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

[ronburgundy]

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.

Your post shows you continue to have no grasp of what a scientific question or explanation looks like and are incapable of understanding the difference between and causal explanation and an moralistic evaluation/judgement (the latter of which only you and the OP critics are making). I haven't used words that connote an ethical evaluation of "blame", like "victim", "justification" or "responsibility". Only you have and those critical of the OP and my arguments.

Societal factors are as real and causal as genes, and most of them are not directly under the person's control. What people control is a fraction of the factors that exert causal force on their weight. Yes, it is theoretically possible for them to exert so much control that the impact overrides the impact of the uncontrolled factors.
But to do so is to exert a level of control that 99% of the population does not exert, including most healthy or normal weight people, who via random luck and no effort of their own do not need to exert much control to achieve those outcomes.

The notion of self-control has meaning only in relative terms, meaning relative to what is typical. It is objectively inaccurate to say these people "lack self-control". Many exert relatively more control than the average fit person, they just don't exert the 5 times the average control they would need to override all the non-controlled factors they are up against.

A perfect analogy is that they are put in an obstacle course that is many times harder than the average person. As a result, they are less likely to finish and if they don't finish, what should we say was the cause of them not finishing while others did finish their easier course?
Any reasonable person would say the main reason is the harder course they faced.

Note that is separate from what needs to be done for them to finish their course. If their course cannot be altered, then the only practical solution is to help them keep trying. It is also separate from ethical question of how we should view and treat them (which I have not discussed till now). Most decent people would say you don't treat someone who didn't do something that most people never did either (complete the hardest course) like they are a failure and weak. IF they do finish it, they are amazing and have proven more character than those that never had to try that course (i.e., most normal weight people). But if they don't finish, some might be lazier than average and wouldn't have finished even an easy course, or they might be average, or even still above average in any personal traits. Outcomes pften do not reflect controllable traits because they are products of complex interactions between controllable traits X uncontrollable traits X context.

 

[ronburgundy]

And I can foresee that those in this thread who maintain that overweight people can't help being overweight will completely ignore the formula "eat healthily, be physically active", especially ignoring the "be physically active" part.

You called it !

He called nothing. His prediction was completely wrong, whereas I was dead on in my prediction that you would continue your scientifically illiterate failure to understand the objective difference between the practicality of a solution and the causal factors giving rise to the problem in the first place.

 

[skepticalbip]

And I can foresee that those in this thread who maintain that overweight people can't help being overweight will completely ignore the formula "eat healthily, be physically active", especially ignoring the "be physically active" part.

And I can foresee that those using their faith and moral bias to dismiss the relevant science will completely ignore the fact that the the most practical leverage points for solving a problem are a completely separate issue from the question of causal contributors that give rise to the situation one is seeking to change.

Do genes causally contribute to cancer? Yes. Do many people who have cancer differ from many without it, due more to the genes than other factors? Yes. Is the best practical solution to a person who has cancer to change their genes to be like those without it? No.

I understand the causal contributors for the general increase in average weight in our society. But if the average individual wants to lose weight then they are irrelevant. Food is much more available and cheaper than ever before, various varieties and flavors to tempt the palette are much more accessible. Labor saving devices are much more common - in fact even minor tasks are automated to save even minimal effort such as our automobiles have automatic windows so we don't have to turn a crank, automatic transmissions so we don't have to manually change gears. Our TVs and radios have remote controls so we don't have to get out of our comfy chair and walk across the room to change channels. Our shopping malls have escalators so we don't have to walk up stairs, etc. etc. etc. People, in general, in our society don't have to expend hardly any effort in their daily lives unless they want to.

Historically, life was much different. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors expended a great deal of effort just to get enough food to survive. Before automobiles, people thought nothing of walking miles. Before our modern society, most people did physical labor.

Now take a creature that evolved through ages where a great deal of physical effort was required just to survive, where food was scarce and put them in a situation where any food they desire is readily available, where they only need to exert themselves if they really want to and you have what we see today.

 

[skepticalbip]

And I can foresee that those in this thread who maintain that overweight people can't help being overweight will completely ignore the formula "eat healthily, be physically active", especially ignoring the "be physically active" part.

It´s not impossible to lose weight, it just takes a concerted effort for many many months. It is very hard and it does not help when people say just eat less and move more. If that message worked we could say to alcoholics, just don´t drink, gambling addicts just
don´t gamble.

There are mental and physical hurdles to loosing weight and changing learned behaviour is no small thing.

I absolutely agree.

It takes desire and commitment on the part of the person. No one will lose weight unless they really want to enough to change their life style. Unfortunately, most people like and are comfortable with their lifestyle so resist long term changes away from the lifestyle that is responsible for their current situation.

ETA:
The shame is that there are those who discourage someone who is overweight and really wants to lose weight by telling them that there is nothing they can do about it - such as ronburgundy expounding his "scientific" proof that there is nothing anyone can do about their weight.

 

[TSwizzle]

It takes desire and commitment on the part of the person. No one will lose weight unless they really want to enough to change their life style. Unfortunately, most people like and are comfortable with their lifestyle so resist long term changes away from the lifestyle that is responsible for their current situation.

Exactly. People go on diets, hit their target weights, give up the diet and are back to where they started or worse not long after giving up the diet. It is a lifestyle choice and it's permanent. I'd love to have a great physique, six pack abs etc and I know what that takes. It takes a change in lifestyle that I am not going to make. But I do look after myself by watching what I eat and moderate exercise. But I have to make a effort to exercise otherwise there would be no exercise in my daily life. As you said earlier, we don't even crank the handle to roll the windows in our cars.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Your post shows you continue to have no grasp of what a scientific question or explanation looks like

Now that is funny. And you really think you are talking science.

I would guarantee that if you take the average overweight person, generally healthy other than weight, generally fairly idle like most Americans, and change absolutely nothing about their lifestyle except adding an exercise regime of speed walking or swimming five or six miles/day - energetically enough to increase their pulse rate - that in six months their weight will be significantly lower. You idea of science apparently convinces you that this is nonsense.

 

[Playball40]

So not eating for months is not 'starvation'? Really?

WOW! Your ignorance is showing so badly in this post that I just have to bow out. You CLEARLY have not read any of the articles or study links. You also have NO IDEA what starvation does to the brain, the heart, and every other body system. NO PROBLEM? Wow. Just wow.

Starvation? You're making me laugh. Perhaps it is time for you to take a time out.

 

[Playball40]

This is JUST NOT ACCURATE. If it were that easy, my daughter would be at a nice healthy weight today.

Try weighing everything she eats and counting her calories. I bet you 100 dollars that she is running a small deficit. It is literally the only explanation.

No, its not. She hypermetabolizes. There is nothing I can do about it and only time and weight gain will correct it. I serve and provide her meals so I know she is not 'running a deficit'. She needs more than 3,000 calories a day just to maintain. Less than that and she loses weight. I'm working on a new menu plan now to increase her to 3,500+

 

[Playball40]

Quite the opposite in fact. I think being physically active provides MUCH MORE 'HEALTH' benefit that just what we eat. Without a doubt. However, how much is burned by physical activity is not the same for all people.

WHO calls for healthier diets to combat alarming surge in diabetes;



Guardian

And I can foresee that those in this thread who maintain that overweight people can't help being overweight will completely ignore the formula "eat healthily, be physically active", especially ignoring the "be physically active" part.

 

[skepticalbip]

Quite the opposite in fact. I think being physically active provides MUCH MORE 'HEALTH' benefit that just what we eat. Without a doubt. However, how much is burned by physical activity is not the same for all people.

And I can foresee that those in this thread who maintain that overweight people can't help being overweight will completely ignore the formula "eat healthily, be physically active", especially ignoring the "be physically active" part.

I agree, people are different. But still more exercise will burn more calories for everyone just not the same number of calories for everyone. But then exercise has, as you say, other health benefits too, plus exercise will increase the overall metabolic rate so that more calories will be burned for even the times when someone is idle (between exercise sessions).

 

[Playball40]

Quite the opposite in fact. I think being physically active provides MUCH MORE 'HEALTH' benefit that just what we eat. Without a doubt. However, how much is burned by physical activity is not the same for all people.

I agree, people are different. But still more exercise will burn more calories for everyone just not the same number of calories for everyone. But then exercise has, as you say, other health benefits too, plus exercise will increase the overall metabolic rate so that more calories will be burned for even the times when someone is idle (between exercise sessions).

And there will be people that exercise more than the average bear, eat a diet of healthy vitamin packed foods AND STILL BE OVERWEIGHT. That said, no one is advocating for a purely sedentary lifestyle. (Well, except for my daughter right now - she is not allowed to exercise!)

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree, people are different. But still more exercise will burn more calories for everyone just not the same number of calories for everyone. But then exercise has, as you say, other health benefits too, plus exercise will increase the overall metabolic rate so that more calories will be burned for even the times when someone is idle (between exercise sessions).

And there will be people that exercise more than the average bear, eat a diet of healthy vitamin packed foods AND STILL BE OVERWEIGHT. That said, no one is advocating for a purely sedentary lifestyle. (Well, except for my daughter right now - she is not allowed to exercise!)

You are talking a "No True Scotsman" argument. Yes, there are a very, very small minority that fall outside the broad norm, I am talking about that broad norm. And "sedentary lifestyle" is an extremely relative term. I would say that someone leads a sedentary lifestyle if they don't exert themselves enough to physically tire their muscles at least a few times a week, others may think that someone leads an active life if they walk more than a few hundred yards per day.

 

[RavenSky]

WOW! Your ignorance is showing so badly in this post that I just have to bow out. You CLEARLY have not read any of the articles or study links. You also have NO IDEA what starvation does to the brain, the heart, and every other body system. NO PROBLEM? Wow. Just wow.

Starvation? You're making me laugh. Perhaps it is time for you to take a time out.

You said:

If you're seriously overweight you can stop eating for months with no problem.

Here is the definition of "starvation"

Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake needed to maintain human life.

If a person stops eating for months, they are starving themselves.

That is not healthy

And perhaps YOU should take the time out... to educate yourself. RonBurgandy and Playball have both provided you with excellent resources, but you refuse to educate yourself. I expect that sort of willful ignorance (or baiting) from a few of the people spouting off in this thread, but not from you.

 

[Playball40]

And there will be people that exercise more than the average bear, eat a diet of healthy vitamin packed foods AND STILL BE OVERWEIGHT. That said, no one is advocating for a purely sedentary lifestyle. (Well, except for my daughter right now - she is not allowed to exercise!)

You are talking a "No True Scotsman" argument. Yes, there are a very, very small minority that fall outside the broad norm, I am talking about that broad norm. And "sedentary lifestyle" is an extremely relative term. I would say that someone leads a sedentary lifestyle if they don't exert themselves enough to physically tire their muscles at least a few times a week, others may think that someone leads an active life if they walk more than a few hundred yards per day.

But I'm NOT talking about that rare outlier. Read the studies. People that are overweight do not eat more or exercise less than someone of lower weight. However, physical activity is good for your body - it's good for your heart, your brain and other body systems. It's just not a good measurement for weight loss.

 

[TSwizzle]

Read the studies. People that are overweight do not eat more or exercise less than someone of lower weight.

In the USA, people are getting overweight because they eat too much crap, i.e. fast food. Read the studies !

 

[Frikki]

It´s not impossible to lose weight, it just takes a concerted effort for many many months. It is very hard and it does not help when people say just eat less and move more. If that message worked we could say to alcoholics, just don´t drink, gambling addicts just
don´t gamble.

There are mental and physical hurdles to loosing weight and changing learned behaviour is no small thing.

I absolutely agree.

It takes desire and commitment on the part of the person. No one will lose weight unless they really want to enough to change their life style. Unfortunately, most people like and are comfortable with their lifestyle so resist long term changes away from the lifestyle that is responsible for their current situation.

ETA:
The shame is that there are those who discourage someone who is overweight and really wants to lose weight by telling them that there is nothing they can do about it

That of course is wrong, it´s very difficult but very possible at the same time.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are talking a "No True Scotsman" argument. Yes, there are a very, very small minority that fall outside the broad norm, I am talking about that broad norm. And "sedentary lifestyle" is an extremely relative term. I would say that someone leads a sedentary lifestyle if they don't exert themselves enough to physically tire their muscles at least a few times a week, others may think that someone leads an active life if they walk more than a few hundred yards per day.

But I'm NOT talking about that rare outlier. Read the studies. People that are overweight do not eat more or exercise less than someone of lower weight. However, physical activity is good for your body - it's good for your heart, your brain and other body systems. It's just not a good measurement for weight loss.

I think we are talking two very different things here. Yes there are fairly broad differences between individuals. The admittedly very few studies I have seen show this but they were not comparing people who go out of their way to exercise with those who don't. I have seen no study that that compares someone who has lead a normal, for the average American, life of just doing pretty much what is necessary for them (which means that they do very little physical activity) with someone who spends an hour/day doing aerobic exercises. Such studies are probably rare because the results are fairly obvious.

 

[Frikki]

Try weighing everything she eats and counting her calories. I bet you 100 dollars that she is running a small deficit. It is literally the only explanation.

No, its not. She hypermetabolizes. There is nothing I can do about it and only time and weight gain will correct it. I serve and provide her meals so I know she is not 'running a deficit'. She needs more than 3,000 calories a day just to maintain. Less than that and she loses weight. I'm working on a new menu plan now to increase her to 3,500+

As I said she is running a small deficit.

 

[EricK]

A very interesting article on the Guardian website today:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

It is quite long - though worth reading in it's entirety. But this section really summarizes what I believe about the main cause of obesity:

Those prewar European researchers would have regarded the idea that obesity results from “excess calories” as laughably simplistic. Biochemists and endocrinologists are more likely to think of obesity as a hormonal disorder, triggered by the kinds of foods we started eating a lot more of when we cut back on fat: easily digestible starches and sugars. In his new book, Always Hungry, David Ludwig, an endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, calls this the “Insulin-Carbohydrate” model of obesity. According to this model, an excess of refined carbohydrates interferes with the self-balancing equilibrium of the metabolic system.

Far from being an inert dumping ground for excess calories, fat tissue operates as a reserve energy supply for the body. Its calories are called upon when glucose is running low – that is, between meals, or during fasts and famines. Fat takes instruction from insulin, the hormone responsible for regulating blood sugar. Refined carbohydrates break down at speed into glucose in the blood, prompting the pancreas to produce insulin. When insulin levels rise, fat tissue gets a signal to suck energy out of the blood, and to stop releasing it. So when insulin stays high for unnaturally long, a person gains weight, gets hungrier, and feels fatigued. Then we blame them for it. But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.

Ludwig makes clear, as Taubes does, that this is not a new theory – John Yudkin would have recognised it – but an old one that has been galvanised by new evidence. What he does not mention is the role that supporters of the fat hypothesis have played, historically, in demolishing the credibility of those who proposed it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You called it !

He called nothing. His prediction was completely wrong, whereas I was dead on in my prediction that you would continue your scientifically illiterate failure to understand the objective difference between the practicality of a solution and the causal factors giving rise to the problem in the first place.

You are correct that mental barriers can be difficult to overcome. If that were not the case we wouldn't have hundreds of millions of people singing songs and talking to a corpse that came back to life and that they want to live with. So I don't disagree with you.

Those same people, however, find a way to navigate chemotherapy and heart surgery and all manner of physical misfortune, most of it exceedingly painful and inconvenient. But they do it. So I am convinced they can lose the pounds just as well.