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

[TSwizzle]

The study is a whopping red herring.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I didn't imply anything about vanity. For many people, fitness is about vanity more than health, but obviously avoiding obesity is wise and has numerous benefits beyond superficial appearances. The fact is that many "fit" people don't struggle to stay "fit" because their biology makes being majorly overweight implausible, even if they don't try to stay fit. While others have biology that require 5 times the effort, and self-control to avoid being overweight. IOW, they often have twice the self control of more "fit" people, but they just don't have the 5 times the self-control required to be as "fit" as people with the random luck of a higher metabolic rate. Of course, they will lose weight with less intake and more exercise. That has nothing to do with the OP or this thread. The present question is what are the causes for between person differences in being overweight. The research in question suggests that it is not primarily quantity or type of calories consumed. Amount of activity is obviously a factor, but so are highly variable uncontrolled biological factors that impact what one's body deals with whatever intake one engages in.

That is absolute malarkey and you know it - or should. You've just stated that someone can consume 1/5 the calories I take in, and engage in five times the physical exertion - calories burned - and still be overweight and out of shape. That is a pile of bull. And it is exactly the kind of coddle people want to hear while they reach for their next twinkie.

I'll agree that many people don't have the knowledge or the appreciation of the knowledge of what health requires because they've never lived it. How are they going to learn? Do you give people passing grades on tests because they don't have the same cognitive abilities as someone else. If that's the case we should all be doctors.

No. People are different. We agree on that. But that does not mean they have to be unhealthy. That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

 

[bilby]

Why does the word obese hurt your feelings? Claiming that using the word obese negates an argument is a ridiculous logical fallacy. And what exactly is my bias and how would it effect the truth that fat people need to eat less and exercise more if they want to lose weight.

I don't have a problem with fat people. I have a problem with obese fat acceptance people. Because they're cry babies that want to pedestalize their self perceived victim hood. They're not victims. They're just people with more adipose tissue than they want. You don't hear sumo wrestlers whining about their plight and how its not their fault. It doesn't fucking matter what or who's at fault or that other people can eat loads of junk and not gain weight. If they don't like their level of fat then eat less and/or exercise more. Otherwise quit worrying about it.

The word "obese" is in the thread title! Further, if you must take offense, the OP title references "low (weight), normal and obese" people, implying skinny people and obese people are "not normal". If you have a problem with the use of offensive words in this thread it should be directed at Playball40, not Nexus. All this word policing is starting to get a little out of hand. God forbid we ever have a thread concerning an "obese, retarded thug".

Hadn't you noticed all the mentions of Chris Christie in the Political Discussions forum?

 

[RavenSky]

...I know what I'm talking about...

No, on this subject you really really do not.

I don't need studies.

really

 

[RavenSky]

That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

It is exactly this sort of simplistic nonsense that is so offensive and harmful. Some people sunburn more easily than others. Leave two people out in the sun for hours and hours - yes BOTH will burn. But it is ALSO true that you can leave two people out in the sun for a reasonably small amount of time, and one will burn while one will not. Is this because the person who got burned failed to exercise enough self-control, or is it because they are slightly physiologically different from the person who doesn't burn.

You agree that "people are different" and then pivot right back to 100% blaming and fat-shaming. You are smarter than that.

 

[TSwizzle]

That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

It is exactly this sort of simplistic nonsense that is so offensive and harmful.

Dear oh dear. It really is that simple. There is nothing offensive or controversial about it.

You agree that "people are different" and then pivot right back to 100% blaming and fat-shaming. You are smarter than that.

"Fat shaming", what a load of codswallop.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

It is exactly this sort of simplistic nonsense that is so offensive and harmful. Some people sunburn more easily than others. Leave two people out in the sun for hours and hours - yes BOTH will burn. But it is ALSO true that you can leave two people out in the sun for a reasonably small amount of time, and one will burn while one will not. Is this because the person who got burned failed to exercise enough self-control, or is it because they are slightly physiologically different from the person who doesn't burn.

You agree that "people are different" and then pivot right back to 100% blaming and fat-shaming. You are smarter than that.

Yes, people are certainly physiologically different. You shouldn't spend so much time in the sun as your friends if you are fair skinned and they are not. You shouldn't buy the same clothes as your 6 feet tall friend if you're 5 feet tall. You shouldn't buy the same size shoes as your size 8 friend if you wear size 7. And on and on and on because people are physiologically different.

And you shouldn't eat the same diet as the next person if it will make you unhealthy.

I think we agree.

 

[ronburgundy]

I didn't imply anything about vanity. For many people, fitness is about vanity more than health, but obviously avoiding obesity is wise and has numerous benefits beyond superficial appearances. The fact is that many "fit" people don't struggle to stay "fit" because their biology makes being majorly overweight implausible, even if they don't try to stay fit. While others have biology that require 5 times the effort, and self-control to avoid being overweight. IOW, they often have twice the self control of more "fit" people, but they just don't have the 5 times the self-control required to be as "fit" as people with the random luck of a higher metabolic rate. Of course, they will lose weight with less intake and more exercise. That has nothing to do with the OP or this thread. The present question is what are the causes for between person differences in being overweight. The research in question suggests that it is not primarily quantity or type of calories consumed. Amount of activity is obviously a factor, but so are highly variable uncontrolled biological factors that impact what one's body deals with whatever intake one engages in.

That is absolute malarkey and you know it - or should. You've just stated that someone can consume 1/5 the calories I take in, and engage in five times the physical exertion - calories burned - and still be overweight and out of shape.

I did not state any such thing. I said they can exert twice the self control that a "fit" person does and still be less "fit" than that person, because it would require 5 times the self control for them to be as fit. Self-control does not have a simple 1:1 relation with exact quantity of calories or exercise. They are related in non-linear ways. Context determines how much self control is needed to reduce intake by any given amount. For example, where live in a culture where everywhere you go portions that are served to people would make some people fat and not others, if they all ate those portions. Eating those portions requires no self control, so people who can be "fit" while still eating those portions exercise no self control. But leaving 20% on the plate of food you paid for could require self control that is much more than 20% higher than the 0 amount of control of eating the full portion. The exact ratios are irrelevant to any point I made.

If you want to translate it into example of caloric intake, then what I said simply means something like that there are people are born with a biology that require 30% less intake (not simply due to body size) to be as "fit" as another person. So, even if they consume 20% less (which could require much more self-control than the fit people exert), they would still be less fit than the other person.

Do you give people passing grades on tests because they don't have the same cognitive abilities as someone else.

This just shows that your only goal is to "grade" (or more accurately degrade) and judge people for their differences physical fitness, and not to actually understand the scientific reality of what underlies those differences. That's rather sad. Being less fit is not like getting grades that allow you to perform surgery on others.
But course grades do analogize in another way. Do you infer that every student in every class who does not get an 'A' is merely too lazy and lacking in discipline to get an 'A'? As with weight, do you ignore the scientific reality of numerous factors outside their control that impede them getting an 'A' and even making it virtually impossible for some of them? More effort will improve grades, but many getting less than an A are already putting in more effort than those with As and would need to put in unrealistic levels of effort to reach an A.

That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

Nobody controls you getting into a vehicle but you. Therefore, every single auto accident you are in is your own fault and due to your lack of discipline in avoiding getting into cars. The same goes for everyone assaulted on the street. If they just had the self-control not to be on the street, they would have been safe.

The same can be said about every biological disease that has any environmental contributing factors. If people simply weren't so pathetically undisciplined and put in the effort to avoid all those environmental contributors, they wouldn't get those diseases.

The point is that it is absurd and self-righteous to view/treat people as to blame or deficient just because they could have avoided a negative outcome by merely doing things that other people who don't have those outcomes don't do either, but avoid by random luck. Yes, some overweight people engage in less exercise and more consumption that "fit" people, but many do not (as the science you blindly deny any need of shows). Many already do as much or more than the majority of people just to be at the level of overweight they are. So to act like unless they must do even more than that we should treat them like weak undisciplined failures with only themselves to blame is ethically grotesque, self-serving, and grounded in scientific illiteracy.

Note that the actual causes of obesity are a separate issue from what the viable solutions are. Just like the causes of climate change are not the same as viable solutions. Lacking effective methods to alter the underlying biological contributors, means that emphasis should be on behavioral changes, even beyond the degree to which the person is engaging in "problem" behaviors. Often there behaviors are just normal behaviors that don't result in problems for many people, but due to random bad luck don't work for that person. They need to do things others don't have to, so if they can it is an accomplishment to be proud of, but if they cannot, it isn't a failure of character.

Whatever methods can be used to assist them, including future medical approaches, is no more invalid than any other, and ideas that medical approaches merely treat the symptoms and presume the "real" cause is mental weakness are harmful and objectively wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

[If you want to translate it into example of caloric intake, then what I said simply means something like that there are people are born with a biology that require 30% less intake (not simply due to body size) to be as "fit" as another person. So, even if they consume 20% less (which could require much more self-control than the fit people exert), they would still be less fit than the other person.

People are like our pet dogs and cats. Some of those dogs and cats will eat themselves into obesity. Others will eat and stay a normal weight no matter how much food you put in their bowls. They simply do not overeat and get fat.

So if you have a fat dog and you care about your fat dog's well being you feed it less and it loses weight. It's just that simple. But if you really don't care about your dog's health and you happen to have a dog that eats itself into obesity, you're going to have a fat, unhealthy dog because you feed it too much for its own good.

That's what people do to themselves.

 

[Nexus]

Just a note: throwing the words "logical fallacy" around does not make you look smarter than anyone else. I very clearly stated that your use of the word "obese" in that sentence, that context, showed your bias - and it is your bias that negates anything else you had to say on this topic, in my opinion.

And your opinion is based on illogical thinking. Bias of a speaker doesn't affect the truth of their speech.

Further, it was a FACTUAL fallacy for you to say "That fat on obese people is stored energy" as if it is stored energy on only "obese people". You've got some stored energy on you, too, sweetcakes. That's the way human bodies work.

Using the phrase FACTUAL fallacy certainly doesn't make you look smarter especially when my statement was factually correct. And I never implied thin people don't have stored energy.

And what exactly is my bias and how would it effect the truth that fat people need to eat less and exercise more if they want to lose weight.

Your bias is clearly shown here again.

Again it doesn't matter if that's biased or not. Address the veracity of the claim with counter facts if you can. Simply saying its a claim is biased doesn't negate it. That's your fallacious thinking.

If they don't like their level of fat then eat less and/or exercise more. Otherwise quit worrying about it.

And this, yet again, shows that you know nothing about the topic, and are simply spouting your own biased baloney.

You're repeating the biased claim as if it has merit for this argument. My statement is 100% indisputable. But your magical thinking that defies thermodynamics can't comprehend that so your only argument is assertions that I'm biased against fat people.

[deleted a shit-ton of fat-shaming and victim-blaming bullshit that followed your claim of not having a problem with fat people]

All that you deleted was my clearly explaining why I'm not biased against fat people in the hope that you might start using rational arguments instead simply accusing me of bias and thinking that settled the disagreement of facts we have. And what's with these claims of victim blaming? LOL who are fat people victims of? Is Trump threatening to deport fat people and build a wall to keep them out or something? Again I don't care enough about fat people to be biased against them. I am biased against bullshit though. Hopefully you won't argue that bullshit is true since you think if someone is biased what they're biased against must be true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And what's with these claims of victim blaming?

It's self preservation to delegate blame and attempt to rationalize one's behavior when that behavior is out of control and destructive. The argument becomes "I'm a victim and you should have to pay for it," when in reality it is "I choose to be unhealthy and you should have to pay for it." Overeating is another cheap, easy, mindless, comforting, destructive behavior in a tough world. I've had mine.

 

[Playball40]

My daughter is required to eat 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day - she is barely gaining weight (1/2 lb per month). Unfortunately if she slips below this amount she QUICKLY will lose weight. She's 12.

No. His is not really eating what he stares. As someone in the comments pointed out: his calculation of energy intake is too high.

Athough even that comment admits he ate 3,500 - 4,000 calories per day - which is surely a surplus - and still (at least according to his waist measurements) lost body fat.

 

[Playball40]

However, calorie intake from carbs have increased in the population proportionately to the rise in obesity rates. In other words, overweight people do not typically EAT more than the average weight person - can we shake this lazy and undisciplined stereotype?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310830

Stereotypes aside people are different, which renders the article moot when it comes to how one person responds to caloric intake. People respond differently to antibiotics and all manner of medical treatments. People respond differently to the foods they eat. Perfectly healthy food for one person can be fatal if ingested by another person. Medically, we know and accept that what works for one patient does not always work for another patient. If that were not true everyone entering a hospital would be cured if there was a treatment that worked on at least one person. But we already know two people receiving identical treatments will respond differently. So what is the point?

Being overweight is no different except - big exception there - the cure is not at all mysterious. In fact, when it comes to calories and weight gain the person who eats less and is still overweight can still achieve a normal BMI of 24 or lower by a combination of eating less and moving more. That is indisputably factual. I will repeat: That is indisputably factual.

So can we all please stop with the "I eat less but I'm still fat" baloney? Pleeeeeeeeaaaaase can we stop?

BMI is a completely inaccurate and random way of measuring health (or obesity). As for the rest you are wrong. Please explain, if you are so correct, why my 12 year old cannot gain weight eating 3,500 - 4,000 calories a day? She is 12. Ahhh, see your "indisputable fact" has been disputed right there.

 

[Playball40]

overweight is not synonymous with out of shape ya know.

I didn't imply anything about vanity. For many people, fitness is about vanity more than health, but obviously avoiding obesity is wise and has numerous benefits beyond superficial appearances. The fact is that many "fit" people don't struggle to stay "fit" because their biology makes being majorly overweight implausible, even if they don't try to stay fit. While others have biology that require 5 times the effort, and self-control to avoid being overweight. IOW, they often have twice the self control of more "fit" people, but they just don't have the 5 times the self-control required to be as "fit" as people with the random luck of a higher metabolic rate. Of course, they will lose weight with less intake and more exercise. That has nothing to do with the OP or this thread. The present question is what are the causes for between person differences in being overweight. The research in question suggests that it is not primarily quantity or type of calories consumed. Amount of activity is obviously a factor, but so are highly variable uncontrolled biological factors that impact what one's body deals with whatever intake one engages in.

That is absolute malarkey and you know it - or should. You've just stated that someone can consume 1/5 the calories I take in, and engage in five times the physical exertion - calories burned - and still be overweight and out of shape. That is a pile of bull. And it is exactly the kind of coddle people want to hear while they reach for their next twinkie.

I'll agree that many people don't have the knowledge or the appreciation of the knowledge of what health requires because they've never lived it. How are they going to learn? Do you give people passing grades on tests because they don't have the same cognitive abilities as someone else. If that's the case we should all be doctors.

No. People are different. We agree on that. But that does not mean they have to be unhealthy. That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

- - - Updated - - -

That distance between arms reach and your mouth is 100% in your control. Nobody controls that but you.

It is exactly this sort of simplistic nonsense that is so offensive and harmful. Some people sunburn more easily than others. Leave two people out in the sun for hours and hours - yes BOTH will burn. But it is ALSO true that you can leave two people out in the sun for a reasonably small amount of time, and one will burn while one will not. Is this because the person who got burned failed to exercise enough self-control, or is it because they are slightly physiologically different from the person who doesn't burn.

You agree that "people are different" and then pivot right back to 100% blaming and fat-shaming. You are smarter than that.

I'm not sure he is. Not on this subject anyway.

 

[TSwizzle]

BMI is a completely inaccurate and random way of measuring health (or obesity).

It's not the definitive way of measuring health/obesity but it can be used for guidance.

Please explain, if you are so correct, why my 12 year old cannot gain weight eating 3,500 - 4,000 calories a day? She is 12.

What does her doctor say about this ? How do you know she is consuming 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day ?


My 14 year old daughter eats constantly but I don't know what her calorie intake is. She is really quite thin but she participates in a dance program 6 days per week.

 

[Playball40]

Because I have to prepare her meals that way (along with her supplements). Her doctor said we may need to increase her intake further.

It's not the definitive way of measuring health/obesity but it can be used for guidance.

Please explain, if you are so correct, why my 12 year old cannot gain weight eating 3,500 - 4,000 calories a day? She is 12.

What does her doctor say about this ? How do you know she is consuming 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day ?


My 14 year old daughter eats constantly but I don't know what her calorie intake is. She is really quite thin but she participates in a dance program 6 days per week.

 

[TSwizzle]

Her doctor said we may need to increase her intake further.

So your 12 YO daughter needs to take in 4,000+ calories per day ? That seems odd/unusual. Is there something else going on ?

 

[RavenSky]

[If you want to translate it into example of caloric intake, then what I said simply means something like that there are people are born with a biology that require 30% less intake (not simply due to body size) to be as "fit" as another person. So, even if they consume 20% less (which could require much more self-control than the fit people exert), they would still be less fit than the other person.

People are like our pet dogs and cats. Some of those dogs and cats will eat themselves into obesity. Others will eat and stay a normal weight no matter how much food you put in their bowls. They simply do not overeat and get fat.

So if you have a fat dog and you care about your fat dog's well being you feed it less and it loses weight. It's just that simple. But if you really don't care about your dog's health and you happen to have a dog that eats itself into obesity, you're going to have a fat, unhealthy dog because you feed it too much for its own good.

That's what people do to themselves.

You are just going to double down on this fat-shaming tactic aren't you?

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'.

For instance, there can be thyroid issues such as hypothyroidism. If you take two people - one with hypothyroidism and one with hyperthyroidism - and control for 'calories in - calories out', according to you both people should gain or lose the same amount of weight. YOU ARE WRONG. MEDICALLY AND FACTUALLY WRONG.

There are medications that cause weight gain and/or prevent weight loss. Here are a few of them: Paxil, Zoloft, Elavil, Remeron, Clozaril, Zyprexa, Risperdal, Quetiapine, Lithobid, Depakene, divalproex, Neurontin, Tegretol, Lopressor, Tenormin, Inderal Propranolol, Norvasc, Catapres Clonidine. Actos Pioglitazone, Avandia Rosiglitazone, Amaryl Glimepiride, Novolog, Lantus, Humalog, Diabeta Glyburide, Glucotrol Glipizide, Deltasone, Medrol, Solu-Cortef, Corticosteroid, Allegra, Zyrtec

I could go on, but frankly you show no signs of wanting to educate yourself on this topic, which is really disappointing. I have always thought better of you, so I don't really understand what your attachment is to this fat-shaming you are engaging in here.

 

[Playball40]

Her doctor said we may need to increase her intake further.

So your 12 YO daughter needs to take in 4,000+ calories per day ? That seems odd/unusual. Is there something else going on ?

Of course there is; she hypermetabolizes. But that is my point - there are other things going on with many many people, including hypometabolizing.

 

[TSwizzle]

So your 12 YO daughter needs to take in 4,000+ calories per day ? That seems odd/unusual. Is there something else going on ?

Of course there is; she hypermetabolizes. But that is my point - there are other things going on with many many people, including hypometabolizing.

Fair enough, but this condition is not typical for the average fat/obese person that get the way the are because they can't walk past the Krispy Kreme shop.