to burning your body's fat and it is much easier to IF or go for a day or two without eating with very little craving.  If you are eating carbs and have any kind of insulin resistance, it is torture to fast.  

[VincentRJ]

We should be aware of getting into unnecessary complexities here. There are always differences in peoples' metabolism, gut flora and general medical and genetic disposition which will result in at least a slightly different response to any particular diet.

However, the bottom line is, if overweight people simply eat less without changing their activities and the amount of exercise they are accustomed to, they will unavoidably lose weight, with few exceptions.

 

The few exceptions would include those who have a metabolism which allows them to overeat without putting on weight. Such people would have no reason or motivation to lose weight, since they are not overweight, so those exceptions are not relevant. The motivation of such people might be to save money by eating less, whilst maintaining their same, normal weight.

 

I'm not a qualified medical or dietary expert, so I rely upon what makes sense, reports of scientific studies, and what works for me. I accept that there might be dangers in fasting for some people with certain medical conditions. I've read that pregnant women and children should not fast. I've also read that diabetics should not fast, especially those with type 2 diabetes, but even here there appear to be differences of opinion among experts. I was surprised to come accross the following site which seems to contradict what I previously thought might be true.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-cures-diabetes-t2d-4/

 

Fortunately, I don't have any medical issues that I'm aware of, and I'd like to keep it that way. To those who have difficulty in controlling their appetite, I would advise cutting out fructose, and eating just one wholesome meal a day, around lunch time, or any other time if more convenient.

One might initially feel uncomfortably hungry and tend to overeat during that one meal, but after a few weeks one's stomach should contract so that one will tend to feel satiated after a smaller, more normal size meal.

[AlexRRR]

All bullshit but true of you if fit  a mould.....

 

Once you gained weight your dead in the water thats it and you will need to be super strong to get back to slim and stay there....make food a substance not a luxury then you have a chance, as we age we need less material things if you can relate its the same with food....do less need less fuel....simple arithmetic, change the way you think about food and you have a chance otherwise eat be fat and be happy and dont complain....

[MissAndry]

4 minutes ago, AlexRRR said:

as we age we need less material things if you can relate its the same with food....do less need less fuel....simple arithmetic, 

 

Why do you do less as you age, I am far more active now than at any previous time in my life.

[tominbkk]

1 hour ago, MissAndry said:

Lazy gluttons always want to explain how they aren't lazy gluttons and it isn't really their fault they are fat. It really is as simple as that. Maybe we should start a 'Gluttons anonymous' club.

 

I am fat because I eat too much and exercise too little.

That's the whole process explained for you.

 

Dr. Fung says people aren't fat because they eat too much, but rather they eat too much because they are fat.  When people get overweight and screw up their hormonal mix they mess up the natural signals to know when they are hungry and when they are satiated, when the body should store fat and when it shouldn't.  Unfortunately the low fat mania from the 70s onward in the States increased by about 40% the amount of refined carbs that people started eating to replace the fat calories.  The result?  Well, go to disney land and see for yourself.  Keto is a great way to resetting natural hunger and satiety levels, and allowing fat cells to release their bounty.

[VincentRJ]

On ‎2‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 6:42 AM, tominbkk said:

Dr. Fung says people aren't fat because they eat too much, but rather they eat too much because they are fat.  

 

I haven't read the book, but that statement sounds like total nonsense to me. Perhaps it is taken out of context.

 

I can understand that during the process of becoming fat by eating too much, the hormones might get mixed up and the natural signals regarding hunger and sataiety might not perform as they should. The consequences of that are that it then becomes difficult for the fat individual to assess whether or not he or she is eating too much. However, the fundamental principle that eating too much is the cause of being overweight, still stands.

 

Because the hormonal signals regarding satiety get mixed up, people can then get into the ridiculous situation of counting calories and paying money to so-called dietary experts who design expensive, special recipes which are probably not particularly healthy if they exclude all saturated fats.

 

The processed food industry which encourages people to overeat, is huge. The dietary and weight-loss industry that exists as a consequence is huge, and the medical industry which expensively attempts to fix health problems that result as a consequence of over eating, is also huge. There's a symbiotic relationship between the three industries.

[dontoearth]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I haven't read the book, but that statement sounds like total nonsense to me. Perhaps it is taken out of context.

 

I can understand that during the process of becoming fat by eating too much, the hormones might get mixed up and the natural signals regarding hunger and sataiety might not perform as they should. The consequences of that are that it then becomes difficult for the fat individual to assess whether or not he or she is eating too much. However, the fundamental principle that eating too much is the cause of being overweight, still stands.

 

Because the hormonal signals regarding satiety get mixed up, people can then get into the ridiculous situation of counting calories and paying money to so-called dietary experts who design expensive, special recipes which are probably not particularly healthy if they exclude all saturated fats.

 

The processed food industry which encourages people to overeat, is huge. The dietary and weight-loss industry that exists as a consequence is huge, and the medical industry which expensively attempts to fix health problems that result as a consequence of over eating, is also huge. There's a symbiotic relationship between the three industries.

     The quote is about what happens after the obesity starts!  Once the body weight changes to obesity people have hormonal problems which aggravate the disease.  This hormonal imbalance is triggered by sugar and other bad foods long before the weight gain starts.  

    Once the cycle starts you get the visceral fat!   Men get it in the gut. Women get it in the hips. Part of this aggravation is that for the obese less and less calories are needed to maintain and gain weight.  This makes the old adage 'reduce calories' ineffective.  And finally, this advice is dangerous leading to more weight gain and a body so out of balance that it may gain weight on only 1,000 calories a day.  A recent lawsuit against the tv show "Biggest Loser" regarding this problem.  

    It is not much different than any other disease left untreated it gets worse and worse.   And you are correct many people including charlatans and those that deny good evidence based science are profiting a great deal from this misery.

    You should read his book or watch some of his youtube videos.   Dr. Fung is at the head of the pack of a new group of doctors which really seem to understand this medical problem.  I have read the book twice, and I am skimming some of the details again.  I haven't seen this kind of scientific evidence based work before in this field.  He certainly blows the lid off of some of our 'fondest and dearest" held beliefs.  

     BTW, Fung advocates fasting!  He advocates a return to more fat in the diet.  He even advocates using lard and beef tallow in cooking like we did before this epidemic started.  He devotes a chapter to the evils of sugar.  His work is about trying to switch off the hormones in the body causing the problem.   Curing the problem not the symptoms.

     In many ways it is a shocking read to see that the public and even the medical community have been so duped for so very long.

 

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, dontoearth said:

      

    Once the cycle starts you get the visceral fat!   Men get it in the gut. Women get it in the hips. Part of this aggravation is that for the obese less and less calories are needed to maintain and gain weight.  This makes the old adage 'reduce calories' ineffective.  And finally, this advice is dangerous leading to more weight gain and a body so out of balance that it may gain weight on only 1,000 calories a day.  A recent lawsuit against the tv show "Biggest Loser" regarding this problem.  

   

 

This sounds like total crap to me. It defies the laws of physics. If you believe it, you deserve to be fat. That's your punishment for being so dumb.

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but the impression I'm getting from your comment is this. If an obese person were placed in a Japanese war prison during WW2, and deprived of food, the normal weight prisoners would become as skinny as rakes, in accordance with the pictures we've seen, but the obese people would be just as obese, or perhaps just a little bit less obese.

Is this what you are implying?

 

I would suggest that the obese people would become a normal weight or underweight. They would be at least less skinny than those who didn't have huge reserves of fat. Don't you agree?

[VincentRJ]

The fundamental problem is control of one's desires. When I see a fat or obese person walking down the street, I imagine they are carring a sign emblazoned on their dress or jacket, which reads, "I'm an incompetent slob and have no control over my desires,"

 

That would be the truth, but we tend to hide it because we don't like to offend people and tell it as it is. It's a huge problem world-wide, with all sorts of issues. It's called diplomacy.

 

I recall when I was overweight, and realised I was overweight by a moderate 20kgs, I would occasionally mention it to a girlfriend, or some other friend, and they would always reply, "No. You're not really overweight", or something to that effect. They were being diplomatic.

 

I believe in the truth, so I'm sorry if any of my comments offend anyone.

[dontoearth]

46 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

This sounds like total crap to me. It defies the laws of physics. If you believe it, you deserve to be fat. That's your punishment for being so dumb.

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but the impression I'm getting from your comment is this. If an obese person were placed in a Japanese war prison during WW2, and deprived of food, the normal weight prisoners would become as skinny as rakes, in accordance with the pictures we've seen, but the obese people would be just as obese, or perhaps just a little bit less obese.

Is this what you are implying?

 

I would suggest that the obese people would become a normal weight or underweight. They would be at least less skinny than those who didn't have huge reserves of fat. Don't you agree?

  We are not talking about starvation!  We are talking about severely limited food portions.  Big difference!  

[dontoearth]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The fundamental problem is control of one's desires. When I see a fat or obese person walking down the street, I imagine they are carring a sign emblazoned on their dress or jacket, which reads, "I'm an incompetent slob and have no control over my desires,"

 

That would be the truth, but we tend to hide it because we don't like to offend people and tell it as it is. It's a huge problem world-wide, with all sorts of issues. It's called diplomacy.

 

I recall when I was overweight, and realised I was overweight by a moderate 20kgs, I would occasionally mention it to a girlfriend, or some other friend, and they would always reply, "No. You're not really overweight", or something to that effect. They were being diplomatic.

 

I believe in the truth, so I'm sorry if any of my comments offend anyone.

  Sounds like religious bigotry.  The people that believe everything is a moral failing.  They have held back science for centuries.

   However, I agree with your ideas about fasting and getting more fat into the diet.  

   I just don't agree with your premise.  And I think there is a little agreement in this field about the premises.

[dontoearth]

50 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

This sounds like total crap to me. It defies the laws of physics. If you believe it, you deserve to be fat. That's your punishment for being so dumb.

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but the impression I'm getting from your comment is this. If an obese person were placed in a Japanese war prison during WW2, and deprived of food, the normal weight prisoners would become as skinny as rakes, in accordance with the pictures we've seen, but the obese people would be just as obese, or perhaps just a little bit less obese.

Is this what you are implying?

 

I would suggest that the obese people would become a normal weight or underweight. They would be at least less skinny than those who didn't have huge reserves of fat. Don't you agree?

    One last thought.  Dr. Fung spent a year studying physics and said that at no time was any of physics related to the human body.  I can't remember if that is in his book or his video lectures.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

  We are not talking about starvation!  We are talking about severely limited food portions.  Big difference!  

No its exactly the same. There are no people who can't lose weight in a controlled environment (meaning a test when your committed in a closed ward of a test facility)

 

Problem is with most studies they are not in a controlled environment and people self report the calories or get meals but are not checked if they don't eat anything else. 

 

Reason that there are not many closed studies is because they are so expensive. This is the biggest fault with research there is no real way to validate the studies.

[dontoearth]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

No its exactly the same. There are no people who can't lose weight in a controlled environment (meaning a test when your committed in a closed ward of a test facility)

 

Problem is with most studies they are not in a controlled environment and people self report the calories or get meals but are not checked if they don't eat anything else. 

 

Reason that there are not many closed studies is because they are so expensive. This is the biggest fault with research there is no real way to validate the studies.

      I posted the link to the HBO series which has the study from a completely controlled environment.  The subject is locked in a room for months in a hospital.  This study was done by the National Institute of Health.  There is no danger of 'food cheating' or self-reporting 'errors'.   They used two graduate assistants to feed the patient.  The doctor supervised every thing in the trial.  The results were indeed valid.  They just don't prove what we thought they would.  That is always difficult research to swallow.   No pun intended.

Here is the link again for anyone that missed it.

 

[dontoearth]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No its exactly the same. There are no people who can't lose weight in a controlled environment (meaning a test when your committed in a closed ward of a test facility)

 

Problem is with most studies they are not in a controlled environment and people self report the calories or get meals but are not checked if they don't eat anything else. 

 

Reason that there are not many closed studies is because they are so expensive. This is the biggest fault with research there is no real way to validate the studies.

      Starvation and reduced portions have quite different effects on the body and there is now medical research on just this subject.  Again it is research that doesn't gel with our own previous conceptions.  Google around for Dr. Jason Fung.  His research is in a hospital setting and analyzes blood and urine samples of fasting patients.  His book chronicles a number of portion control studies and the difference between the two things: portion control (food restriction) and fasting (starvation) is amazing.

      The scientific proof just doesn't support what we have been told for a long time is factual.  The facts we were previously led to believe don't have any scientific basis.  I call these things 'old wives tales' which is way too politically incorrect.  My female co-workers had a talk with me about using that term.  These old wives tales are repeated in grade school and high school.   Unfortunately, college often doesn't dispel the myths either.  

       It is hard to accept unless you take a really long term view of scientific progress.  We often believe the wrong thing on the path to the right thing.   I think medical science and disease treatment provides a good example.  They often wrote off virus and bacterial diseases like ulcers and shingles as 'caused by old fashioned worry and stress!"  We know better today.

       

[robblok]

@dontoearth

 

It just makes my point they CAN lose the weight (how else did they lose 10%) but they have a problem keeping it off. I never said that there were no differences between people life is not fair but that is how it is. I lost 20% of my weight and kept it off.. am I a superhuman ? 

 

Fact is you can lose your weight it is just hard to keep it of and hard to lose it. Now I am again busy trying to lose weight and even with my 2 hour sessions 4 times a week and food plan its hard (I am already lean but want to improve on my abs). Fact is its hard for me but its working but I have to put in more effort than someone else.

 

I always feel people use research like this to set themselves up for failure to justify their failure.

 

Also do remember that in these studies they take the people who absolutely did not respond to anything else (taking the worst of the worst not the average obese) to study them. No wonder that results are extreme then. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      Starvation and reduced portions have quite different effects on the body and there is now medical research on just this subject.  Again it is research that doesn't gel with our own previous conceptions.  Google around for Dr. Jason Fung.  His research is in a hospital setting and analyzes blood and urine samples of fasting patients.  His book chronicles a number of portion control studies and the difference between the two things: portion control (food restriction) and fasting (starvation) is amazing.

      The scientific proof just doesn't support what we have been told for a long time is factual.  The facts we were previously led to believe don't have any scientific basis.  I call these things 'old wives tales' which is way too politically incorrect.  My female co-workers had a talk with me about using that term.  These old wives tales are repeated in grade school and high school.   Unfortunately, college often doesn't dispel the myths either.  

       It is hard to accept unless you take a really long term view of scientific progress.  We often believe the wrong thing on the path to the right thing.   I think medical science and disease treatment provides a good example.  They often wrote off virus and bacterial diseases like ulcers and shingles as 'caused by old fashioned worry and stress!"  We know better today.

       

 

Yes its different and in this study they went to 800 cals.. that is starvation 

 

You read into studies what you want I do too

[dontoearth]

@robblok,

   I never said people couldn't lose weight.  I said they might need to be below 1,000 calories to do so.   And every pound of that weight loss is coming right back.  The second they try to increase their calories to even a few hundred more per day.   I accept the National Institute of Health study on this because the control levels were so high in their experiment.  I think the final missing piece in all weight loss is keeping the weight off.  

   That is the sad part from contestants on the biggest loser which often go down to 500 calories a day.  In less than a year most of them have gained it all back or weigh more.  There are some lawsuits out about it but I doubt they prevail.  I am sure the show has endless sign-offs before contestants are picked.  They do have an expert that said there metabolism was so damaged by caloric restriction most needed to live for an indefinite period on 1,100 calories a day.  And if we don't discover more about weight loss this may be the place we all are stuck.

[dontoearth]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

@dontoearth

 

It just makes my point they CAN lose the weight (how else did they lose 10%) but they have a problem keeping it off. I never said that there were no differences between people life is not fair but that is how it is. I lost 20% of my weight and kept it off.. am I a superhuman ? 

 

Fact is you can lose your weight it is just hard to keep it of and hard to lose it. Now I am again busy trying to lose weight and even with my 2 hour sessions 4 times a week and food plan its hard (I am already lean but want to improve on my abs). Fact is its hard for me but its working but I have to put in more effort than someone else.

 

I always feel people use research like this to set themselves up for failure to justify their failure.

 

Also do remember that in these studies they take the people who absolutely did not respond to anything else (taking the worst of the worst not the average obese) to study them. No wonder that results are extreme then. 

     We are rowing in the same boat!  I been fighting a small amount of excess weight.  Not enough to be labeled obese even by the dreaded BMI.  I been doing the workouts. Wondering over my food!  I am very sympathetic.   I been doing the 4 days a week 2 solid hours on the gym floor.  One hour of resistance and one hour of cardio.  Some stretching pre workout and after.  BTW!  I am 60 years old and committed.  I have done this before off and on.  I have a personal trainer now and the time to do it since I retired a few months ago.

      I am looking out at research beyond what we seem to comprehend now.  I certainly don't think the dust has settled.

      In fact, I think they are going to give an evolutionary explanation to a lot of this and that will be interesting.

      As for picking apart the research indeed I am satisfied.  You may not be but I haven't seen anything better yet.  

      I consider those that can't take the weight off and keep it off (60%) of the obese in the modern world to be the average not the worst of the worst.

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

@robblok,

   I never said people couldn't lose weight.  I said they might need to be below 1,000 calories to do so.   And every pound of that weight loss is coming right back.  The second they try to increase their calories to even a few hundred more per day.   I accept the National Institute of Health study on this because the control levels were so high in their experiment.  I think the final missing piece in all weight loss is keeping the weight off.  

   That is the sad part from contestants on the biggest loser which often go down to 500 calories a day.  In less than a year most of them have gained it all back or weigh more.  There are some lawsuits out about it but I doubt they prevail.  I am sure the show has endless sign-offs before contestants are picked.  They do have an expert that said there metabolism was so damaged by caloric restriction most needed to live for an indefinite period on 1,100 calories a day.  And if we don't discover more about weight loss this may be the place we all are stuck.

 

Thing is even the study you mention does not go into the body setpoint... why.. because its normal for the body to defend itself after weightloss.. but there is no research how long this take and if its permanent. That study would just be too long.

 

Thing is people dont need to go below 1000 calories but it will go slower. Believe me I hated slow just like you. But even now I count and calculate my food.. i am still off and even I can under-report. I thought I was at 1500 cals but I am over that amount. Small things add on and I have been doing this a long time. 

 

But I am still loseing weight.. real slow but its going down. (less then half a kg a week)

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

     We are rowing in the same boat!  I been fighting a small amount of excess weight.  Not enough to be labeled obese even by the dreaded BMI.  I been doing the workouts. Wondering over my food!  I am very sympathetic.   I been doing the 4 days a week 2 solid hours on the gym floor.  One hour of resistance and one hour of cardio.  Some stretching pre workout and after.  BTW!  I am 60 years old and committed.  I have done this before off and on.  I have a personal trainer now and the time to do it since I retired a few months ago.

      I am looking out at research beyond what we seem to comprehend now.  I certainly don't think the dust has settled.

      In fact, I think they are going to give an evolutionary explanation to a lot of this and that will be interesting.

      As for picking apart the research indeed I am satisfied.  You may not be but I haven't seen anything better yet.  

      I consider those that can't take the weight off and keep it off (60%) of the obese in the modern world to be the average not the worst of the worst.

 

I think you should hang in there because it will come.. just slow.. there will be plateaus for sure but you should not compare yourself with the worst of the worst. Its like looking at the Olympics and thinking that that is the norm. Yes there are people who have to eat 20% less.. but those are the worst of the worst.. just like Olympic winners there are not many of those. But these studies attract those. 

 

I am obese (according to BMI) but its hard to sell that I am really obese with visible abs. So BMI.. just throw it away its useless. 

 

Many of the people just don't push themselves as hard.. you are.. I bet if I can keep people in a closed environment I can make them all lose weight and most will keep it of later too if they change how they eat. But many just won't. Just look at the sizes of food portions in the USA and compare it with outside of the USA.