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

[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.

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

It doesn't matter how much verbose mumbo jumbo you spout, it doesn't become a fact, it is still mumbo jumbo.

 

[ronburgundy]

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

It doesn't matter how much verbose mumbo jumbo you spout, it doesn't become a fact, it is still mumbo jumbo.

Spoken like an illiterate creationist.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't matter how much verbose mumbo jumbo you spout, it doesn't become a fact, it is still mumbo jumbo.

Spoken like an illiterate creationist.

Spoken like the twat that you are.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

CRJQ so

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

You are still talking about societal reasons for overweight - which essentially is saying that anyone overweight is a victim of circumstances beyond their control. Individuals do have much more control than your "analysis" indicates. It doesn't require counting calories consumed minus the counted calories burned. If someone is concerned about their weight then they can simply not eat three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV after they first notice that their clothes are beginning to be tight. They have the choice to not finish all the food on their plate and to start daily waking a few miles energetically enough to raise their pulse rate, or go dancing, or any other activity that gets them moving rather than sitting idle.

The equation has two parts, both energy taken in minus energy expended. If the sum is positive then it is stored as fat. If the sum in negative then fat is burned. The amount of either or both can be controlled by the individual unless they have serious medical problems. Personally, I lean toward the energy burned side because there are many more health benefits. not the least of which is that they still get the nutrition the body needs without having to carefully plan their meals.

This does work. There are thousands and thousands, if not millions and millions, of people who have done it with exercise regimes like aerobic training, walking, swimming, etc.

 

[RavenSky]

Individuals do have much more control than your "analysis" indicates. It doesn't require counting calories consumed minus the counted calories burned. If someone is concerned about their weight then they can simply not eat three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV after they first notice that their clothes are beginning to be tight.

It is your assumption that the person is eating "three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV" that is part of the problem. Note, you bolded the word "big" not me. That was a choice on your part, and a very telling one.

 

[skepticalbip]

Individuals do have much more control than your "analysis" indicates. It doesn't require counting calories consumed minus the counted calories burned. If someone is concerned about their weight then they can simply not eat three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV after they first notice that their clothes are beginning to be tight.

It is your assumption that the person is eating "three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV" that is part of the problem. Note, you bolded the word "big" not me. That was a choice on your part, and a very telling one.

It was bolded because one of ronburgundy's bullet points was the size of servings that restaurants offer (as one of the reasons for obesity). My point is that just because a restaurant offers serving sizes that could feed a whole family in some third world nations doesn't mean that they have to be completely eaten by the patron.

 

[TSwizzle]

It was bolded because one of ronburgundy's bullet points was the size of servings that restaurants offer. My point is that just because a restaurant offers serving sizes that could feed a whole family in some third world nations doesn't mean that they have to be completely eaten by the patron.

It's a tip/trick that dietitians put forward is to put your food on a small plate so that it looks like a bigger serving.

Re the three big meals, it's quite often down to the amount of snacks between meals that people eat that gets them to obesity. But at the end of the day, the meal count isn't the big issue, it's how big the meal is and what it consists of.

 

[RavenSky]

It is your assumption that the person is eating "three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV" that is part of the problem. Note, you bolded the word "big" not me. That was a choice on your part, and a very telling one.

It was bolded because one of ronburgundy's bullet points was the size of servings that restaurants offer (as one of the reasons for obesity). My point is that just because a restaurant offers serving sizes that could feed a whole family in some third world nations doesn't mean that they have to be completely eaten by the patron.

So now that you have been called on your choice of words and bolding, you claim that it was in reference to RonBurgandy's reference to large portions at restaurants. OK. Except that most people do not eat three meals a day at restaurants, and most restaurants do not have TV's.

Again, your choice of words, and a very telling one.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was bolded because one of ronburgundy's bullet points was the size of servings that restaurants offer (as one of the reasons for obesity). My point is that just because a restaurant offers serving sizes that could feed a whole family in some third world nations doesn't mean that they have to be completely eaten by the patron.

So now that you have been called on your choice of words and bolding, you claim that it was in reference to RonBurgandy's reference to large portions at restaurants. OK. Except that most people do not eat three meals a day at restaurants, and most restaurants do not have TV's.

Again, your choice of words, and a very telling one.

It wasn't in reference to.. it was in response to. If you don't think large serving sizes are one of the causes of obesity then your argument is with ronburgundy, not me.

I still maintain that it is the difference between energy taken in minus energy expended that determines whether someone gains, loses, or keeps weight.

 

[RavenSky]

fi

 

[Godless Raven]

It is your assumption that the person is eating "three big meals a day then remain idle watching TV" that is part of the problem. Note, you bolded the word "big" not me. That was a choice on your part, and a very telling one.

It was bolded because one of ronburgundy's bullet points was the size of servings that restaurants offer (as one of the reasons for obesity). My point is that just because a restaurant offers serving sizes that could feed a whole family in some third world nations doesn't mean that they have to be completely eaten by the patron.

Too late! You said and emphasized a word on the banned list.

Everyone knows you just put massive sized font, bold and all caps when you want to make a legitimate point.

Anyway...report to decontamination for the next steps. Next time refer to your list...because the words you say, say a lot about you to those keeping note of such things.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

My buddy is easily 80 pounds heavier than me. He didn't used to be that way. We're talking and he reaches over and pats my stomach and says, "How do you stay like that?" referring to the fact that I don't have this humongous gut. I said, "I don't overeat." He says, "I could never do that." And he's quite the happy guy so I guess some people choose happiness over health.

 

[Juma]

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.

Eh. That is not refuting science.

 

[Playball40]

So now that you have been called on your choice of words and bolding, you claim that it was in reference to RonBurgandy's reference to large portions at restaurants. OK. Except that most people do not eat three meals a day at restaurants, and most restaurants do not have TV's.

Again, your choice of words, and a very telling one.

It wasn't in reference to.. it was in response to. If you don't think large serving sizes are one of the causes of obesity then your argument is with ronburgundy, not me.

I still maintain that it is the difference between energy taken in minus energy expended that determines whether someone gains, loses, or keeps weight.

And science today would maintain that you are incorrect. It is simply not that simple.

 

[Playball40]

Interesting article regarding metabolism and weight maintenance. Of course to some it will be ignored - it's just about willpower and CI/CO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?_r=0

 

[Playball40]

Another interesting article for those that want to read. Also debunks the old adage CI/CO (so I suspect some will not want to follow the studies). It's a blog but has links to the actual studies.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

- - - Updated - - -

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.

My buddy is easily 80 pounds heavier than me. He didn't used to be that way. We're talking and he reaches over and pats my stomach and says, "How do you stay like that?" referring to the fact that I don't have this humongous gut. I said, "I don't overeat." He says, "I could never do that." And he's quite the happy guy so I guess some people choose happiness over health.

Well there ya go. All studies are wrong because your friend thinks his "gut" is all his own doing and your lack of "gut" is all your doing. Got it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Interesting article regarding metabolism and weight maintenance. Of course to some it will be ignored - it's just about willpower and CI/CO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?_r=0

That article simply reinforces the fact that no two people have the same metabolisms. Some of us can eat more than others, some way more, and still maintain a healthy BMI. You seem to be maintaining the belief that we should all be able to eat identical diets and have the same BMIs. If I ate as much as I'd enjoy I'd be a fat, unhappy blob, and you seem to be implying that that should not be the case.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another interesting article for those that want to read. Also debunks the old adage CI/CO (so I suspect some will not want to follow the studies). It's a blog but has links to the actual studies.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

- - - Updated - - -

My buddy is easily 80 pounds heavier than me. He didn't used to be that way. We're talking and he reaches over and pats my stomach and says, "How do you stay like that?" referring to the fact that I don't have this humongous gut. I said, "I don't overeat." He says, "I could never do that." And he's quite the happy guy so I guess some people choose happiness over health.

Well there ya go. All studies are wrong because your friend thinks his "gut" is all his own doing and your lack of "gut" is all your doing. Got it.

In his case it is precisely why he is unhealthily overweight. He even admits it. I don't get your point.

 

[TSwizzle]

Interesting article regarding metabolism and weight maintenance. Of course to some it will be ignored - it's just about willpower and CI/CO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?_r=0

That article simply reinforces the fact that no two people have the same metabolisms. Some of us can eat more than others, some way more, and still maintain a healthy BMI.

Yup. For some people, maintaining a healthy weight can be a struggle. But struggle they must if they want to be healthy.