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

[Playball40]

Getting under you skin, are we? LOL! So.....its ok for you to dish out, but when push comes to shove, you can't take it. Typical!

LOL!

Ahh...the peanut gallery has spoken.

You do realize how fucking transparent you are when you feign insult calling someone an ass for posting a photo but laughing at that same photo of that same person when it's directed at another person?

Why are the two of you trying to fat shame me and making fun of this person in the photo? Oh, that's right...because you both like to soapbox about a bunch of shit and tell everyone else how they should think, speak and act...meanwhile running around like cunning runts and making asses of yourselves in the most hypocritical way.

But kudos for your consistency...this has been going on for several years now.

BTW...the mood seems so serious on this thread...here's something to lighten the atmosphere for everyone.

Show

View attachment 6180

 

[Playball40]

Among other things yes, she is. Her BMI is 17 right now, but this is not a physically or mentally healthy place for her unfortunately (even if the 'charts' put her as in a 'normal' range). It's a long story and not one I'm willing to share with the likes of Godless Raven or any of the other 'know it alls' on this board, but if you ever did want to discuss just PM me. It wasn't until she got sick that I found out many of the assumptions I made (including the whole just eat less and exercise and you will be fine meme) turned out to be completely false. It's also why I support supplements like BOOST, without which, she would need a feeding tube or die.

Sorry but again, it's not that simple. My child needs more than 3,500 calories daily just to break even. She is NOT ALLOWED to exercise. The issue is calorie burning - some people simply cannot burn them regardless of exercise amount (and reducing caloric intake actually makes the condition WORSE so don't try that one). Others like my child metabolize her intake doing nothing, and its not likely to change for her for a long time....

So your daughter is hyperthyroid I take it. I've known a couple blokes with the condition. But those guys were always on the move, never able to sit still. Amazing the amount of food they can pack away.

What is your daughter's present BMI?

 

[Playball40]

You know better. If one does not eat or eats very little, they will starve. NO ONE said otherwise. What was said was that people of normal weight, low weight and high weight can eat and expend the same or very close amounts and it will affect each person differently. In other words there ARE MANY normal weight people eating KFC - But for some reason that's just fine and dandy. But if you are overweight? You are a moral failure and a drain on society. It's DISGUSTING the attitude people have and not something that should be encouraged. It seems to give people like GR and others esteem to tear down others probably because deep down they are just ugly, weak and pathetic. It is the only way to build themselves up.

This is a funny thread. Funny thing about it is I can't recall ever seeing fat POWs in any of those archive photos. I'm guessing the enemy combatants must have been ramrodding the food down their gullets to get them so thin and emaciated.

So the fat guy pic snarfing the Colonel better watch out or he's gonna disappear in a puff of emaciated glory.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here are the facts: two people can eat EXACTLY the same number of calories, and have exactly the same amount of activity, yet one person will stay the same or lose weight while the other gains weight.

THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE FACTORS AT WORK THAN JUST 'CALORIES IN - CALORIES OUT'.

Actually calories in - calories out does explain the body storing energy as fat or not. The "more factors" is in how efficiently an individual's digestive system extracts calories from the food consumed and how many calories their body burns in daily activities. Of course, however, there are medical conditions that affects one's metabolism for instance someone with very active thrifty genes needs to consume less and/or be more active if they don't want to store fat.

But in the real world, the overwhelming majority of overweight people do consume more calories and/or are less active than underweight people. To argue differently would necessitate proposing that something happened in the gene pool of the world's developed nations (but not in third world nations) over the last fifty years.

 

[RavenSky]

Here are the facts: two people can eat EXACTLY the same number of calories, and have exactly the same amount of activity, yet one person will stay the same or lose weight while the other gains weight.

THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE FACTORS AT WORK THAN JUST 'CALORIES IN - CALORIES OUT'.

That is correct, and I have agreed with you, as one size hardly fits all.

So you should stop acting like it does

The question you need to ask yourself is why you think it is okay for the one person to therefore become fat and unhealthy.

Kindly point out where I ever said such a thing

Are you perhaps seriously overweight?

No

That would explain your defensiveness.

It isn't "defensiveness" - it's "pissed-off-edness at the ignorance you are displaying in this thread.

Or do you think the same size meal should fit everyone? Shoes and shirts don't, why should the amount of food?

Point out where I ever said any such thing. You, however, have said exactly that every time you insist that there is any sort of direct correlation between "calorie in - calorie out" with food and the human body

But if you do think the same size meal somehow magically fits everyone, where pray tell did you ever come up with that idea?

YOU are the one acting on this belief, so perhaps you should examine your own misconceptions.

 

[RavenSky]

Here are the facts: two people can eat EXACTLY the same number of calories, and have exactly the same amount of activity, yet one person will stay the same or lose weight while the other gains weight.

THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE FACTORS AT WORK THAN JUST 'CALORIES IN - CALORIES OUT'.

Actually calories in - calories out does explain the body storing energy as fat or not. The "more factors" is in how efficiently an individual's digestive system extracts calories from the food consumed and how many calories their body burns in daily activities. Of course, however, there are medical conditions that affects one's metabolism for instance someone with very active thrifty genes needs to consume less and/or be more active if they don't want to store fat.

Which has been my entire point. Given exactly the same amount of "calories in" and the same exact amount of physical activity, different people will gain, lose or maintain their weight because their individual bodies process the energy (calories in) differently. How one's body processes those calories is largely genetic and can also be affected by medical conditions, medicines, even stress. There is also growing evidence that the source of the calorie matters - the same exact caloric value of protein is processed different than simple carbs than complex carbs than fats. All of these need to be (at least) acknowledged in a discussion like this, instead of all of the really disgusting fat-shaming several people have engaged in.

But in the real world, the overwhelming majority of overweight people do consume more calories and/or are less active than underweight people.

And here is where I disagree. Are there people who over-consume calories? Of course. I never said there weren't. But it does not do anyone any good to broad-brush everyone as "lazy, no-self-control, fat slobs" just because of their apparent weight - which is exactly what certain people in this thread are doing, and what too many assholes everywhere do.

In the real world, there are hundreds of factors - many of which are beyond an individual's control - that are contributing to a nearly universal increase in weight (the point the OP article was making before the fat-shamers piped in). Decrease in physical activity is one - but that affects different bodies differently. Increase in sugars and corn-syrups in virtually every processed food we purchase is another - which again affects different bodies differently. A lot of the sugar we consume is within our control - yes. A lot is hidden and many people may not even be aware of it. Examples: barbecue sauces, breads, canned-fruits, crackers, frozen dinners, hot dogs, ketchup, marinades, peanut butter, pickles, salad dressing, soup, vegetables...

vegetables! The stuff that is supposed to be good for us.

And as you agreed above, the food we eat is processed differently by different individual bodies, so what may not affect you at all could cause me to gain weight.

To argue differently would necessitate proposing that something happened in the gene pool of the world's developed nations (but not in third world nations) over the last fifty years.

Not necessarily in the gene pool, though research is showing that genetics plays a bigger role than previously thought.

In the mouse study, the research team determined that mutations in the Mrap2 gene led the animals to eat less initially but still gain about twice as much weight as they normally would. While their appetites returned, these mice continued to gain weight despite being fed the same number of calories as a group of control animals. That led the scientists to figure out that the mice with the mutated gene were simply sequestering fat rather than breaking it down for energy. The mice, like people, possessed two copies of the gene, and mice with even one defective copy experienced significant weight gain, although not as much as those who had two mutated versions of Mrap2.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/

In a very closely controlled, year-long study with post-menopausal women-chosen as subjects because they are more stable, hormonally speaking-researchers divided the participants into an exercise intervention group and a control group.
All the subjects were carefully selected for specific features of their health and lifestyle. Various lab tests were taken, including certain genetic tests. The subjects were all instructed not to change their dietary habits. The control group was assigned a moderate stretching regimen to use over the course of the study, and the intervention group was given a moderate intensity, 45-minute workout for five days a week, initially with supervision. There was detailed tracking, because the researchers were especially interested in identifying distinctions between genetic and environmental factors.
At the end of the study period, the researchers found a distinct variability in the amount of fat lost by some exercisers that could not be explained by their adherence levels.
So the researchers looked to to the genetic data, and indeed, there were two specific genes that stood out related to patterns of fat loss and exercise. Participants with certain combinations of those genes and their variants had significantly different fat loss outcomes.
The complex science at this level can be pretty confusing. Genes are named with different alpha-numeric codes and so are their variant alleles. If you're not careful, you can end up in some real alphabet soup just trying to talk about it, but basically two genes are involved here, the CYP19 and the COMT.
They found that having one CYP19 gene and its variants was not consistently associated with percentage fat, total fat, subcutaneous fat or intra-abdominal fat, that dangerous excess that gathers around our vital organs. But having two such genes correlated to a slightly larger decrease in body mass index, and a significantly larger decrease in total fat and percentage of body fat.
And having a particular genotype of the COMT gene, together with at least one copy of the CYP19 gene, also related to a significantly larger decrease in BMI, total fat and percentage of body fat. There were corresponding intermediate combinations and results that bore out the relationships.
Interestingly, in the exercising group, those with a specific variant of the CYP19 gene lost more fat over the year, but in the non-workout group, those with that same variant gained more fat.
Why and how these genes affect the fat/exercise relationship isn't yet understood, but now that these have been identified as significant, they are the subject of much new, focused study. Other research has since showed that women with that specific CYP19 variant have higher concentrations of the hormones estrone and estradiol, which may make them more resistant to fat loss through exercise.

http://www.bistromd.com/weight-loss/the-truth-about-genetics-and-weight-loss

and so on...

However, you are incorrect to assume that third-world countries do not have obesity rates like the US or other developed countries. In fact, developing nations have about 2/3's the world's population of obese people even as they also have the highest rates of malnourishment. Assumed causes are - as in developed countries - increasing amounts of sugar and junk-food.

The assumption that the world-wide weight increase is a very recent change (since the 1980's is the typical claim) is also being called into question. I found this excerpt interesting:

There is ample historical evidence that the roots of the obesity pandemic do reach much further back in time than is commonly asserted (Carson 2009, Cuff 1993, Komlos 1987). For the 19th century, we have samples from the West Point Military Academy revealing that by today’s standards BMI values were amazingly low: 19-year-old white cadets had an average BMI value of 20.5, i.e., about the 18th percentile of today’s standards.[1] About 90% of the cadets were below today’s median reference value. In addition, these data indicate that there was very little change in weights in the 19th century. However, another sample from The Citadel military academy in Charleston, SC indicates that a true surge in BMI values took place among those born after the First World War (Figure 1) (Coclanis and Komlos 1995). Note that 18-year-old men increased by some 13 kilograms (28.5 pounds) during the course of the 20th century but half of that increase took place among those born before World War II. Hence, these data indicate that a considerable increase in weight had already taken place by the time the first national survey was taken in 1959-1962 (Figure 1).

Military cadets. Not typically the type of person one would consider a lazy, no-self-control, fat slob, yet their average weight increased by 28 pounds?

Obesity has apparently existed since around 12,000 years ago and the advent of the agricultural revolution. The "very active thrifty genes" you referenced above - which got humans through there hunter/gatherer feast/famine period - creates a problem for many people when food supply is steady.

Shifting gears again, note the "obesity" problem in Samoa. I put it in 'scare quotes' because the situation here calls into question the whole BMI measurement system - another point briefly touched on by someone else earlier. Apparently, given the same lifestyles, Samoans with Polynesian ethnic backgrounds tend to be "fat" compared to those with a Melanesian background. Except, as it turns out, perhaps the Polynesians also have a much higher percentage of muscle (and muscle weighs more than fat). But since BMI is measured by height:weight, it doesn't consider whether the weight is muscle or fat.

And that, again, brings me to the only point I have been making throughout this thread - it simply isn't a matter of telling people to stop eating "so much"

 

[Godless Raven]

Getting under you skin, are we? LOL! So.....its ok for you to dish out, but when push comes to shove, you can't take it. Typical!

Ahh...the peanut gallery has spoken.

You do realize how fucking transparent you are when you feign insult calling someone an ass for posting a photo but laughing at that same photo of that same person when it's directed at another person?

Why are the two of you trying to fat shame me and making fun of this person in the photo? Oh, that's right...because you both like to soapbox about a bunch of shit and tell everyone else how they should think, speak and act...meanwhile running around like cunning runts and making asses of yourselves in the most hypocritical way.

But kudos for your consistency...this has been going on for several years now.

BTW...the mood seems so serious on this thread...here's something to lighten the atmosphere for everyone.

Show

View attachment 6180

Hardly

A thread like this would probably never catch my eye until I see someone make some silly statement that everyone should agree to act like/speak like/be like X because (fill in some goofiness) and then seeing a group of people defend the statement with nonsense or misinterpretations of statistics to back up absolute nonsense...I think that should be checked just as much as religious nutbars that do the same thing. And when that group that's doing it is resorting to posting in massive letters in all bold and caps (as if that adds a fucking thing to any argument) or resorts to telling people challenging their claims with "Well you said X which I don't agree with, therefore everything you say about this topic has no merit" and that sort of horse shit...I do not feel like I need to handle that person with kid gloves due to their obtuse behavior.

There's literally nothing any of you could say to "get under my skin". My life has never been better and I'm 44. Hopefully, I'm not getting under anybody else's skin either...although I can live with it either way.

P.S. - This thread should be relocated to pseudoscience, since the entire premise was clearly demonstrated to be a misunderstanding of the data by rousseau early on and even the most common sense tells you the claim of the OP is ridiculous on it's merits and the resulting reduction absurdum (or whatever) to arguing people with rare conditions or medications somehow validate the OP (which they clearly do not). This is no less wu wu than Abe's racist garbage that gets put there.

Cheers,

GR

 

[Godless Raven]

You know better. If one does not eat or eats very little, they will starve. NO ONE said otherwise. What was said was that people of normal weight, low weight and high weight can eat and expend the same or very close amounts and it will affect each person differently. In other words there ARE MANY normal weight people eating KFC - But for some reason that's just fine and dandy. But if you are overweight? You are a moral failure and a drain on society. It's DISGUSTING the attitude people have and not something that should be encouraged. It seems to give people like GR and others esteem to tear down others probably because deep down they are just ugly, weak and pathetic. It is the only way to build themselves up.

This is a funny thread. Funny thing about it is I can't recall ever seeing fat POWs in any of those archive photos. I'm guessing the enemy combatants must have been ramrodding the food down their gullets to get them so thin and emaciated.

So the fat guy pic snarfing the Colonel better watch out or he's gonna disappear in a puff of emaciated glory.

Who on Earth is saying the part I put in bold and underlined besides you right here? Not a single person commenting on this thread has done any such thing. If you're talking about extreme bigots...then be against extreme bigots of all sorts. I certainly do not believe anything like that and would let someone know if they said that to me. I just think for the most part it's bad choices when someone gets seriously overweight. The exceptions we discussed plus eating disorders do not apply, those people are not making bad decisions. But the guy with the KFC bucket...he is going to cost the rest of us tax payer money because of his willful bad decisions. He is going to die younger. He is pretty much killing himself. He probably could make much better decisions. His photo made for some funnies on this thread...not just by my crude attempt at humor, but yours and RS's too...although you tried to do it at my expense...it made you laugh. So ease up on other people that do the same thing because they don't particularly feel sorry for someone that eats PEZ instead of vitamins on a daily basis.


The OP is still ridiculous on its merits.

 

[TSwizzle]

Getting fatter;

There are now more adults in the world classified as obese than underweight, a major study has suggested. The research, led by scientists from Imperial College London and published in The Lancet, compared body mass index (BMI) among almost 20 million adult men and women from 1975 to 2014. It found obesity in men has tripled and more than doubled in women. Lead author Prof Majid Ezzat said it was an "epidemic of severe obesity" and urged governments to act. The study, which pooled data from adults in 186 countries, found that the number of obese people worldwide had risen from 105 million in 1975 to 641 million in 2014.

BBC

 

[ronburgundy]

Here are the facts: two people can eat EXACTLY the same number of calories, and have exactly the same amount of activity, yet one person will stay the same or lose weight while the other gains weight.

THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE FACTORS AT WORK THAN JUST 'CALORIES IN - CALORIES OUT'.

Actually calories in - calories out does explain the body storing energy as fat or not. The "more factors" is in how efficiently an individual's digestive system extracts calories from the food consumed and how many calories their body burns in daily activities. Of course, however, there are medical conditions that affects one's metabolism for instance someone with very active thrifty genes needs to consume less and/or be more active if they don't want to store fat.

But in the real world, the overwhelming majority of overweight people do consume more calories and/or are less active than underweight people.

The only actual data presented in this thread contradicts this statement.

To argue differently would necessitate proposing that something happened in the gene pool of the world's developed nations (but not in third world nations) over the last fifty years.

No. Variation between cases in a distribution at a given timepoint can and usually do have different causes that changes in the central tendency of that distribution over time.
The increase in obesity rates is of the latter sort and has no implications for why people differ from each other within the distribution today or 50 years ago.

Your committing the fallacy of assuming the within and between group variance must have the same causes. It is the same error racist often make when using evidence of genetic contributions to within-group differences in IQ as a basis to conclude that between race differences in IQ must also have a genetic basis.

What the OP study data show is that the rise in obesity rates is that people in generally are consuming more calories now than 30 years ago, and this is as true of "normal" weight people as obese people. However, because of differences in how people's bodies process calories, the same increase in caloric intake had little effect on some people but a large effect (pun intended) on other people. For some people, they remain in the "normal" range, while others become obese.

A good analogy is the fluctuations in number of homeruns per game in major league baseball. They increased dramatically in the late 1990s and 2000's. Among the 15 seasons with the most homeruns, all but 1 of them were not between 1996 and 2009.
Why the increase in those years? Steroids. That is the cause for the difference between that era and prior eras. Yet, no reasonable person thinks this implies that the reason Hank Aaron so many more homeruns in 1957 compared to other player is that he was on steroids and they were not.

 

[ronburgundy]

A thread like this would probably never catch my eye until I see someone make some silly statement that everyone should agree to act like/speak like/be like X because (fill in some goofiness) and then seeing a group of people defend the statement with nonsense or misinterpretations of statistics to back up absolute nonsense..

You haven't shown any flaws with the interpretations of the data (the only actual evidence presented in this thread) or with the well established biological facts about massive natural variance in how people's bodies process calories, variance that directly predicts massive variance in weight independent of caloric intake or level of physical activity.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, some people can eat more than others and not gain weight. But that isn't a reason for obesity - pointing this out is only an attempt at a justification for obesity. Obesity is caused by someone consuming more calories than their body burns (for whatever reason) and people have control of both unless they are invalids, then they only have control of one.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, some people can eat more than others and not gain weight. But that isn't a reason for obesity - pointing this out is only an attempt at a justification for obesity. Obesity is caused by someone consuming more calories than their body burns (for whatever reason) and people have control of both unless they are invalids, then they only have control of one.

The thing being explained is not merely the weight of and individual, but rather the cause of variation in weight between individuals. Biological variations is metabolism and processing of calories is absolutely a major cause of much of the variation in body weight. To deny this is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the very concept of causality.

Yes, an individual gains weight when their intake exceeds "burning" of calories. That tells us nothing about why that differential exists. Controlled activities done with the intention of burning calories is only a fraction of the cause of burned calories. Both resting bodily processes and neccessary actions done for reasons other than calorie burning comprise most of the calories burned and a huge % of the variation in calories burned. Claiming a person is fat because they do not exercise enough is an unscientific assertion, with no more validity than claiming they are fat because of a slow metabolism. The claims are vacuous except when in reference to relative differences in why they are fat compared to others. And the cause of those differences is, in many instances, more due to metabolism than differences in consumption or exorcise-directed activity. In addition, slow metabolism can wind up impacting their activity. If their metabolism leads them to be fatter than those around them who consume just as much and don't exercise more, this reduces the psychological reward for activity, causing a kind of negative feedback loop that begins with direct effects of metabolism but then adds activity reduction as an additional indirect causal pathway increasing weight.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, some people can eat more than others and not gain weight. But that isn't a reason for obesity - pointing this out is only an attempt at a justification for obesity. Obesity is caused by someone consuming more calories than their body burns (for whatever reason) and people have control of both unless they are invalids, then they only have control of one.

The thing being explained is not merely the weight of and individual, but rather the cause of variation in weight between individuals. Biological variations is metabolism and processing of calories is absolutely a major cause of much of the variation in body weight. To deny this is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the very concept of causality.

Yes, an individual gains weight when their intake exceeds "burning" of calories. That tells us nothing about why that differential exists. Controlled activities done with the intention of burning calories is only a fraction of the cause of burned calories. Both resting bodily processes and neccessary actions done for reasons other than calorie burning comprise most of the calories burned and a huge % of the variation in calories burned. Claiming a person is fat because they do not exercise enough is an unscientific assertion, with no more validity than claiming they are fat because of a slow metabolism. The claims are vacuous except when in reference to relative differences in why they are fat compared to others. And the cause of those differences is, in many instances, more due to metabolism than differences in consumption or exorcise-directed activity. In addition, slow metabolism can wind up impacting their activity. If their metabolism leads them to be fatter than those around them who consume just as much and don't exercise more, this reduces the psychological reward for activity, causing a kind of negative feedback loop that begins with direct effects of metabolism but then adds activity reduction as an additional indirect causal pathway increasing weight.

But all that is just justifying obesity. It makes an unspoken assumption that everyone needs to (or should be able to) eat the same amount - people don't need to (or not should be able to) because people's metabolism and activity are different. People choose to eat more than their body requires. Some marathon runner in training can consume over 5000 calories/day and lose weight. This doesn't mean that everyone should be able to eat 5000 calories/day and lose weight, not even the marathon runner when he is not in training.

Eating more than the body requires is a choice, not a requirement. And what one person eats has no effect on the weight of another person unless that first person is eating that other person's food. So comparing what different people eat tells us nothing about why some individual is overweight. That individual would be overweight because they choose to consume more calories than they burn to sustain whatever their normal activity is - not how much less they eat than that marathon runner or anyone else.

 

[RavenSky]

The thing being explained is not merely the weight of and individual, but rather the cause of variation in weight between individuals. Biological variations is metabolism and processing of calories is absolutely a major cause of much of the variation in body weight. To deny this is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the very concept of causality.

Yes, an individual gains weight when their intake exceeds "burning" of calories. That tells us nothing about why that differential exists. Controlled activities done with the intention of burning calories is only a fraction of the cause of burned calories. Both resting bodily processes and neccessary actions done for reasons other than calorie burning comprise most of the calories burned and a huge % of the variation in calories burned. Claiming a person is fat because they do not exercise enough is an unscientific assertion, with no more validity than claiming they are fat because of a slow metabolism. The claims are vacuous except when in reference to relative differences in why they are fat compared to others. And the cause of those differences is, in many instances, more due to metabolism than differences in consumption or exorcise-directed activity. In addition, slow metabolism can wind up impacting their activity. If their metabolism leads them to be fatter than those around them who consume just as much and don't exercise more, this reduces the psychological reward for activity, causing a kind of negative feedback loop that begins with direct effects of metabolism but then adds activity reduction as an additional indirect causal pathway increasing weight.

But all that is just justifying obesity.

No, it isn't

The flip side, however, appears to be granting some people the license to fat-shame.

It makes an unspoken assumption that everyone needs to (or should be able to) eat the same amount

Who's "unspoken assumption"? Not RonBurgandy's. Not mine. Maybe yours?

Eating more than the body requires is a choice, not a requirement.

Not necessarily. It is very easy to point the finger at someone and say they should just eat less. However, a very low calories diet - which based on the position you have taken - should result in weight loss no matter what (they are eating less than the body requires, right?) actually causes the body to go into starvation mode to conserve every bit of fat (stored calories) and food it can. The restricted nutrients can also cause medical problems which can also interfere with weight loss.

It simply is not as simple as you and others want to make it.

 

[skepticalbip]

But all that is just justifying obesity.

No, it isn't

The flip side, however, appears to be granting some people the license to fat-shame.

Where the hell did that come from? I have made no value judgement, only explained the conditions under which the body stores excess calories that it doesn't currently need. You may assume that overweight is shameful but I don't.

It makes an unspoken assumption that everyone needs to (or should be able to) eat the same amount

Who's "unspoken assumption"? Not RonBurgandy's. Not mine. Maybe yours?

Eating more than the body requires is a choice, not a requirement.

Not necessarily. It is very easy to point the finger at someone and say they should just eat less.

I have certainly made no such judgement, only stated what is needed to be done if they themselves decide that they want to lose weight. My little brother had a serious problem with weight (he was seriously obese) and I suggested that he may want to become more active to burn off the calories since he was becoming concerned about the health effects. He became an exercise nut after seeing the pounds beginning to drop away and lost all his excess weight (even without going on a diet).

However, a very low calories diet - which based on the position you have taken - should result in weight loss no matter what (they are eating less than the body requires, right?) actually causes the body to go into starvation mode to conserve every bit of fat (stored calories) and food it can. The restricted nutrients can also cause medical problems which can also interfere with weight loss.

It simply is not as simple as you and others want to make it.

It is that simple, unless there are serious health problems.

 

[RavenSky]

No, it isn't

The flip side, however, appears to be granting some people the license to fat-shame.

Where the hell did that come from? I have made no value judgement,

Did I say you? Have you been reading this thread? Here is just the second post:

Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
No "we" can't. Fat people are fat for a reason, they eat crap and too much of it.

As for your little brother, anecdote is not the same as data. The data shows that weight loss/gain, calories, etc are not as simple as you want to make it (though muscle-building exercise is more effective and healthier than calorie-restrictive dieting for a lot of people)

 

[TSwizzle]

For the vast majority of fat people it is as simple as going from a shitty diet of crap food to a balanced diet and getting a bit of exercise. Sometimes the diet can be tricky and require a qualified nutritionist to draw up the diet. But it's still the same principle. Eat less, move more.

 

[ronburgundy]

The thing being explained is not merely the weight of and individual, but rather the cause of variation in weight between individuals. Biological variations is metabolism and processing of calories is absolutely a major cause of much of the variation in body weight. To deny this is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the very concept of causality.

Yes, an individual gains weight when their intake exceeds "burning" of calories. That tells us nothing about why that differential exists. Controlled activities done with the intention of burning calories is only a fraction of the cause of burned calories. Both resting bodily processes and neccessary actions done for reasons other than calorie burning comprise most of the calories burned and a huge % of the variation in calories burned. Claiming a person is fat because they do not exercise enough is an unscientific assertion, with no more validity than claiming they are fat because of a slow metabolism. The claims are vacuous except when in reference to relative differences in why they are fat compared to others. And the cause of those differences is, in many instances, more due to metabolism than differences in consumption or exorcise-directed activity. In addition, slow metabolism can wind up impacting their activity. If their metabolism leads them to be fatter than those around them who consume just as much and don't exercise more, this reduces the psychological reward for activity, causing a kind of negative feedback loop that begins with direct effects of metabolism but then adds activity reduction as an additional indirect causal pathway increasing weight.

But all that is just justifying obesity.

No. I am presenting a purely scientific explanation of causation. You are concerned with blaming fatties, which is a moral and unscientific position.

It makes an unspoken assumption that everyone needs to (or should be able to) eat the same amount - people don't need to (or not should be able to) because people's metabolism and activity are different. People choose to eat more than their body requires.

I am making no assumptions about people "should" eat, because that is an unscientific, moral question. Science has nothing to do with "shoulds". You and all those critical of the OP are making the purely moral arguments based in assumed "shoulds." You presume that people "should" only consume the amount their body requires for fuel, so you judge people negatively who violate your preference and then judge those who don't share your judgment of fatties. This is what makes you and others unable to separate a causal explanation from a "justification". It is the confusion between these that people seeking to place moral blame on others always get upset about when someone provides a scientific explanation for something that includes factors that are not under volitional control and don't lend themselves to moral judgment. It is the same as the religionist who gets upset at science for "justifying" criminality by explaining the causal influence of childhood abuse on future criminal behavior.

Some marathon runner in training can consume over 5000 calories/day and lose weight. This doesn't mean that everyone should be able to eat 5000 calories/day and lose weight, not even the marathon runner when he is not in training.

Eating more than the body requires is a choice, not a requirement. And what one person eats has no effect on the weight of another person unless that first person is eating that other person's food. So comparing what different people eat tells us nothing about why some individual is overweight. That individual would be overweight because they choose to consume more calories than they burn to sustain whatever their normal activity is - not how much less they eat than that marathon runner or anyone else.

Almost no one, including "normal" weight people choose what they eat merely based upon matching it to what their body requires. So that is not a difference between normal and overweight people. Consumption for most people is massively determined by past socialization, current social practices of serving sizes and meal frequency, food availability, sensory pleasure, etc.. Whether those factors lead to consumption that matches a person's bodily fuel requirements is often a matter of random luck. The less overweight person is often not thinking any more about, trying any harder to match it up, exerting any more self control, etc..
In addition, all of these factors that drive motives to consume are highly variable between people and not under direct control. For example, many people are born with taste/smell systems or brain reward systems that mean they just don't enjoy food as much as others. They don't eat less because they have more control in trying to match their needs. They eat less because they don't like most foods (often for innate biological reasons) and if they also have a slow metabolism its just luck that this leads to a better matching of their fuel needs. IOW, the fatter person is often exerting far more self-control and more effort to try and match their intake to their bodies needs, but those are not enough to compensate for all the factors outside their control that make this task far far more difficult for them to achieve than their thinner friend who by random dumb luck find themselves in a body whose caloric needs better match the environmental factors that shape caloric intake.

 

[ronburgundy]

For the vast majority of fat people it is as simple as going from a shitty diet of crap food to a balanced diet and getting a bit of exercise. Sometimes the diet can be tricky and require a qualified nutritionist to draw up the diet. But it's still the same principle. Eat less, move more.

Repeating your blind faith over and over in face of refuting scientific evidence don't it make it more true.