Why exercise won't make you thin

Why exercise won't make you thin

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

...

The conventional wisdom that exercise is essential for shedding pounds is actually fairly new. As recently as the 1960s, doctors routinely advised against rigorous exercise, particularly for older adults who could injure themselves. Today doctors encourage even their oldest patients to exercise, which is sound advice for many reasons: People who regularly exercise are at significantly lower risk for all manner of diseases — those of the heart in particular. They less often develop cancer, diabetes and many other illnesses. But the past few years of obesity research show that the role of exercise in weight loss has been wildly overstated.

...

"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like The Biggest Loser — or, for that matter, from magazines like this one.

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

Moderate exercise coupled with a reasonable diet will help you control your weight and make you healthier.

My body does ask for extra fuel when I exercise.

That's when the reasonable diet part comes in.

You don't have to have a high sugar/fat energy bar or a Big Mac to compensate.

Obviously, people who are overweight have as much self-control as anyone else --

perhaps even more. When you use under eating as a way to lose weight -- and I don't

know anyone who is not recommending that remedy -- you will usually end up gaining

more when you move off the "eat less" regime.

PLUS, you will have also negatively impacted your metabolism.

Granted, however, our life styles -- driving cars rather than walking -- driving cars

rather than riding bikes -- driving cars and sitting in front of computers all day --

aren't healthy for us.

As you noted, driving everywhere and leading a sedentary lifestyle aren't healthy.

Also, the typical American diet consisting of lots of fatty foods, colas, chips, and artificially-flavored everything with loads of chemicals that no one can pronounce doesn't help matters, either.

Even people who reach their ideal weight through surgery tend to gain it all back again as their bodies struggle to reach that set point again.

Exercise is essential to maintain muscle tone and cardiovascular health. It can also greatly improve mood. Obese people who exercise can be in much better physical and mental shape than thin people who don't.

That it doesn't eliminate pounds is disheartening but no surprise.

No cure for obesity? Gee, I guess that those pounds that I'm losing are in my imagination. I guess all that weight that my mother lost is imaginary. I guess all that weight that millions of people have take off, and kept off, is simply more figments of our imagination.

Show me some solid, reliable medical proof that obesity can't be cured, otherwise admit that you're just blowing hot air.

Losing weight is much like quitting smoking, it takes some will power, and it is one of the hardest things that a person can do. However it can be done, unless there is a medical reason, using the old formula of eating less, eating healthy, and exercising. Sorry, but any excuse otherwise is pure BS.

It's just unfortunate that we have no way of keeping them there.

You still believe the diet industry. I believe the medical literature.

Good luck. You'll need it.

You state that there is medical literature, then show it. Otherwise you are blowing hot air.

I abhor the diet industry because they are making money off of desperate people. The simplest, most proven way for losing weight has always been eating less, eating healthy and exercise. It is the diet industry itself which is running this meme that obesity is incurable, that exercise is ineffective, why, so they can continue to make a ton of money. Congratulations for falling for their bullshit.

So, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. Give out a link to a peer reviewed journal piece, like those found in Science, Nature, or the Lancet that backs your position, or admit that you're simply full of it and don't really know what you're talking about.

Instead they both say that keeping weight off is due to one's will(Nature, internal disinhibition) and to the amount of support a person has during that period.

Neither state that obesity is incurable, just difficult. Well, that's not the claim that you made, you've been shown up as being full of hot air, using your own link. Give it up and move on.

I'm going to, I've got a fantasy football draft to go to. First though, I'm going to go walk the dogs, you know, keep that weight off.

of the literature.

It is a form of addiction

And as people in other parts of the world begin to eat our foods they also

begin to become obese!

It is salt which is addictive . . .

Did you know there is LARD in Oreo cookies?

and lard in oreos, shocking, no. salt in oreos? You kid me right, oh and sugar, well corn syrup these days? Not shocking... can you say formula and pleasure centers and dopamine release?

As to this scourge expanding, of course, that is the business model

But do they expect LARD?

Corn syrup is also among the many problems with our diets.

It is a form of addiction

You know how many people are addicted to chemicals created by business?
Start with prescription drugs.

We can't have it all ways . . . either this is a choice and a lack of willpower --
or we understand that it is not a choice, not a question of willpower, but a question
of the foods we're eating. And the life styles. Cars and TV, for a start.

Meanwhile, it's not really about ready to go food or pre-cooked foods -- seems that
during the war along with 24 hour child care, there were meals available away from
home for everyone.

Here is one that I like to tell people... when did the main artificial things were introduced into the american diet, well beyond the occasional Karo syrup...

Early 1980s

When did we start seeing the crisis emerge?

Mid 1980s

Coincidence?

Don't think so.

As to will power, remember the 12 steps? Surrender to a greater power? There is a reason for that, will power mostly does not work with addicted people

Problem is, you still need to eat, so you need to get plans going.

maybe earlier for all I know --

Additionally by the late 1890's, scientists were already seeing the harm done to nature

by the Industrial Revolution. We are part of nature.

Here is one that I like to tell people... when did the main artificial things were introduced into the american diet, well beyond the occasional Karo syrup...

Processed foods certainly existed before 1980 --

That's when an apple is no longer an apple --

And, no -- this did not begin in the 1980's . . . all of these suicidal things

that we find corporations/business/Dr. Strangelove's doing begin to attack the

most vulnerable among us long before many are harmed. It's the canary in the

coal mine warning that we are not heeding. And, after all the most vulnerable

part of the body is the brain. One source of nutrition which we have also

junked was breast feeding -- which supplies hormones and chemicals largely still

unidentified, except that some of those hormones are still active/used into very

old age -- 80's!

It can be managed but it is an addiction.

As to will power, remember the 12 steps? Surrender to a greater power? There is a reason for that, will power mostly does not work with addicted people.

Don't want to put words in your mouth, but what you appear to be saying here is that everyone

in America is simply addicted to food!!?? The highest number I've ever heard on natural addiction

is about 1 in 4 --

Problem is, you still need to eat, so you need to get plans going.


Unfortunately, we are eating foods which have been harmed by our damage to the environment --

See Global Warming/Ozone Hole/Chemtrails/Destruction of species -- and by chemical fertilizers

which reduce the nutrition in our foods. Not to mention, nuclear weapons which I'm sure helped

the environment!



PS: Not to mention the harm done to animal-life --
and the harm that in turn does to those eating animals.

And, what's the number . . . ? Women in 37 of our states have rocket fuel in their breast milk!

it is egg heads like Dr. Kessler, and he is just the loud one... and it is exactly how our "food" has been engineered to work in the brain.

As to artificial junk you may want to think it is after WW II, (and it was with fertilizers, the end of cheap oil will bring that to an end and lets see what happens with the green revolution and how many BILLIONS starve, carrying capacity for the planet and all that shit)

But we started truly seeing it after Corn syrup went willy nilly onto food as well as transfats.

As to jet fuel... see hypothyroidism.

As to apples, we have been genetically engineering apples for a LONG TIME, as in from the moment we started raising the trees ourselves. Hell we've known some of the mechanisms of genetics since Mendel started playing with them in a systematic manner at the end of the 19th century.

Now we have done quite a bit of damage to the natural system and as a species, well we are an apex species, and we are in the midst of an extinction level even, guess what happens to apex species? You guessed it.

But to be afraid of ALL science is just nuts, my two cents.

By the way, to see an example of what we have done through selected breeding... see Corn, what we started cultivating way back when (About 10K or so BCE,) and what we have today.

It is not me saying that we have an addicition problem

By the time we get over Peak Oil there will be nothing left of anything --
unless we junk capitalism meanwhile and take back control of our natural resources quickly.
They have of course shunned alternative energy.

And, I do agree that returning to natural systems will be difficult if not impossible.
Especially with Global Warming moving more and more rapidly every year.

But we started truly seeing it after Corn syrup went willy nilly onto food as well as transfats.


Can't argue with that -- except you will find here at DU many don't want the government to interfere
in protecting the public from corporate corruption of our foods!! Amazing!

As to jet fuel... see hypothyroidism.

"weight gain, fatigue, depression" -- :)

As to apples, we have been genetically engineering apples for a LONG TIME, as in from the moment we started raising the trees ourselves. Hell we've known some of the mechanisms of genetics since Mendel started playing with them in a systematic manner at the end of the 19th century.

True -- patriarchy's main thrust -- playing "god." See: Frankenstein/Mary Shelley-Mel Brooks

And, same with almost all animal life which has been altered genetically!

Now we have done quite a bit of damage to the natural system and as a species, well we are an apex species, and we are in the midst of an extinction level even, guess what happens to apex species? You guessed it.

Unfortunately, it is likely that we are not only going, we are taking all humanity, animal-life and
possibly even the planet with us. No one knows for sure if the planet will keep turning.

But to be afraid of ALL science is just nuts, my two cents.

I doubt anyone is afraid of science -- it is merely and only observation of nature.
However, the kind of science we see being practiced is about control.

Just as, I'm also sure that no one fears history --
What most of us question and challenge is the propaganda of white male history!

What Monsanto has done with corn is beyond criminal!

Also think we are a hybrid species -- nature could not have been dumb enough to have put us on

the planet!

and another apex species will emerge, not just us.

Some species, such as corn, will go the way of the dodo, not because of Montsanto, but because even before they got their mittens on it, corn no longer fell from the husk naturally... larger grains, and all that.

But life will continue, as life has done after the last four major extinction events...

the destruction we've done, you understand that the planet going on is not

a certainty.

And just for openers, more than 15 years ago now the NY Times was reporting that

the dams and reservoirs built by our Army Corps of engineers over the past 50 years

was impacting the rotation of the earth!

It would be nice to see Monsanto's corn just phase out -- but it's contaminating nearby

fields and spreading. PLUS, their plans aren't only for corn.

Meanwhile . . . hope you're right and I'm wrong!

I'm sitting thinking the enemy is living in a society that makes it so easy to gain weight - not Warpy.

Especially in light of all the evidence otherwise. I'm not saying that Warpy is the enemy, just either accidentally or purposely being misleading. Obesity is curable, and unless one has a medical condition, it can be done with eating less, eating healthy, exercising and using one's will power. Yes, it is a tough row to hoe, but it can and has been done countless times.

But simply throwing up one's hands and declaring obesity is incurable is simply inexcusable bullshit.

I have no doubt obesity can be successfully managed. Cured I'm not so sure I about. I don't know of anyone who lost a lot of weight who can just stop thinking about it anymore and move on to something else. I think it's like heart disease or diabetes. With a lot of care it can be managed, but natures desire to pack on the pounds I don't think just goes away. I know a couple people who've lost over 100# and have to keep fighting to not regain it. It takes almost nothing for them to gain 5 pounds in a week or two. Plus most normal sized people I know struggle to keep losing that 5-10# they keep gaining.

I'm no scientist but from what I see in the world around me I'd say obesity is manageable, but not curable. No matter what people do nature tries to pack on the tonnage. This isn't because people are weak and lazy. It's because we live in a land of plenty and ease and the human was built to survive famine and hardship.

That's just the way I see it.

"I abhor the diet industry because they are making money off of desperate people."

but because they are NOT curing obesity.

All nutrition has been stolen from our foods by pesticides and other garbage --

And our water is full of hormones and chemicals -- what happened to just water?

These are hormones which effect every part of our systems -- and especially those which

are given to livestock to make them grow fat!

Hypertension, heart disease, cancers are all connected to the environment and the crap

foods we eat!

Amazing how many people still don't get it about food --

And how many still don't understand that our natural medicines/drugs are our plants!

Much of which we've destroyed before we've even know what they could do!

this is what the far left nutbags offer us. Unaccountability for all.

....and addictive -- !!

:evilgrin:

so sad

start spewing immediately?

:eyes:

It's pretty depressing.

people and when I land in a European airport it is not (I am talking about Italy and Spain now). I'll be checking the airport in Lisbon next month but I am pretty sure of what I will find. And these people eat great food, seemingly all the time (esp. the Spanish who are always in cafes eating and drinking.

And we never used to be this way. I have a photo of my husband's German American family circa 1946 and only a couple of elders are a bit heavy around the middle. Everyone else is quite thin. These are people in the midwest. Today when we go to Wisconsin there are many people of this same German stock who are obese to very obese.

So I wonder if we got this way not through our basic gene structure but due to lifestyle and the foods we eat, can we not change that?

You will get some of the explanation

And now as some of our habits and food products, (call them food in loose terms) are making their way across the pond that will change.

Why do you think the WHO has issued an alert?

I'm not doubting Warpy's point at all here. It just seems that we CAN cure it through education about what is in our foods (sic)as well as lifestyle (altho this whole discussion is about how you can't get thin just by exercising). You CAN build muscle, tho, and muscle helps burn fat which is why men don't tend to gain weight the way women do.

I am not sure that the Italians, French and Spanish are going to give up their cuisine for any garbage we send their way. Why would they do that? I live in New England and eat one hell of a lot better here than I did for 3 weeks in Wisconsin this past August. It costs more to eat fresher foods but I just eat less. Once you are used to better you can't go back so I don't see most Europeans eating the way we eat.

Just my 2 cents here...

you can control it, but you will not cure it.

More and more of the medical literature is clear on this. What we are dealing is with an addiction, (some of it done by your lovely food industry)... and you never cure and addiction either... you control it.

Now you also hit on another issue in our food industry.

Eating fresh is far more expensive... that is a policy decision, made by Nixon.

We need to change that so start paying attention to the AG bill, because that is part of the answer. PSAs are another... but also controlling the food industry. And I will now hear the PRC screaming about Personal Responsibility and all that, never mind we also have additives in food that are not food. So the snookerdoolies no longer have cream in them... either.

THEY KNOW that if you put more food on a plate people will eat it

They also know that if I serve you a small portion of fries vs a larger one my profit margin is higher with the larger portion, health be damned. And these days Americans in general are portion controlled addled.

Hell, ask people how many portions of protein is in the usual steak? Most people will tell you whatever is on the plate. Well if you go to the steak house or buy it at the store... most people will NOT know that the PORTION is four ounces of one inch steak, or for a close approximation, the palm of your hand.

Look at servings of bagels... modern bagels are anywhere from thirty to forty percent larger than they were just twenty years ago... and a portion is... about a 3 oz bagel... except for the Lenders ones, you will not find that in the store. For the record I don't like the Lenders, so I buy them, and half them.

My favorite example though are apples. One portion is a small apple... I work hard to find SMALL apples at the store.

Hell, for lunch I had 1.5 portions of protein between the eggs, the left over meat.

1 portion of vegies

1.5 of fruit

2 of carbs... 1.5 I shared the pita bread with the birds.

Most people cannot do this exercise... they truly can't... and I do blame the food industry.

Hell, yesterday we went for our monthly meeting of the gaming club. We went to mickey Ds for lunch and we got ONE combo meal and a burger for hubby and shared the fries... hell I could not finish the "chicken" nuggets, which are actually less caloric dense than the salads... think about that one... Oh and the chicken is designed to work in particular ways in the human body...

Our fellow eaters were amazed we did that... but it is simply too much food. Oh and we didn't even finish the fries either, which are about five portions anyway... in one serving of what Mickey Ds calls medium fries... and they still pushed the large combo.

I do recommend people DO read Kessler... and yes the French paradox may very well come to an end.

Why? Americans these days eat all the time. We used not to. Well that solid three meals a day in Europe is also breaking down.

In the American republic the first 50 years after the revolution, we were literally a nation of drunks. Much of the country at that time was rural and people worked at very strenuous jobs. They drank hard cider a LOT. As we pushed westward we found the ability to grow way too much corn and began to make whiskey, and it was really strong, much stronger than the spirits we drink today. Drinking to excess was defended on the grounds that we were a free people. The social costs were enormous, as you can imagine. As the industrial revolution took hold, workers were at great risk of accidents after drinking (where on the farm it didn't matter as much). But families were ruined, women and children suffered (altho a sizable number of women drank to excess, too). There was not a sober enough workplace to get the economy producing in an age of technological advancement.

Then, we stopped. The temperance movement went into full gear and organized public meetings where people publically "took the pledge" to stop drinking. The religious groups came in on it and sealed the deal. The argument was made "How free are you if you are shackled to an addiction?"

Here is something that worked. So did the anti-smoking campaign of just a few years ago. I know that there are very large and powerful corporate interests at stake here. But I do think this addiction can be controlled.

If alcohol and nicotine addiction was effectively controlled, why can't obesity be controlled? It's not as if you can't get food sustenance except for fast food. I understand that the substances that have been introduced into our food set us up for addiction. But there are people like me that simply won't eat those foods. Yes, I have been educated about good food and have chosen to live in an area of the country that can support my food choices. And I have chosen to spend a higher percentage of my income on good food, giving up other things. I guess you can say I feel "empowered." So is it outrageous to say others cannot also be educated and "empowered"?

Kessler's book is but one of many that have come

So are localvores...

And of course there are other things going on.

By the way I am glad that you feel empowered by eating better food. but if you were making 24K a year or less and had a family of four you'd not be able to afford it.

I hate to say this, but one problem we have with the American progressive movement is that it is very much a middle class movement, with middle class values and even middle class be responsible for yourself.

I have met people who have to chose between the junk food (which is cheap) and the electric bill. Most folks who have chosen to have healthy foods, can afford it. I admit it. I can... but some of my "neighbors" down in the bad side of the tracts cannot.

That is where the AG bill plays a role... as well as national policy decisions.

As is, a lot of our current agricultural practices are not sustainable and our land will be far less productive due to them, and global weather change.

So one way or the other some of the obesity will be gone... but realize just like alcoholism... it can be controlled but not cured.

"Eating fresh is far more expensive... that is a policy decision, made by Nixon."

Eating fresh is more expensive than eating -- canned? frozen? packaged / processed / wrapped and flavored? Pre-cooked?

I say NOOOO. Eating fresh unprocessed food is much cheaper than eating processed packaged food.

You do have to have some common sense in picking out your food or else you just have to practice doing it for awhile.

I try to get the freshest food I can get or the best frozen selection I can get. I try to get organic cereals that do not have cane syrup as one of their first 3 ingredients. I buy a lot of lettuce, red wine vinegar and extra virgin olive oil. In season I get fruits in abundance and we eat and eat them.

Etc. This is what I try to do...

is cheaper than a fresh piece of fruit.

"Wrong, processed food, especially the real cheap junk
Posted by nadinbrzezinski


is cheaper than a fresh piece of fruit."

--------------------------------
If you eat a processed 'cheap junk' food item -- you haven't eaten any food. If you eat fruits vegetables, nuts and grains, and yes you can add meat / cheese / eggs / butter and stuff to that list, you are getting the nutrients out of the food you eat. The rest is just fluff -- you might as well be eating cotton balls as far as what it will do for you.

Say, for instance, a pot of beans -- I have a big Costco bag of pinto beans, and the other day I soaked a cup of those, threw them in a crockpot with some tomato puree and garlic, onion, celery, spices and nothing else -- it made for several meals for the next several days. Added a little butter / fresh parmesan cheese and sour cream to the bowl and it was very tasty as well.

Of course, not everyone can do the luxury of keeping things stocked up from Costco, like butter and parmesan cheese and now they even have organic tomato products, but just buying a couple fresh items here and there you can keep yourself well-fed on a pretty tight budget.

If you don't decide til you're hungry what you're gonna eat (guilty myself very often!) that's when you waste your money on junk food, and you may be conveniently filled, but your body didn't get what it needs. It's good to go home to a kitchen that has some things stocked up, and by this I don't mean convenience food (although having some of that too is not necessarily a bad thing).

if you are poor buying some Maruchan soup, dirt cheap, is filling and will go a long way.

Buying a head of lettuce for the same price is not that filling and will not go that far. And if you live on the wrong side of the tracks and there are no local stores that sell fresh... which is a reality in a lot of the inner city... well taking that public buss adds hours to your day...

Yes, beans and rice are nutritious, but the cooking time that it takes to make proper beans is not the time poor people at times working three jobs have.

So yes, they are stuck to the maruchan... and perhaps some cheese. If they are lucky some vegies.

Look, I saw it when married to a USN Chief while living in housing. I see it when I go to the exchange, More than one during the end of the month, people trying to spread the food stamps and at times ME paying for things they could never afford, like oh apples, or even worst a gallon of milk for the kids.

I will not blame victims, go right ahead.

I'd rather fight to get those stores reopen in the inner city, selling for prices people can afford, I will fight for the AG bill to be changed, and of course to remove all that crap from the food chain.

Now if you wish to continue to blame victims, like many other middle and upper class Americans who can feel smug about their eating habits, be my guest. Actually, when the poor complain that progressives don't get this, they are onto something, and modern progressives have a lot in common with the great progressive movement of a hundred years ago, with the exact same blind spots too.

a selection of fresh items, or if they do they were way overpriced. And I'm sure someone who has to travel a ways by bus to get to the store isn't going to be coming home with a bag of beans from Costco, nor would they have access to a Costco-type store, and a small bag of beans at a little convenience store is likely to be way overpriced.

So I agree people in those living situations are caught between a rock and a hard place, dealing with food-stamp income and kids to feed besides.

I do find, even living alone, that if I feel like cooking something I like to make extra so I can eat the same thing the next without cooking, and if it's soup or beans or spaghetti sauce, I like to really make extra, and I can stick some zip-lock bags in the freezer for another rainy day. So some of the saving money on food thing has to be planned out ahead of time, and practiced before it becomes easier to do (I didn't like my cooking til I had been cooking for myself for a number of years).

Access to affordable healthy food is as much of a health issue here as the debate over national health care.

(I eat alot of maruchan noodles too from time to time, I confess! Chopped spinach, onions, or frozen peas go good with those.)

is not cheap.

The folks who have access to the commissary, as long as they live ON BASE have it better than most working poor in the country. After all the PX does have a fair selection of fresh and their prices are competitive with Costco, but the rest of the working poor don't have those options.

Why yes, I do say this, people do have a blind spot.

Now you have heard it, I have seen it.

Then again, as a working medic I was exposed to levels of poverty in Mexico that ALSO exist in the United States... and those levels of poverty are something that most Americans of middle class (or Mexicans for that matter) cannot even comprehend. Go watch District Nine... good sci fi flick. Silly me, I thought when watching that they managed to recreate those living conditions in a studio. No. it was filmed in situ in South Africa. It might give people an idea of what real crushing poverty looks like. And yes, we have that level of poverty even in the inner city. The buildings may look better from the outside, but it is just as crushing.

Mickey D's, Burger King and some chain restaurant that shovels slop at the masses are not good sources of food. Why would you patronize them when you KNOW they are shoveling garbage full of sugar and salt?

You have a theme that Americans are addicted to sugary and salty foods, and that they are unable to resist those foods, which are provided by the food pushers. You evidence knowledge of their ways, but you frequently mention eating at Mickey D's, or Burger King, or Garden Variety Chain Restaurant.

This is where choice comes into play. You choose to either pull into Mickey D's or not pull into Mickey D's. The instant you pull into Mickey D's, you have decided to feed yourself garbage. Is that your act, or the act of someone who is helpless to the control of some food related addiction?

meat and potatoes type folks. My husband and his sister tell stories about the Limberger cheese! So please tell me how these people, who are so thin in the family photo, would be so obese now? Something else happened, and it wasn't the genes!

1.- Their food did not have transfats, or other crap in it.

2.- Meal times were tightly defined in the early part of the century... you have THREE meals, and adults usually did not eat in between meals, unless they were sick. Kids ate snacks, they were growing you know.

3.- Dinner Dishes were 10 inches not 12 inches... you think this does not make a difference, just 300 calories extra per meal, average.

4.- Cities were designed for walking, far more than today.

5.- Of course there were two periods in those photos were meat was a luxury... and potatoes were watched. one of them was the Great Depression... which meant some folks could not go to fight the cause of freedom due to that malnutrition, and of course WW II when things like butter, meat and other high concentrated foods were rationed.

Of course, none of this had nuthing to do with why people gained weight...

Though on a serious note, them egg heads with PhDs have found a fat gene or two in the code. It does exist and it does change how the human body acts in times of plenty. IN fact, over the 60K or so that Homo Sapiens has been around it is highly adaptive. It is just that we haven't had a good ol' fashioned hunger in three generations or so... which is highly unusual in human history.

ever went hungry, they did have regulated meal times and did a lot more walking. Their family had only one car. Walking to school was the norm. Commercial snack products practically didn't exist.

When I look at my sister in law in the photo I get sad. She was a perfectly proportioned little girl of 4 or 5 and was of normal weight until her 40s and her weight gain came on her. Within a few years she was diabetic and now, in her mid sixties she is obese. She has battled breast and skin cancer and just this last year has developed heart disease and has landed in the ER twice to get her heart beat regularized. She is on Coumadin. She is not a lazy person nor does she gorge herself on food (that I know of). I chalk it up to additives in food and of course the fact that we are, many of us (me included), too sedentary.

in 1982

The crisis as we know it started in 1985 when you track it down.

It is no coincidence.

Now me... the diabetes is in the genes... yes, even with family living in Eastern Europe, well they had this sweet pee disease running through the family for as long as they remember.

Sweet pee you asked? Guess how before modern labs it was tested by doctors?

Problem is if you can taste it, sugars are really out of whack.

Now obese people do eat more... in secret, and it is part of the tragedy of the addiction. I know I did... no hiding about it.

And I am also willing to bet that she is portion controlled addled.

Hell I did "gorge myself" at souplantation yesterday. I had more than my usual two tomatos and some of other vegies I usually have for dinner. (We have our main meal at lunch) I went out with brother in law and sis... she should know better as a dietitian... anyhow... I ate more than I usually eat... and I felt full, not uncomfortable so, but full... but I did not gorge myself nothing close to what most of my fellow diners were doing. And watching people eat, I doubt most even noticed what they were doing... again part of it.

I highly recommend the book. It is more than just an eye opener. Oh and saying that your sister, or mine are portion control addled, is not an insult, nor are they lazy. It is just the way it is. Americans are and also we tend to eat at all hours of the day and night. And yes, we are more sedentary, but not so more than any other first world economies. People work in offices in other places, but office meetings may include some water, maybe some coffee, but not bagels and cream cheese like ours do.

It is a cultural shock for furiegners to realize that you can bring coffee to class, or for that matter a whole lunch and that this is deemed acceptable. Trust me, my sis and I had that culture shock. And like most college students we did gain quite a bit during our first semester in college.

:-)

Where we came from, where still there is this eating three meals, though broken down to the point that yes people are gaining fast as American customs and styles of meals come in, you still do not bring coffee to class in college. It is seen as lack of respect.

at the disrespect shown. Students would go to the cafeteria and bring back cheeseburgers and french fries and sit there eating them during class!

On the sugar thing, the one thing I DON'T like about eating in Italy is all that sugar they consume at breakfast. They have their caffe and a cornetto or a richer pastry. My Italian friend is totally shocked that Americans eat sausage at breakfast! I do try to eat a little fresh fruit for breakfast when I am there; that doesn't seem to upset them...(oooh, the blood oranges in Sicily!)

and the culture of food, which is fascinating on its own

In the US what is acceptable for breakfast also is regional to a point.

Hell, hot cakes is common in some areas and if you go into native American reservations you may see some of the stuff that is common in Mexico, such as... corn meal made with water and sugar and at times some flavoring, (atole)

Or eggs with tortillas.

As a medic at times we had things for breakfast that shocked our American volunteers, like beans and a beef stock... with plenty of cilantro, chillis and of course tortillas.

And a few times we went to the country side as guests, trust me, you don't ask what you are eating. First it is rude, second, not sure you want to know...

The point is not that people went from lean or slim to obese but that they just went to obese. I just don't know how anybody can say a human being should normally carry around 300 pounds of body weight.

I am NOT saying that that person is not a decent human being, I am simply saying that it is a health issue in our society. I have other medical issues but because those issues are not immediately noticeable it doesn't become an issue on DU. but it still exists. So what?

But no one really had any fat on their bodies --

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone should carry around 300 pounds

of body weight.

It's obviously not a choice.

Unless we suggest that most of the world has will power and American don't?

we don't have the time to do that in our American society. I know that when I was working full time I just didn't have the time to cook that way, altho 30 years ago I did. Now that I'm retired, I find myself too lazy half the time to spend a long time in the kitchen cooking, and then cleaning up! However, some of the most delicious meals I have had at home have been made that way.

I just made Julia Child's ratatouille and it took 2 1/2 hours. All the ingredients were fresh and in season (which is why I made it). I cleaned as I went along so I wouldn't face a dreary load of dirty pans, bowls and cutlery. But I have enough to eat on for a few meals. Trust me, though, I don't do THAT on a regular basis!

In other post, I made mention that during WWII I know that they ran cafeteria
type restaurants -- so it's not completely a problem of food away from home.

But, when I was a kid the restaurants had celery and olives on the table --
Appetizers were fruits -- grapefruit, melons --
And, the main dishes were not so heavy with animal products --
CHEESE has taken over the world now!

One of the Julia Child comments I love was that when you see a plateful of very
arranged items what you know is that there are a lot of fingerprints on it!

Exactly how I feel about today's dishes. Desserts are now $8 for a tiny bit of
cake with chocolate syrup and whipped cream everywhere and powdered surgar
sprinkled all over the plate!!

Remember when desserts were fruits?



:)

You are right. It is a lifestyle choice but it also has to do with money and time. And, most Americans were not brought up to understand how to prepare healthy food.

Just to avoid their have ANY role in their weight.

They deliberately choose to demote themselves to the moral level of rocks - just so that no-one can say that any of them have any ability to control their condition.

I wouldn't pay that price, but it's a free country, as they say.

around for years and have kept it off.

The only other thing I changed in my lifestyle was that I STARTED eating breakfast.

Only the lazy will argue against exercise in my opinion.

It works.

Walking long enough to burn up 100 calories each day for a year will result in ten pounds less fat at the end of that year. It is math, and it ain't rocket science. It's fuel. Burn it off.

That is enough to at least stem off weight gain...and a little bit more actually results in weight loss.

Couple years ago I lost about 50lbs from running about five or six miles a day and watching what I ate... I found that the running gave me a good motivation to eat in moderation too. I mean, if I just ran for an hour, did I really want to eat that large piece of cake just so I could have a few moments of delicious pleasure? :P

So, I'm not sure if you consider that a "cure", but it sure as hell is a start.

and is no longer over-weight. She attends two exercises classes a week and eats from smaller dishes. However, she did not become successful at losing all of the excess weight until going to over a year of counseling sessions to address her eating disorder and depression.

She now is happier and healthier than she ever has been. The real key to overcoming her 30+ year struggle with obesity was taking care of the emotional side of why she was overeating and making poor eating choices.

I guess one could argue that he's correct because the truth be told, if you are a fatty you will always be a fatty. You can lose weight, but it's some kind of body-destiny that if you have become fat then you have the propensity to become fat and you have to live with that condition, if not the symptom the same way a lot of people do with a number of conditions.

But conversationally: Bullshit exercise is useless. I won't label what is bullshit, because I don't want to start a Holy War, so suffice it to say that what is not bullshit is demanding aerobic exercise, more specifically bicycling. Swimming is great, but most people don't have a pool big enough and then end up fucking around and thinking they have exercised. Dance aerobics are great, until you tear something up. Running is fine, unless you can't or unless it does you in. All in all, biking is where it's at. Even guys who can't walk can work it off on a good (unfortunately expensive) handbike, and have pretty amazing upper bodies while they are at it.

Ride a bike on street or trail carrying your own weight for ten miles in an hour or less in 90ºF weather and if you are hungry at the end of your ride, then you need to look at your diet.

I don't believe that. I don't believe we are born to be a fatty. We are born into a society where the odds are against us being a weight normal to us, but that is NOT obese. 50 years ago people weren't obese like we are today. And they aren't in LOTS of other countries.

Please don't apply the normative label to this country. Ain't so elsewhere...

for ten miles in an hour or less in 90ºF weather and if you are hungry at the end of your ride, then you need to look at your diet"

When I make a ride like that, I am not hungry, but I get really thirsty for fruit juice, and I can down a whole quart/liter in one setting.

Exercise is designed to burn calories, which will indeed stimulate hunger. Then it is up to the individual to exercise some self control and not give in to that hunger.

Geez, we want give every possible excuse for not implementing the simplest weight loss routine around, eat less, eat healthy and exercise. The trouble with that regimen is that it doesn't make the big bucks for the weight loss industry, thus it is either ignored, downplayed, and now demonized.:eyes:

If I am hungry (or anxious or almost anything bio-emtional) and I go for a bike ride, the first ten minutes is bullshit running through and clearing my head. The next 50 minutes is bliss, and when it's over I am not hungry. I am, however, thirsty and like most people my brain sometimes interprets dry and thirsty as hungry, much the same way pot gives the munchies.

In fact, after an extra hard workout, eating is the last thing I want to do. My current job involves walking though swamp and woods all day. I'm rarely hungry at lunch time. On slow, less active days, I am ravenous by 10:00. In other words, NOT exercising makes me hungry! This "theory" might be true for diabetics, but it's not the case for the rest of us, IMO.

Exercise helps the body function better. While its role in weight loss or maintenance is small, burning up an extra 100 calories a day to exercise is the difference in not gaining 10 pounds in a year. It's a lot harder to trim weight by exercise than by intake reduction, of course.

While exercise might increase hunger, I've often found the opposite to be true.

I'm 48 and do 30 minutes of cardio and then weight training several times a week. I have to still really watch what I eat if I want to lose a few pounds.
The best thing it does for me is how strong my legs stay and how much easier I can move than some other people my age. If you find yourself having trouble getting up out of chairs or struggling to climb stairs, you need some leg workouts. It's amazing how fast you can turn that around.
I'm only talking about a half hour or so maybe once a week for the legs. It's best to do the cardio at least three times a week but make one day the leg day. A quick routine on the leg weight machines at the gym and you'll get yourself back to where you were years ago.

While the control group might lose weight without the exercise they don't increase muscle tone or bone density or any number of other health benefits that exercise provides.

More calories than sitting on the couch. You do have to combine a lower calorie diet with exercise for it to work though. I was overweight for several years, tried dieting without exercise many times, never worked. Tried exercising while still eating bad, that didn't work either. You have to combine a good diet and exercise and then it's amazing how the pounds melt off. I lost 40 pounds in 6 months, then it just snowballs, as you exercise your metabolism increases, you burn more calories even when at rest. It was hard for me to stop losing weight.

Sure exercise may stimulate hunger, that means it's working. I always enjoyed that feeling because I knew I was going to be burning some fat and I didn't give into it. The article acts like people are helpless and if they exercise they may get hungry, the horror. Anyone that ever really wants to be serious about dropping weight needs to learn to embrace that hungry feeling as a great thing as long as you are eating small healthy low calorie meals along with it. It means your body is gonna go after some of that fat to fill the void.

but nothing works without discipline.

I've lost 30+ pounds in the last two years, including about eight this summer. I couldn't have done it if I ate every time I wanted to. I've also tried to do fifty minutes of cardio at the gym at least five days a week and walk to and from places more often instead of taking the subway or the bus. However, I think just being hungry sometimes is the best thing when it comes to losing weight.

If I'm thirsty I drink. If I'm tired I sleep. If I'm hungry I eat. I mean, I'm not saying you should not do what you think is right for your body. Honest. But for me, I'm thinking there's a reason my body is telling me something. It just seems wrong to teach myself to ignore my body signals.

Now granted if my body says I'm hungry I give it a piece of fruit or a handful of raw carrot sticks and not a Whopper combo. I'm just not sure the hunger is the problem for most people, I think it's the choices we make when the hunger hits. And our society makes it VERY easy to make unhealthy choices.

want it to be something that they cannot control, thereby making themselves "feel better" about their lack of self control and personal accountability.

some obese people use food as a drug because they don't know how else to deal with emotional abuse. For those I figure telling them they are just weak and lazy is kinda counterproductive.

some obese people never learned good nutrition in the first place and if they are interested in learning better nutrition choices and then working on implementing those over time then I'm all over that - lazy and weak has nothing to do with that either.

Some obese people are just flat out overwhelmed by all other the other shit they have to deal with in life and grabbing a quickie burger is what our society has made the easiest. Ideally it would be great if these folks were just a little tougher so they could pack the carrot sticks and apples instead of running through a drive through. But I figure if someone is do buried in life they can't hardly come up for air, telling them to quit being lazy and weak is probably not a good thing.

Some obese people just really don't give a hoot and eat what they please just for pure rebellion's sake.

there's probably dozens of other reasons.

Whatever they are, I can't judge obesity as some sort of moral or personal failing. I don't see thinness as being acceptable and fatness as being unacceptable. Not all thin people are moral superiors so making a judgement based on what someone looks like seems a little silly to me.

At least I don't believe that thinness is some kind of "moral superiority." It isn't. It's the fact that morbid obesity is not a good thing and cannot be defended as a good thing that happened to people. Not for their health, well being, for our economy, for our nation. We should not judge them on appearance. We SHOULD be concerned about their health status. Can we at least agree that obesity is not a good thing and leave out all the crap about moral and personal failing?

It's all about appearance. Period.

Anyone else who says differently is kidding themselves, and we've seen it borne out on DU hundreds of times over the years.

Morbid obesity to the extent that it exists in our country is a health issue. Our people have never been so afflicted and we have many health problems that exist as a result. It is not a moral or personal failing and no one should be judged in that fashion. And it is not a question of people being judged. It is only a problem that can be solved if we want to do it as a nation. That is one of the reasons for health care reform: we can help people with food addiction through prevention programs. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as the programs are not judgmental as to people's appearance.

health surveys, IT IS ABOUT HEALTH... and the health status of a population

For you it may be about appearance, but for me it is about health and health status... and health care costs long term

If you are overweight, I will spare you the health lecture. If you are obese, where exactly do you want to start with that lecture?

You think it is about appearance? It is just one aspect of it, and actually the appearance the pretty people push is not real... let me explain... when you have things like photoshop you can make short legs look long... you can even skin tones and yes, you can even make a moderately overweight person look skinny. That said, our values pushed in things like Cosmo are not healthy either, as those people tend to be a tad on the too thin side of things, see bulimia and anorexia...

But for those of us who've dealt with this as health care workers...

Well in ten years I only handled ONE super obese patient who was having a heart attack. These days it is a once a year occurrence for my local ERs... do try to convince me this is just about appearance.

When push comes to shove in any of these arguments at DU, after the shouting's over, it's always the same thing. It's all about appearance. 99% of those who post on these threads aren't interested in health, despite the fact they talk a good game. When they're challenged, they can't wait to tell any of us how repulsive they find us. It's all about the fact they just don't want to look at, be friends with, or sleep with a fat person. Period. To them, we shouldn't even be allowed to exist. If this was any other group, ethnicity, religious or sexual preference, the threads would be immediately locked.

It's happened over and over and over in the eight years I've been here. I can count on the fingers of one hand the numbers who've consistently either offered health and nutrition advice (yourself, flvegan for example,) and normal weight people who get sick of the bashing (Skittles). Seriously. It's all about shaming, blaming and bullying, and it goes on and on.

And yes I agree making it easier to make healthier choices is something we should concern ourselves with. General public policies that make getting more exercise easier (like sidewalks and bike lanes) and making healthy food choices on the go easier (perhaps adding taxes to certain food items to support public health programs) should surely be debated and supported. Considering the fact thin people drop dead of sudden heart attacks every day tells me it's not JUST the fat people that need better support for health choices.

I'm all for adequate counseling, education, mentoring and support if someone asks for it. But I'm sorry, to say morbid obesity can't be defended - I don't understand why a person should be asked to DEFEND a health problem.

I am a skinny person by nature also born with Type 1 diabetes. If I scarf down a whole pint of Hagen Daz few people will bat an eyelash. Because of my thinness people just make the assumption the rest of my dietary choices are good. That may or may not be true. It my case it is, and I would never be idiotic enough to scarf a whole pint of Hagen Daz. But somehow with fat people we all think we have a right to be concerned about THEIR health for them. I don't get it.

This is a problem we didn't have to deal with 30 or 40 years ago. It didn't exist.

And I did not say a PERSON should be asked to defend a health problem. I said I didn't understand why a health problem should be defended, unless it is against an argument based on a personal or moral reason. Health problems are just that: health problems. There is no moral basis,just a health basis for helping people with obesity. Why help them? well, there are a myriad health problems attached to morbid obesity. Why not try to stop them or help them? It seems unethical not to, doesn't it? How can we let people suffer? Is there a reason we shouldn't? Why did we help the smoker to quit? Why SHOULD we as a nation try to stop obesity? Is there a reason to do so? Should our children be consigned to an unhealthy life of obesity?

These are real questions that do not get into the arena of "appearances." You can't say you are really interested in public health without trying to work on them. It is all I am saying...

Eating is a a necessity of life. Between genetics, cultural dietary practices and society, the whole idea of what is dangerously overweight and what is an acceptable amount of weight is a very fluid concept. My personal hope is that as a society we focus on making healthy choices easier and then simply let people's bodies do whatever it is they are going to do. I think it's a mistake to focus on the weight itself as some sort of problem, when in fact morbid obesity is merely ONE symptom that is very easy to pick out of a crowd. As I said, I am all for any program that will encourage people to make healthier choices. I'm all over that. But there is very fine line between encouraging healthy choices and telling someone who's larger than whatever norm is established that they must change their behaviors because they are a detriment to society.

Surely morbid obesity is a unique problem. At that point helping someone who wants help gets complicated - well beyond the "stop eating and move your fat ass" mantra we seem to see everywhere. And again, I am in agreement with you that the resources for the morbidly obese could be much greater.

We need to protect kids who may come into this world with a slight predeliction towards being heavier or skinnier based on genes but who otherwise are in our hands to nourish properly. The things that make people so obese are generally NOT the things that nourish properly. We could start with more parental education, so they know how to do this, if they need the help. It's easier to get them into healthy eating if you start early. I only wish our economy would get back in shape so we could HAVE programs that would do this. What wehave now is not enough.

What are you saying? That because I am not obese I have no right to comment on one of the biggest health issues affecting our people, especially our youth? Bullshit. I am not judging obese people. I think if you want to live that way, then live that way. But do NOT call it a "disease" or attempt to justify it as anything other than a lack of self control. I have worked in the field of addiction for over 25 years and that smacks in the face of anyone who has ever overcome their "addiction". It takes a tremendous amount of training and self control to overcome it and guess what..... it had to ultimately be about personal accountability in the end.

This is where the left becomes totally irrational.

pick up his book, chiefly read it, and then come back and tell me it is not a form of addiction

Here is a free clue from the book

The way food has been engineered these days it is as addictive as cocaine... read that statement again

You know of dopamine and pleasure centers, read the book. Perhaps after you do, you will realize that yes, it is a form of addiction.

it is a personal failure. So what? I have failed in numerous things in my life and as a result of it, I have succeeded. Why is FAILURE such a bad word. I fail daily. I learn from it. What I find from the left is that FAILURE becomes a reason to not ever be responsible for oneself. I do not attach a moral issue with it. It is what it is and I find way too many people trying to justify it instead of speaking the truth.

The funny thing about this board is it will rail on and on about the evils of American consumption as an issue regarding resources, conservation etc...but will back off and rationalize the personal over consumption of individuals and justify to hell's end about it. SAD.

I NEVER argued, EVER, from the position that "fit" people are morally superior. EVER! I will not, however, tolerate the nonsense from the people who try to make themselves non accountable for their weight. Barring the rare genetic and ill situations that are out of people's control, the VAST amount of obesity is controllable. For those who continually look for something to blame other than their bad choices in consumption, I have no excuse for them. But it is their responsibility and no one elses.

or I'd walk out

If one is trying to lose weight they have to learn to live with that hungry feeling, it's part of it. I learned to embrace it, eat small 200 calorie meals 5-7 times a day and just keep busy.

A lot of the time, you're not hungry, you just feel like eating. Or you're dehydrated, or haven't slept enough, and you only think you're hungry. It's better to not just eat whenever and whatever you feel like eating, when watching your weight.

hungry (which ought to be dealt with) and simply wanting to eat. It's easy for those signals to get confused.

Apparently it's the same part of the brain sending the hungry/thirsty signal, and sometimes it gets confused and you really just need to hydrate. Don't know the exact science behind it, but it seems to be working for me. Certainly can't hurt.

why you should drink water in between meals. If you are still hungry, a small snack is appropriate

Granted I have always been a little underweight by nature -- but in the less active months of the winter I tend to put on a couple of pounds and seem to be hungry all the time. Spring summer and fall I'm working in the yard, hiking in the woods, walking the fairs, riding my bike to the store. I find in the warmer months I do eat more often but I tend to choose lighter food because I'm on the go.

Having dropped 70 pounds over the last 2 1/2 years I can tell you that exercise is an equal component along with eating right/better/healthy

My brother ran marathons for several years (including Boston and New York) as a hobby, training daily year round. I come from a family of people who tend to be heavy and, despite running miles and miles and miles every week, my brother never got to a normal weight. You'd think, even if he had eaten every meal at McDonald's and scarfed a pint of Ben & Jerry's every night, he would have been thin as a rail, but that wasn't the case.

I said equal component. Running alone does not allow for or supersede a good diet.

and never got to a normal weight.

Sounds like he was taking in an amount of calories equal to/more than he was burning.

running so you would think he would lose a ton of weight. He lost some, of course, but then it stopped. That wasn't the point of his running anyway. He was doing it because he liked it. My point is that you and I could go on the identical weight loss regime and you might lose 3 pounds a week while I might only lose 1. Everybody's different and some of it is out of our control because of genetics.

If someone who is not obese can or cannot lose a few pounds by running, it is not a big deal. He or she is getting cardiovascular workouts and muscle training. Great thing.

What is the REAL problem in our society is the morbidly obese, a problem that has surfaced in a recent amount of time. For all these years, people have not weighed 300 lbs. but now we have so many in our population either weighing that much or approximating it. How do we deal with that? It cannot be called normal.

most of the morbidly obese actually have a slightly higher Basal Metabolic Rate.

Now they also have all kinds of issues with mobility.

I found my birth family 6 years ago at age 33. They are all heavy and struggle daily with ALOT of excess weight.

Take a guess at whether I am a fit person or a fat person.

after they exercise. Obviously if you want to loose weight, you have to reduce your caloric intake, and just exercising but eating all you want is not going to to the trick.

this is the dumbest article I have ever read

It was a dumb article.

When I played sports, I run and had a lot of physical activity, but I was not thin. I only lost a lot of weight when I ate a lot less.

But I would stop on the way home and get 6-10 $0.49 cheeseburgers or eat a whole pizza so I never lost any weight either and didn't want to back then.

In particular, exercise increase muscle mass, and muscle tissue has a higher metabolism than fat tissue.

Exercise for lengthy periods without eating also lets you become reacquainted with what hunger really feels like.

People tend to eat by the clock, or to snack before they are really hungry. Part of keeping weight off is to not eat until you are actually hungry, and then east slowly with small portions to satisfy it.

Exercising out-of-doors is also beneficial. If it is cold, your body turns up the metabolism to stay warm, which burns more calories. If it is hot, your body sweats to keep cool, which also burns calories to force the water through the cell membranes and out your sweat glands.

but when I get more ambitious and spend a half hour a day on the elliptical, I tend to gain two or three pounds, I assume because muscle weighs more. It's a bit disheartening.

But I'm sure you look better afterward.

and my clothes fit just the same. I'm not anti-exercise, by any means, and I do like to ride my elliptical machine in the winter when we don't get out as much, but it's more for my heart health than my looks. It just doesn't seem to make any difference with my body. I'm maintaining hypothyroid, which I think has a lot to do with how hard it is for me to lose weight.

ed. I'm not hugely overweight, by the way, just 10 pounds over what the doctor says my BMI weight should be. Zero fast food, no bread, cookies, cakes, pies, any of that, and no more than 1800 calories a day, but I just keep hanging around this same weight. Extra pounds get really stubborn once you're past 60.

Good Nutrition + Exercise = fat loss

i've never eaten a chocolate chip bagel...

i don't eat supersize fast food...

it's just so easy for smug fuckheads to spew shit.

I've known many people who insisted they could not lose weight, even with diet and exercise. After going through their diet and accompanying them in what they considered "exercise", I couldn't see how they'd arrived at that conclusion. They were eating garbage and not doing enough exercise.

I'm not talking about people who just aren't the shape they want to be. We come in different shapes, some short, some tall, some thin, some more robust. Obesity is a different matter. Unless a person has some kind of diagnosed hormonal problem, odds are they're earning those pounds every day.

:eyes:

take your smug bullshit and shove it up your ass

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is one of the fundamental and absolute laws of thermodynamics.

It is absolutely impossible to gain weight, be it muscle or fat weight, without consuming calories through food. One cannot create the energy stored in these tissues without first consuming energy.

i never said i ate nothing. although i'm sure that would satisfy the smug fuckwits.

material in my small intestine. I'm fine, but my surgeon said that I'll never be fat as a result. I simply don't, can't, process calories normally. Altho there is a good deal of redundancy in the small intestine, apparently there was enough that was removed to make this difference. I am neither fat nor thin, but neither do I "watch" my weight. Stuff happens.

your point?

My max on weight was a SIDE EFFECT of a diabetes medication, added to low thyroid... and your point?

And you know what, these days I am overweight, and due to INSULIN RESISTANCE and thyroid, you know when I will see normal weight? Perhaps never... or after I die... so what? Been able to maintain quite a large weight loss... and your fucking point is?

Such ignorant bullshit...

And judgmental as well.

Now you really want to know the origin of this epidemic, instead of BLAMING the folks who have become addicted to the foods we consume, why not look at the REAL culprits?

FAT, SUGAR and SALT... + dopamine receptors... and yes lovely corporations, health plans, and other lovely factors of modern American life. I wish it was as simple as the food industry sells this to people like you.

TRY to educate yourself...

Read on the following things:

Syndrome X, don't be too shocked if your doctor does not know of it either.

Insulin Resistance... yes fer real, and now the WHO is using the word PANDEMIC as well.

Thyroid dysfunction... go on... read on JP 5 and water tables in the West...

And yes some folks cannot lose due to reasons your judgmental mind cannot grasp...

Medication side effects, you realize just how many of our poi... err medications have WEIGHT GAIN as a side effect? Geeze louise, the best known are steroids by the way... used for things like bad asthma.

And yes, some people do stuff their mouths silly for many reasons... including folks who are portion controlled addled... or plain out addicted to the junk, or many other reasons science is starting to uncover... and that science is revealing a scary pattern.

By the way here is part of the pattern

Food industry has commercials for oh Carl's Juniors Big Carl... what is that 800-1000 calories, just getting... after the fries are added, perhaps 1400 ... not that many of the people consuming it realize it has that many.

Then you have nutri systems... we will sell you this portion controlled so you can lose that...

Education? Why bother?

Oh and by the way Nurses Follow Up study is how showing that perhaps our recommendations of taking fat consumption down from 40 to 30 percent and replacing that with carbs is ALSO part of the problem. You eat more carbs, especially fast acting ones... insulin goes through the roof which leads to fat storage... simple huh? Not really.

So instead of judging... why not treat this as the proper syndrome it is... look up the definition of syndrome... and get off your judgmental high horse.

Something with chocolate chips is not a bagel; it's a pastry.

--imm

and "psuedo science".

Now if you eat ice cream daily along with other crap and exercise, exercise alone may not do much, but couple that with a healthy diet and self control practices, you will lose and keep weight off. I bet this is manna from heaven for the obese apologists and justifiers out there.

to bash and trash those with an issue you've obviously never had. After all, bullying is FUN, isn't it?

>I bet this is manna from heaven for the obese apologists and justifiers out there.<

Actually, "manna from heaven" for me would be to avoid any contact with you or those like yourself IRL. Let me congratulate you on your "no self-control or personal responsibility" crack above, too. We all know that the thin corner the market in those areas. They're morally superior!

:eyes:

but the reality is obesity is not a disease. It is about lifestyle. I am not saying that it is easy for anyone, but dealing with weight management has always been about self control. Nor is it about moral superiority. I do not have a problem with people who are over weight. I do have a problem when they make it someone else's problem when in reality it has to do with themselves.

Some people's genetics or hormones might make it harder for their bodies to let go of fat, and others' might make it easier for their bodies to burn fat with caloric deprivation or exercise.

:shrug:

It's not a complicated or exciting theory, but why wouldn't people's bodies react differently to exercise and diet just like some people have a reduced susceptibility to cancer or an increased susceptibility to heart disease?

their arrogant bullshit and judging the fat

:shrug:

Others do not.

I'm sure we all know people who get away with eating whatever they want whenever they want it. My dad was like that. My mother, on the other hand, seemed to gain weight just watching Dad eat.

Whoever said life was fair?

It's likely that some day scientists will figure out why some people can eat whatever they want and not gain weight and maybe we'll all be healthier as a result.

It is human nature to eat when you're hungry, and even when you're not if food is available. It's an ancient mechanism to stave off periods of famine. Some people are very good at self-deprivation. Others, not so much so. Saying that fat people have no self-control or drive or determination is pretty ridiculous. Look at all the opera singers who have been heavy, and they are the epitome of self-discipline.

There is more to the subject of obesity than any of us know at the present time. A little more respect and tolerance is called for, in my opinion. They are more to be pitied than censured.

I've been working out for a long time and have seen great results, not only have I gotten thinner but stronger too. I can speak from my own personal experience that this article is bullshit

in calories consumed, doesn't exceed the calories burned/time spent not eating/lean mass created/blood sugar regulation effect.

When I worked with Americorps building trails with hand tools. Best Exercise program ever.I was in the best shape of my life while doing hard Physical labor Of course I started gaining weight when We would go get Tacos afterword but then I noticed and switched to waiting to go home and make something healthy. I eat pretty healthy and am at a good size but my abs are not as flat

The calories-burnt-per-hour figures even for strenuous activities are surprisingly low. Most weight loss comes at the table--eating less and smarter. Of course, exercise is great for muscle tone and having a nice body--and who doesn't like that?

Not exactly thin, but not overweight.

When I worked outside and rode 10 miles a day, I was eating whole large pizzas, drinking 30 cases, and having 4 to 5 full meals a day.
Now that I work sitting on my ass playing on DU, I eat one meal, chicken, veggies, and highballs instead of beer.

It is all about balance and the self control to maintain that balance. Not being able to handle the increased appetite is a plan example of lacking self control.


I think the key to exercise is that it must be hard work. A half hour leisure bike ride is not the kind of exercise that is going to work. You have to sweat it out.

:eyes:

To quote the actual PLoS One study:

"All exercise groups had a significant reduction in waist circumference which was independent of changes in weight."

No shit, Sherlock. Welcome to what's wrong with the BMI.

So, riddle me this: were I to ask a number (and I'll use the study's own words) "of previously sedentary, overweight or obese, postmenopausal women" if as a trainer, I could take 6-8 inches off their waistline and reduce their dress size by 6-10 sizes in 6 months...even though their actual bodyweight would remain fairly close to the same, they'd turn me down?

Also, if one read the study (like I actually did), one would find that there was a "significant" increase in fitness among all participants EXCEPT those outside the control group. Additionally, in the light to moderate exercise groups, the actual weight loss experienced EXCEEDS the predicted weight loss. The highest level of exercise was somewhat less than predicted.

It's a shame that folks publish articles based on a baseline skimming of a study. Even more of a shame that people believe them.

And I'm going to repeat this every time that study is used as the basis for yet another stupid article.

Is this a joke? They are really saying that people can't lose weight because they get hungry and can not control themselves? This is talking about people and not dogs, right?

Just what the doctor ordered - faux-science telling the fattest country in the world not to exercise. We have enough distractions and rationalizations for not being a more active country. :thumbsdown:

so she could prevent constipation, ffs!

I don't know ANYONE who exercises for weight loss.

:shrug:

1. I think the patterns are set when you're younger. If you get fat while you're a child, you'll always have a hard time keeping weight off. With so many children being driven everywhere (never walking or cycling), "exercising" with team sports that don't necessarily involve much sustained movement (baseball, even football), and being fed sugary, starchy snacks every time they turn around (as if they'll die if they don't eat between meals), it's no wonder that we're seeing a generation of fat adults.

For example, in the 1950s, we never snacked while watching TV except on Friday nights, when we'd have our "Friday night treat," which was one cereal bowl of popcorn or a rootbeer float or a couple of cookies. That and parties and road trips were the only time we ate outside of mealtime. We had soft drinks only at parties or on road trips (because we got carsick if we drank milk).


2. Too much of our food is completely lacking in nutritional value and is therefore not satisfying, so we eat more of it. If food has a satisfying flavor and good nutritional value, you need less of it to feel full.

3. Our whole society is built around avoiding physical movement, and cars are the worst offenders. I gained weight after moving from centralized, compact Portland, where I didn't have a car and either walked or took advantage of the superb transit system, to sprawling Minneapolis-St. Paul, where a car is usually the most efficient way to get around. However, not even walking nearly everywhere when I lived in Tokyo or Portland made me actually LOSE weight.

4. After a certain age, the pounds go on no matter what you do for most people, but you'll be better off if you started thin. The only women I know who stay thin after age fifty starve themselves. I recall teaching colleagues whose lunch always consisted of half a thin sandwich (no more than 1/4" of filling) or a cereal bowl-sized container of salad. I don't know how they got through the afternoon on that. If you don't starve yourself or spend hours a day working out, the pounds go on.

5. Whatever weight you are, exercise keeps you healthier. I'm much healthier than my mother the exercise-phobe was at my age. A three-mile walk around the nearby lake is a breeze for me, while my mother at my age couldn't walk six blocks without acting as if she'd been on the Bataan Death March.

6. Once you gain weight, it's really, really, really hard to get it off. I know about ten yo-yo dieters for every person who has successfully slimmed down and stayed that way.

Now if you want to make your weight the focus of your life, go ahead. For the rest of us, I'd say we should exercise and eat nutritious food so that we can be as healthy as possible at whatever weight we are. And the thin people who live on rice cakes and spend two hours a day at the gym because staying thin is their prime goal in life should butt out.

Additives, High fructose corn syrup, salty and sugary snacks, huge portions, lack of exercise.

Lots of people eat right, exercise properly, and are still fat, in spite of what the perfect people on DU think. In fact, some of us have willpower, and do NOT stuff ourselves with huge portions. I have to drink protein shakes because I don't eat enough calories to get enough protein from a normal diet.

If you DO starve yourself, guess what happens? Your body knows it's starving and refuses to lose weight. This happened to me on a medically supervised super low calorie diet. It did NOT work. I lost about five pounds and the doctor started accusing me of cheating, because I didn't lose any more than that. I was not cheating. I realized I was starving to death and stopped going to that doctor and stopped doing that program.

However, there are even more factors: Adrenal fatigue, 20 to 30 million people with a dysfunctional or dead thyroid (which makes it damn near impossible to lose weight, even with thyroid replacement therapy), other hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, testosterone deficiency in men AND women.

Tell your women friends over fifty about this article:

WOMEN AND OBESITY - THE MISSING LINK
Testosterone for Women
Contrarian Endocrinology: Testosterone for Women
by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA

In this series of articles, I will attempt to bring clarity to two common myths about endocrinology. The first myth is the notion of the exclusivity of "male" and "female" sex hormones. While it is true that men have higher concentrations of testosterone and lower concentrations of estrogen and progesterone than women, all of these sex hormones play vital roles in both sexes. The second myth I will dispense with is the notion of "good" and "bad" hormones. Some hormones such as DHT and testosterone have been demonized and blamed for all sorts of health problems, but the fact is that every hormone plays a vital balancing role in the body. Rather than be labeled as "good" or "bad", each hormone has an optimal equilibrium level in the body with respect to the other sex hormones. It is when your sex hormones are out of balance—out of their proper ratios then you may manifest health problem, not just because of any one solitary "villain" hormone.

Testosterone is widely known as being the male hormone, yet it has been so villainized by society that even its medical use in men has been made into a social taboo for many years. However, now not only has testosterone replacement therapy became more accepted for use in men, more and more doctors are now also prescribing testosterone for women. In this article I will outline the benefits for testosterone use in women for increasing libido, mood, energy, skin quality, and most importantly to Mesomorphosis readers – body composition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testosterone and Female Body Composition

A women in her late twenties, came to see me complaining about her difficulty in losing weight. After taking a medical history , it was very difficult to tell what the basis of her problem was. She was working out daily, with a balance of aerobic exercise and weight training under the guidance of a qualified personal trainer. Her diet was a basic low carbohydrate/ high protein diet. Even more perplexing, she had been taking a caffeine/ephedrine thermogenic stack and had previously experimented with some diet drugs as well. Something was obviously wrong. I did blood tests to check all of her hormone levels. When the results came back, all of her hormones were in the normal range except for, you guessed it, testosterone! She had very low free testosterone level. It was equal to that seen in a postmenopausal women. This was an obvious source of her fat loss problem .

While the role of testosterone in maintaining muscle mass and losing body fat may be obvious to bodybuilders and athletes, it is a basic hormonal fact that is often absent in the medical community. It is known that many women begin to gain fat rapidly about ten to fifteen years before the menopause and also after. The connection between low to absent testosterone production and the deterioration of a healthy body composition is rarely made. Most women are often only given estrogens and progestins as hormone replacement therapy, but not testosterone.

I have found in my medical practice that giving women estrogen and progesterone and not testosterone makes it almost impossible for them to lose weight/fat.

So why isn’t testosterone more commonly given for weight loss in women? The medical community actually commonly believes testosterone causes obesity. This is due to a number of studies linking upper body obesity /abdominal obesity in women to elevated testosterone levels. Once again, this is a case of blaming one hormone as a "villain". In these women, they do in fact have higher than normal testosterone levels but their whole hormonal system is out of balance. Not only do they have high testosterone levels, but they also have poor insulin sensitivity as well as high insulin levels. Often these women have a metabolic problem of insulin resistance—which is associated with obesity. There is no serious evidence that testosterone replacement therapy for women will result in greater body fat – in fact the opposite is true.

I also believe that testosterone and other androgens may have a critical role treating some types of female obesity - the estrogen dominant type. Precious little research has been done in this controversial area, but it is obvious that a major reason why women have more difficulty losing fat than men is due to their lower levels of testosterone. Since testosterone can not only help mobilize fat but also build muscle, women can attain higher resting metabolic rates.

This is in stark comparison to most diet drugs that result in loss of muscle and usually the return of lost body fat once drug use is ceased. While androgens will obviously have some side effects in women, hence the controversy, however these side effects are likely less than the often life threatening effects of Phen-Fen and other diet drugs. Testosterone as a treatment for obesity is probably much safer and actually more effective in the long term than liposuction. I really hope more research is done in this area, as I believe androgens are crucial in the war against the rapidly evolving plague of obesity in this country.

i never had problems with my weight until i hit puberty. i was always active in sports and playing outside, riding my bike as a kid and a teen. once i got my period at 13, weight started creeping on, i remember all my set points over the years. even in college, on the judo team, working out several times a week and walking to classes, i lost very little weight. i almost quit eating, just enough to get by ... and ended up with mononucleosis, acute tonsillitis and strep throat.

i've lost 30 pounds over the last year, now i'm stuck again.

i'm very interested to learn more about testosterone for women.

Some books related to hormones & weight loss I found on Amazon:


Super T by Karlis Ullis

Adrenal Fatigue the 21st Century Stress Syndrome by James L. Wilson MD

The Savvy Woman's Guide to Testosterone by Elizabeth Lee Vliet

Testosterone Deficiency: The Hidden Disease by Barry Gordon MD

Stop the Thyroid Madness: A Patient Revolution by Janie Bowthorpe

As every woman who's ever had a thin boyfriend knows, a lot of men can eat amounts that would quickly turn the average woman spherical--and not gain an ounce.

It's like the old "Cathy" cartoon in which Cathy goes to a spa for two weeks and through starvation and strenuous exercise loses seven pounds.

She comes back and announces this fact to her boyfriend Irving, who says, "That's nothing. I lost nine pounds....I just gave up one of my nightly chocolate sundaes."

and exercise tends to help build and tone muscle mass. Thus, weight "loss" might not always be the most pronounced through exercise, but a combination of exercise and dieting not only grows the muscle tissue, but aids in what kind of calories are burned.

As for eating more, any nutritionist will tell ya that when we are "hungry" the body generally only craves about EIGHT bites of something at a time. . .and the rest is pretty much extra. Test yourself sometime when you are hungry, and try to identify the point in which you continue eating because you are "hungry" and when you continue eating because it's "good" or you are not "full." We've come to identify "full" as when we are feeling bloated, can't move, and/or just want to take a post-dinner nap.

Theoretically, you CAN end up eating more - however, since you ideally spread that out over 5-8 small "meals" a day, it stimulates the metabolism and better feeds the growth of muscle tissue from exercise. And while we all know that WHAT we eat makes a different in weight loss, the real key is HOW MUCH we eat at a given time.

The people I know that exercise and eat well are healthy and not overweight, and the people I know that do not exercise and do not eat well are overweight(unfortunately I have to put myself in this category.)

to get rid of it all in about seven months.

1.) I started walking....my doctor had suggested I give it a try and said it was probably the best exercise anyone can get. I had tried weightlifting, push-ups, various other shit and stuck with it for about a year and just gave up.

2.) I stopped eating ANYTHING at least three hours before going to sleep....the food just sits in there, which is why it's so common for people to take a walk after an enormous Thanksgiving feast ( at least that's what we do in my family ). When you DO go to bed, your body is still burning off calories from the walk. One of the main reasons I had the excess weight was I used to eat pizza, fries, chips and drink lots of soda while watching T.V and going to bed shortly after.

3.) I started drinking coffee, and lots of it since it's a natural diuretic. Starting off the morning with at least three cups is not uncommon for me.

Clothes started falling off of me; now I'm about 185 which is ideal for my height 6"3

It stimulates hunger.

...jerks. Sickening.

other problems. If it is due to addiction, as the OP suggests, then we can deal with it as we have with other addictions such as alcohol and nicotine.

As a moral question, we as a society should deal with obesity in a health framework, NOT as one of blame or "by your bootstrap." We should deal with it as we deal with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

There should be NO PLACE for blame, ridicule or shame. It is OUR problem as a nation and we need to do something about it.

Losing weight is one of those things you have to do for yourself, you eat better, eat less, exercise more.

Everything is someone else's fault or out of their control and an excuse for everything. I was lazy and ate like crap but I just didn't care and would readily admit it was my fault. I would spend days sometimes laying on the couch eating whole frozen pizzas and boxes of hamburger helper in one sitting. Part of being successful with weight loss is admitting it is within your control and it is your fault you are overweight. Then getting mad enough at yourself that you do something about it.

I believe a health insurance public option should reward people for keeping themselves in shape, maybe through a tax break or something.

You would think progressives would be a little less shallow.

of last century...

They did the same...

A but by your bootsraps mentality is very much a middle class American value.

:-)

I was thinking about it last night, and been readying on it. It is also the huge blind spot of the progressives, regardless of what century you are talking about

There happen to be lots of people who eat enormouse amounts of calories, and because they burn lots of calories, they are not overweight. (Athletes.)

When I get on an exercise kick and pump weights, I am starving and end up gaining weight every single time...all I hear is keep on going, you will lose weight....nooo, I gain more weight.

Being held down and their faces stuffed by Bowflexes?

Oh the horror!

Can't we just boil all of this bullshit down to a single statement? If you can't/won't control what you eat, chances are you're going to be fat. I don't care what genes you have conspiring against you, the fact remains that no one can gain weight without eating. And if there are people out there who are going to claim that they can create the energy stored in fat without first consuming energy, I ask that you inform the WH of this miracle. You may hold the solution to our energy crisis.

Or it didn't happen

More people today are sedentary. We don't walk or do as many physical tasks as our ancestors. Lard, butter, salt, natural sugar? I don't think any are bad in moderation, although I'm an Mediterranean diet type cook who uses olive oil. Portion sizes are larger than in the past, too.

Latino and some other cuisines include the use of lard. My grandmother made superb pie crusts and tamales using lard. But it's not as if we ate pies or tamales every day. Here's an article from Slate about lard not being bad.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219314/

and corn syrup and other crap that the food industry has developed.

That could not have anything to do with it either

It should be obvious that obesity was not a problem when kids played outside, when people did more physical labor, and when being active was the norm, not the exception.

The farmer who has been eating bacon and eggs his 80 years and still appears trim and fit isn't that way because of his diet, but in spite of it. He's fit because he has remained physically active and taxes his body.

People can tell themselves any rationalization they need to get through the day, but each of us has only one body, and it's ours to keep or waste away. If we don't take care of it, like a car or a house, it'll get run down in a hurry.

that's right, it's OURS. it's my body, to be fat or be thin or be obese or tattoo or have children or terminate a pregnancy or skydive or smoke. if i'm not doing it to YOU then MYOB. (not you specifically, TO)

so everyone else can just shut the fuck up about it, and worry about their own selves and their own quest for perfection.

AND LEAVE THE REST OF US FUCKING ALONE!

Imagine that in our town you can't even get serious about bike lanes!!!

and have not been to the gym or a personal trainer once.

Actually I tried that route 5 or 6 years ago. I quit smoking, went on a diet, and busted my a** at the gym 5 days a week, aerobics, weight training and such. I got alot stronger, but only lost 15 pounds and then stuck at well above my desired weight. I kept at it for over a year, but made all the progress on weight loss in the first two months, and never dropped another pound for more than a day or two.

Without planning it for weight loss, about a year ago I got a new young and energetic dog (a rescue), and started just paying some modest attention to portion size on the dinnerplate. I started walking the dog briskly (because he insists) about 1.5 miles everyday right after dinner. I did it because when he became tired, he would spend less time chewing my shoes (he has entirely stopped now).

At some point along the way, I noticed my pants were hard to keep up, and started shifting to older clothes in storage. At some point even the older pants became difficult to wear. Curious, I stepped on a scale and to my amazement, I had lost 45 pounds. I was so shocked that I went to see a doctor. He said, after a number of tests, that I should keep up the good work. I have moderated a little because I felt the initial weight loss was a bit too fast, and now that I am paying it more attention, I am dropping only 3 or 4 pounds a month. I weigh a good bit less now than I ever did under the workout program, and the dog is far cheaper than a gym membership.

Bill, that is fabulous. I feel choked up because you rescued a dog who now has a friend and seeing to his needs has helped you! There is no pet more grateful and loving than a rescue pet. :D

Since computers have become ubiquitous for people of all ages I have noticed that children play outside less. That can't be good to set up habits of physical activity.

... I hardly know where to start with this nonsense.

Exercise alone will certainly not make you lose weight, but I believe that exercise, needed to not just burn calories but to increase the metabolic rate, is a crucial component of any weight loss program.

Will exercise increase appetite? Of course, that is where control of food intake comes in.

The right kind of exercise will increase lean body mass, which will burn more calories which will allow one to eat more to maintain the same weight.

No wonder so many people just give up, even the "experts" can't agree on anything.

I was exercising every single day. It did shed a lot of pounds but I hit a plateau which could not be addressed (at least not by the workouts and dieting I was doing at the time). The only thing that took the stubborn 15 off was ephedra, which, of course, has been banned in supplements!

I've found a few things to be true for me:

Exercise does more to make me feel better in general than to lose weight. Even at my top weight, I still exercised regularly and my BP stayed around 125/75, blood sugar under 90 and Blood Fats normal with meds (my skinny Mom also takes meds for her blood fats). I topped out at 330 pounds on a 6'1" frame.

What made me lose weight was eating less than 2000 calories a day.

I have to meticulously track what I ate, when I didn't, the weight started coming back. I had lost 50, but 10 pounds came back when I stopped being fanatic about tracking what I eat.

Michael Pollan's advice, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" works for me.

Good enough reason for me.

so we should all be seeking out cigarettes that are beneficient to our T-zone
(just critiquing a small part of the article)

Shows like The Biggest Loser have started to focus more on the dieting side of the equation. In the beginning, the show was all about exercise, exercise, exercise. But an even larger component of the contestants' weight loss was the food they were eating. They actually reprimanded contestants for eating too little, under the theory that their body needs a few extra calories for the energy required for their level of exercise.

There is nothing wrong with exercise, but you can't expect it to work if you don't change your diet at the same time.

Calories taken in minus calories burned.

Exercise alone isn't the key and dieting doesn't work because diets are temporary and usually unhealthy.

Exercise and or a fundamental change in eating habits is the only sustainable path.

Interesting.

and I lose weight. And for some reason, when I am on a serious program of exercise, I crave healthy foods, not junk. And I'm not overly hungry. Go figure.


Now if I could just get off my lazy butt and exercise....I know IT works. I'M the one who needs to work. :crazy: