Calorie intake among low, normal and obese people pretty much the same

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As for someone who is obese and wants to lose weight, their lifestyle change needs to be in the opposite direction. Millions of people have done it successfully - I only know a few of them personally but everyone I know who has tried and stuck with it has been successful. It is a lot of work and requires a lot of physical exercise. The "downside" seems to be that they eventually get to really enjoy the exercise. An ex-obese mechanical engineer I once worked with grew to enjoy it so much that she quit her engineering job and became a very successful aerobics instructor.

Physical exertion also dulls the immediate appetite, so it's a win/win for those trying to lose the extra pounds. It's obvious though that you can lose the weight without being overly physical just by lessening the intake. If there's a third advantage to the physical activity it's that it keeps the weight off and builds the right tissue when the pounds are finally gone. You may get a bit heavier but it's usually not in the waist.

 

[skepticalbip]

As for someone who is obese and wants to lose weight, their lifestyle change needs to be in the opposite direction. Millions of people have done it successfully - I only know a few of them personally but everyone I know who has tried and stuck with it has been successful. It is a lot of work and requires a lot of physical exercise. The "downside" seems to be that they eventually get to really enjoy the exercise. An ex-obese mechanical engineer I once worked with grew to enjoy it so much that she quit her engineering job and became a very successful aerobics instructor.

Physical exertion also dulls the immediate appetite, so it's a win/win for those trying to lose the extra pounds. It's obvious though that you can lose the weight without being overly physical just by lessening the intake. If there's a third advantage to the physical activity it's that it keeps the weight off and builds the right tissue when the pounds are finally gone. You may get a bit heavier but it's usually not in the waist.

That's true. Just adding a couple mile walk/day or even less will certainly help with weight loss. But an exercise that increases the pulse rate and respiration rate will do it much faster. However I have come to believe that a diet only attempt at weight loss is pretty much doomed to failure for most people. Most people trying this seem to end up yo-yo dieting which must be awfully frustrating and demoralizing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Physical exertion also dulls the immediate appetite, so it's a win/win for those trying to lose the extra pounds. It's obvious though that you can lose the weight without being overly physical just by lessening the intake. If there's a third advantage to the physical activity it's that it keeps the weight off and builds the right tissue when the pounds are finally gone. You may get a bit heavier but it's usually not in the waist.

That's true. Just adding a couple mile walk/day or even less will certainly help with weight loss. But an exercise that increases the pulse rate and respiration rate will do it much faster. However I have come to believe that a diet only attempt at weight loss is pretty much doomed to failure for most people. Most people trying this seem to end up yo-yo dieting which must be awfully frustrating and demoralizing.

Yes, and past generations did not go through that, so obviously something else has changed and that is the diet itself. Today we do not eat the food they ate. Overweight people actually eat crap like "Lean" Hot Pockets instead of regular Hot Pockets and think they've changed their diets for the better. All they've done is swallowed the marketing. They'll still be underfed and fat because that crap is not food, not the stuff your body evolved eating.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not that we haven't talked this subject to death but I revived the thread after beginning to watch a documentary on Netflix called Fed Up. I didn't watch the entire 1.5 hour show but it was headed in the direction that exercise and calories in/calories out is not the solution. The solution is to eat real food, not the convenient, processed, high sugar, ready-made crapola we find stocked wall to wall in our grocery stores. And I could not agree more.

The proof seems to be in the fact that past generations were not obsessed with their diets and going to the gym but did not become obese nor develop type 2 diabetes as kids. Not to mention that more people die today from obesity related disease than from starvation.

 

[RavenSky]

Not that we haven't talked this subject to death but I revived the thread after beginning to watch a documentary on Netflix called Fed Up. I didn't watch the entire 1.5 hour show but it was headed in the direction that exercise and calories in/calories out is not the solution. The solution is to eat real food, not the convenient, processed, high sugar, ready-made crapola we find stocked wall to wall in our grocery stores. And I could not agree more.

Well that seems to be an abrupt 180. I'm going to have to watch the documentary to see what they presented to change your mind that 200+ posts here couldn't.




P.S. http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-much-the-same&p=269933&viewfull=1#post269933

 

[thebeave]

Not that we haven't talked this subject to death but I revived the thread after beginning to watch a documentary on Netflix called Fed Up. I didn't watch the entire 1.5 hour show but it was headed in the direction that exercise and calories in/calories out is not the solution. The solution is to eat real food, not the convenient, processed, high sugar, ready-made crapola we find stocked wall to wall in our grocery stores. And I could not agree more.

The proof seems to be in the fact that past generations were not obsessed with their diets and going to the gym but did not become obese nor develop type 2 diabetes as kids. Not to mention that more people die today from obesity related disease than from starvation.

I haven't seen the movie, but I wouldn't swallow what Fed Up is selling you quite yet. Seems science and facts are not totally on board with it (which seems to be the case with most Hollywood "documentaries" these days). Here's what sciencebasedmedicine.org has to say about it:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/

The film gets a lot of things wrong

I was going to do some further fact checking, but Google saved me the trouble. I discovered that two writers at Food Insight had already analyzed the claims in Fed Up and shown that the filmmakers got many of their facts wrong. They give these examples:

“This year for the first time in the history of the world, more people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation.” Not true: three times as many die of starvation.

“For the first time in 200 years, the current generation of children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents.” Expected by whom? According to the CDC and the Census Bureau, life expectancies are on an uninterrupted upward trajectory that is expected to continue rising until at least 2020.

While fitness club memberships more than doubled, the obesity rate also doubled. A meaningless comparison that is intended to suggest that we are helpless to do anything about our weight.

It rejects the concept of energy balance, but the scientific evidence clearly shows that it is possible to lose weight by decreasing calorie intake and increasing calorie expenditure.

Dr. Robert Lustig gets a lot of screen time. He says that there is “really good data” that “a calorie is not a calorie,” in that the “toxicity” of sugars is an inherent and unique contributor to obesogenicity. “When your liver gets that big sugar rush… it has no choice but to turn it into fat immediately.” His language is inflammatory, demonizing sugar as toxic and addictive. Lustig’s views are inconsistent with mainstream scientific opinions based on all the available evidence. Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center characterizes Lustig’s theories as “humbug” and explains why.

“Between 1977 and 2000, Americans have doubled their daily intake of sugar.” Not true: Americans are eating more total calories but have not doubled the calories from sugar.

“Over 95 percent of all Americans will be overweight or obese in two decades.” No, obesity prevalence has leveled off since 2003 and the forecasted trend-line is virtually flat.

It claims that consuming a single soda per day increases one’s risk of diabetes by 22 percent. Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes; the film presents a simplistic caricature of the relationship between sugar and diabetes.

The film says the pledge of food companies to remove 1.5 trillion calories from the marketplace amounts to “nothing,” a mere 14 calories a day per person. Actually, they have already removed 6.4 trillion calories, ahead of schedule and more than 400 percent of the original goal. The resulting reduction of 78 calories a day per person is probably more than enough to meet the Healthy People 2020 target for obesity reduction.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I haven't seen the movie, but I wouldn't swallow what Fed Up is selling you quite yet. Seems science and facts are not totally on board with it (which seems to be the case with most Hollywood "documentaries" these days). Here's what sciencebasedmedicine.org has to say about it:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/

The film gets a lot of things wrong

I was going to do some further fact checking, but Google saved me the trouble. I discovered that two writers at Food Insight had already analyzed the claims in Fed Up and shown that the filmmakers got many of their facts wrong. They give these examples:

“This year for the first time in the history of the world, more people will die from the effects of obesity than from starvation.” Not true: three times as many die of starvation.

“For the first time in 200 years, the current generation of children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents.” Expected by whom? According to the CDC and the Census Bureau, life expectancies are on an uninterrupted upward trajectory that is expected to continue rising until at least 2020.

While fitness club memberships more than doubled, the obesity rate also doubled. A meaningless comparison that is intended to suggest that we are helpless to do anything about our weight.

It rejects the concept of energy balance, but the scientific evidence clearly shows that it is possible to lose weight by decreasing calorie intake and increasing calorie expenditure.

Dr. Robert Lustig gets a lot of screen time. He says that there is “really good data” that “a calorie is not a calorie,” in that the “toxicity” of sugars is an inherent and unique contributor to obesogenicity. “When your liver gets that big sugar rush… it has no choice but to turn it into fat immediately.” His language is inflammatory, demonizing sugar as toxic and addictive. Lustig’s views are inconsistent with mainstream scientific opinions based on all the available evidence. Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center characterizes Lustig’s theories as “humbug” and explains why.

“Between 1977 and 2000, Americans have doubled their daily intake of sugar.” Not true: Americans are eating more total calories but have not doubled the calories from sugar.

“Over 95 percent of all Americans will be overweight or obese in two decades.” No, obesity prevalence has leveled off since 2003 and the forecasted trend-line is virtually flat.
It claims that consuming a single soda per day increases one’s risk of diabetes by 22 percent. Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes; the film presents a simplistic caricature of the relationship between sugar and diabetes.

The film says the pledge of food companies to remove 1.5 trillion calories from the marketplace amounts to “nothing,” a mere 14 calories a day per person. Actually, they have already removed 6.4 trillion calories, ahead of schedule and more than 400 percent of the original goal. The resulting reduction of 78 calories a day per person is probably more than enough to meet the Healthy People 2020 target for obesity reduction.

Sugar in the form of a soda overloads the liver and the liver stores it as fat. The sugar doesn't cause diabetes as any half-informed person knows. If this reaction is to be taken seriously it should not contain such obvious gratuitous fallacies.

And what does "virtually flat" mean? That obesity rates will continue upward at a reduced acceleration. Hardly a rebuttal.

And by 1977 processed sugar intake was already way above what is healthy. I can statistically prove by stacking small bits of data that people are not overweight compared to 100 years ago. It would be bullshit, like your 1977-2003 bullshit, but statistically accurate nonetheless. I grew up in the 70s and know how much processed refined sugar was being consumed compared to the environment our ancestors subsisted in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not that we haven't talked this subject to death but I revived the thread after beginning to watch a documentary on Netflix called Fed Up. I didn't watch the entire 1.5 hour show but it was headed in the direction that exercise and calories in/calories out is not the solution. The solution is to eat real food, not the convenient, processed, high sugar, ready-made crapola we find stocked wall to wall in our grocery stores. And I could not agree more.

Well that seems to be an abrupt 180. I'm going to have to watch the documentary to see what they presented to change your mind that 200+ posts here couldn't.




P.S. http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-much-the-same&p=269933&viewfull=1#post269933

Hardly an abrupt 180. I've always maintained that this shit people eat and call food isn't really food, but folks seem to think that because something is edible and tasty it makes it food. Natural selection marches on.

More specifically, as the show illustrates, eating 180 calories of almonds is not the same as consuming a sugary chemical soft drink with 180 calories. A calorie is a calorie but these two identical caloric intakes could not be more different in terms of health.

 

[beero1000]

I saw this today and figured I'd post it. FYI:

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/these-infographics-show-the-problems-with-calorie-count-1771540530

 

[RavenSky]

Science has figured out why one-size-fits-all diets may not be the best idea.

Slightly different study than the ones referenced in the OP, but a similar outcome:

"The huge differences that we found in the rise of blood sugar levels among different people who consumed identical meals highlights why personalized eating choices are more likely to help people stay healthy than universal dietary advice," Professor Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel, said.

Segal and his colleagues at Weizmann studied 800 people for a week, monitoring their food intake, blood-sugar levels, physical activity, sleep habits and – because no nutritional study would be complete without it – bathroom deposits. What they found is that different people have strikingly different responses to the same foods, even though said foods may be universally considered healthy.

For example, in one study subject, the reseachers found that blood-sugar levels rose sharply after eating bananas but not after eating cookies. In a different participant, the exact opposite occurred. In another example, a diet high in glucose caused a rise in glucose levels in some people, while in others, blood-glucose levels spiked after they ate white bread, but not after glucose.

http://www.fromthegrapevine.com/health/why-french-fries-may-be-better-for-you-than-salad?#!

To some of you... feel free to scream & yell & insist that there is one universally right way for everyone to eat (and that it is your way). I'm not posting this article for you

To everyone who cares about staying up-to-date on this topic... enjoy

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/Ryc5M3Ciytg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[blastula]

Then there's the study discussed here which makes it all about hopeless.

After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight - The New York Times
Short Answers to Hard Questions About Weight Loss - The New York Times

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Then there's the study discussed here which makes it all about hopeless.

After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight - The New York Times
Short Answers to Hard Questions About Weight Loss - The New York Times

So what hope is there for weight maintenance?

Anecdotal reports by people who have succeeded in keeping weight off tend to have a common theme: constant vigilance, keeping close track of weight, controlling what food is eaten and how much (often by weighing and measuring food), exercising often, putting up with hunger and resisting cravings to the best of their ability.

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

 

[J842P]

So what hope is there for weight maintenance?

Anecdotal reports by people who have succeeded in keeping weight off tend to have a common theme: constant vigilance, keeping close track of weight, controlling what food is eaten and how much (often by weighing and measuring food), exercising often, putting up with hunger and resisting cravings to the best of their ability.

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

Yeah, constant vigilance is the only way I keep my weight within normal bounds. Although, simply avoiding processed/refined carbohydrates and sugars (except for fruit) has worked very well. Of course, these are my favorite things... but at least I've been able to eat a lot of full-fat foods to which provides an alternative hedonic stimulus that fills me up and doesn't seem to contribute to body mass.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

Yeah, constant vigilance is the only way I keep my weight within normal bounds. Although, simply avoiding processed/refined carbohydrates and sugars (except for fruit) has worked very well. Of course, these are my favorite things... but at least I've been able to eat a lot of full-fat foods to which provides an alternative hedonic stimulus that fills me up and doesn't seem to contribute to body mass.

I think it's good to admit to oneself that those fatty, sugary, salty, oily, unhealthy, processed, refined, disease-causing, nutrition-free, convenient, artificial, non-food intakes are delicious , and admittedly again I eat my share. But infrequently, like on weekends, and eat enough of the good stuff that it really doesn't hurt.

My target weight is 170 (176 when I jump on the scale at work with clothes, keys, phone) and I'm stuck there. It's actually too easy for me to lose weight so the occasional burger or pizza is welcome. Oh, and Guinness and the right mix of proper exercise.

 

[Playball40]

So what hope is there for weight maintenance?

Anecdotal reports by people who have succeeded in keeping weight off tend to have a common theme: constant vigilance, keeping close track of weight, controlling what food is eaten and how much (often by weighing and measuring food), exercising often, putting up with hunger and resisting cravings to the best of their ability.

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

Most of my friends are on multiple meds. Enough said.

 

[Playball40]

What does admitting food tastes good do exactly? Why not comment on the fact that even your so-called "bad" foods do not affect every person the same. Maybe THAT is what we should 'admit to ourselves' so that we don't sit in judgment of those that do not fit your picture perfect image of 'healthy weight'.

Yeah, constant vigilance is the only way I keep my weight within normal bounds. Although, simply avoiding processed/refined carbohydrates and sugars (except for fruit) has worked very well. Of course, these are my favorite things... but at least I've been able to eat a lot of full-fat foods to which provides an alternative hedonic stimulus that fills me up and doesn't seem to contribute to body mass.

I think it's good to admit to oneself that those fatty, sugary, salty, oily, unhealthy, processed, refined, disease-causing, nutrition-free, convenient, artificial, non-food intakes are delicious , and admittedly again I eat my share. But infrequently, like on weekends, and eat enough of the good stuff that it really doesn't hurt.

My target weight is 170 (176 when I jump on the scale at work with clothes, keys, phone) and I'm stuck there. It's actually too easy for me to lose weight so the occasional burger or pizza is welcome. Oh, and Guinness and the right mix of proper exercise.

- - - Updated - - -

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

Most of my friends are on multiple meds. Enough said.

What does that have to do with anything? Including responding to your body's cues?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What does admitting food tastes good do exactly? Why not comment on the fact that even your so-called "bad" foods do not affect every person the same. Maybe THAT is what we should 'admit to ourselves' so that we don't sit in judgment of those that do not fit your picture perfect image of 'healthy weight'.

I think it's good to admit to oneself that those fatty, sugary, salty, oily, unhealthy, processed, refined, disease-causing, nutrition-free, convenient, artificial, non-food intakes are delicious , and admittedly again I eat my share. But infrequently, like on weekends, and eat enough of the good stuff that it really doesn't hurt.

My target weight is 170 (176 when I jump on the scale at work with clothes, keys, phone) and I'm stuck there. It's actually too easy for me to lose weight so the occasional burger or pizza is welcome. Oh, and Guinness and the right mix of proper exercise.

- - - Updated - - -

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

Most of my friends are on multiple meds. Enough said.

What does that have to do with anything? Including responding to your body's cues?

I've asked all those friends why they use the meds and they say it's because they like to eat junk which causes them to have conditions like high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, etc. They know it's self-inflicted and irresponsible. It's the standard reply, "Why should I watch what I eat if I can just take a pill?"

Is that following the body's cues?

It is a lifestyle choice for sure and I don't expect that people generally are going to change.

 

[J842P]

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

Because it's not hunger. I'll want to eat those things even after I've eaten a full meal. My body's cues are heavily influenced by billions of years of evolution where refined carbohydrates didn't exist. It's not a fucking eating disorder, it's called discipline.

 

[EricB]

Except for the "weighing and measuring food" part that sums it up quite well.

And these behaviors are also typical of someone with disordered eating at best and a full on eating disorder at worst. Not living IMO. People are not meant to "put up with hunger". Hunger is your body's way of saying it NEEDS nutrients and it is just STUPID to ignore them. Would you ignore your thirst?

The feeling of hunger can be a habitual sort of process, not always a physiological signal.

Certain types of foods lessen the hunger feeling (such as the effect of protein upon the hypothalamus, etc.) but people can keep eating long after they reach the point of "feeling full."