PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on metabolic damage



kari
06-01-2016, 10:21 AM
Also known in the scientific literature as "metabolic adaptation".

The issue seems to be particularly polarising and I am curious to see what you guys think. Does it exist? Is it mere myth?

You might have heard of the recent Biggest Loser study that claims to prove the existence of metabolic damage. I profess I haven't looked into it too much (quick skim). But surely it can't be too surprising that most of the contestants regained all the weight + more since they quit a lifestyle that resulted in an extremely high caloric deficit? I mean surely the weight regain is due to aggregation of these factors:
- returning to a sedentary lifestyle (from exercising like 6 hours a day for the show)
- lower BMR due to lower weight, hence it's harder to achieve a caloric deficit everyday simply because they weigh less
- probs eating a tad more than they would like to admit

Not because their metabolic ability has somehow been slowed down amazingly?

But the study claims that their metabolisms have slowed far less than expected for their size, and that they burn fewer calories per day.

Thoughts? Experiences?

jyng1
06-01-2016, 10:43 AM
I'm pretty sure the body gets more efficient at utilising energy whether it's by increasing mitochondria or slightly changing which energy source it prefers (simple carbohydrate, glycogen or fatty acid)... but I doubt that's the reason why someone would regain the equivalent of another human being and carry it around on their backs.

I'd say they were also eating for two.

stuck
06-01-2016, 03:08 PM
I did a very restrictive diet of 1,200 calories a day and sustained a 2,100 calorie deficit for several months. It slowed my metabolism around 10%. That's similar to the effects shown in the classic army study. I think that my metabolism has now (a few years later) returned to closer to normal- around 3,000 calories TDEE, which fits my size, activity level and age. I also probably mitigated any slowing by putting on a bit of muscle.

starla
06-01-2016, 03:17 PM
I'm not sold on the idea of metabolic slowdown, or that your body goes into starvation mode if you don't eat enough. I'll allow that if you really are truly starving, some gruesome things start happening, but putting down the cinnamon rolls isn't going to send you into starvation mode. I do think that if you cut calorie intake, you will feel more tired and not want to do much, but whether or not you give into that is up to you. I just don't understand what exactly your body is doing differently to use less calories all the sudden. Do the biological processes change? I guess you can shift to different processes that burn calories and nutrients differently (like in ketosis) but for the most part I think decreases in metabolism when losing weight are due to having less mass and moving around less as a result of being tired. It just doesn't make sense to me that your body would find some way to perform the exact same functions but with less energy. I guess my heart beats less often now that I'm in shape, but I doubt those 20bpm add up to a measureable change in metabolism.

As far as obese people go, I have no idea how fucked up their bodies are. It's possible that their muscle/fat content and/or bone density are outside the norm long after their weights go back to normal, or that their organs suffered some irreversible damage while they were fat and no longer function normally. I would think you'd see effects besides just low metabolism though.

stuck
06-01-2016, 03:21 PM
Google "Minnesota starvation experiment".

ferrus
06-01-2016, 03:36 PM
I'm not going to comment because I haven't read enough evidence on the issue and thus my opinion is null and void. Personally I think more of the posters here should take such an attitude of doubt rather than asserting based on some reactive moral/emotional reflex opinion on an issue that seems to bring out the worse pseudoscientific tendencies on all sides.

Anecdotal experience != evidence also.

Interestingly there is evidence of multiple generational effects of nutrition through epigenetics (which is basically temporally localised Lamarckism). (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/nutrition)

stuck
06-01-2016, 03:45 PM
Well the lady did ask for "experiences".

I personally think that the biggest loser study is some of the muddiest overhyped shit that has been painted across the toilet of this issue, like a clostridium difficile addled colon loosing its contents in a bready cannonade.

But the Minnesota study was done in a different atmosphere, with "healthy" people, and showed a 10-40% reduction in metabolism. It's worth a gander.

stuck
06-01-2016, 04:01 PM
Another possible mechanism is that obese people produce more fat cells, which then remain as numerous while shrinking in size, with weight loss. This could possibly create more leptin.

Rather, lowered leptin levels. Stupid conceptual dyslexia.

starla
06-01-2016, 04:28 PM
My experience in cutting to ~1100 calories per day is that it does have an effect on mental health, and it's not sustainable - I was going crazy and was eventually driven to eat more whether I liked it or not. I'm doing much better eating ~1500-1600 calories per day (closer to my TDEE) but doing a lot of cardio to drop the weight. Also, if I overexercise or undereat, I tend to sit on the couch like a blob unless I make an effort not to - though it takes several days of undereating to reach that state which as I said before is really difficult to sustain. If you measured my metabolism, it was probably slower overall but I don't think any of my bodily functions were shutting down, I think I was just conserving energy by not moving around as much in general. I think starvation and obesity probably both cause irreversible damage to your body if you do either long enough, though obviously you can quit starving faster than you can stop being obese. I also think the body will start to shut down the least necessary organs/functions if you starve yourself long enough. But most sane first world people are never going to even get close to starvation-level eating.

ferrus
06-01-2016, 06:44 PM
I believe many of the psychological effects result from the low blood sugar (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/symptoms-of-low-blood-sugar-topic-overview) starvation level eating results in.

ACow
06-01-2016, 09:50 PM
As with most stats/studies, I think the question is "what is the size of the effect" rather than whether there is one.

Anecdotally, the body does seem able to adapt, but not in an inelastic fashion to various changes, habits and scenarios of environment. Try moving and observing perceptions of hot or cold even after years for people who have lived in tropical/arctic climates, or indeed various diets while traveling, and how digestion is achieved by locals compared to new attempts at that diet.

So intellectually, I think an effect could exist.

Realistically, I think surrounding cultural norms, environment, context and habitual psychology will probably in effect outweigh any biological adaptions. There only so much your body can do after all, and any metabolic effect remaining on a lean diet while walking 20k a day with labor is going to be swamped by the effects of sugary diets, TV watching, driving a car, etc...

jyng1
06-01-2016, 10:08 PM
As with most stats/studies, I think the question is "what is the size of the effect" rather than whether there is one.

Anecdotally, the body does seem able to adapt, but not in an inelastic fashion to various changes, habits and scenarios of environment. Try moving and observing perceptions of hot or cold even after years for people who have lived in tropical/arctic climates, or indeed various diets while traveling, and how digestion is achieved by locals compared to new attempts at that diet.

So intellectually, I think an effect could exist.

Realistically, I think surrounding cultural norms, environment, context and habitual psychology will probably in effect outweigh any biological adaptions. There only so much your body can do after all, and any metabolic effect remaining on a lean diet while walking 20k a day with labor is going to be swamped by the effects of sugary diets, TV watching, driving a car, etc...

I can remember reading one study which kept ~30 people locked up for a few months and measured all inputs and outputs. I think it was mainly looking at the effect of a ketogenic diet but the message is probably similar. They found an effect, but it was minimal and the age old "energy in, energy out" truism was mainly what controlled weight loss/gain.

If you eat for two, then that's what you'll become.

Ependymin
06-03-2016, 12:07 AM
They found an effect, but it was minimal and the age old "energy in, energy out" truism was mainly what controlled weight loss/gain.

That's not the way the human body works because it's not a closed system. There are a dizzying array of other factors involved in weight gain and weight loss aside from calories in and out. We haven't even begun to understand some of them, and others remain to be discovered.

jyng1
06-03-2016, 12:23 AM
That's not the way the human body works because it's not a closed system. There are a dizzying array of other factors involved in weight gain and weight loss aside from calories in and out. We haven't even begun to understand some of them, and others remain to be discovered.

Sure... try not to take calories in for a month or two and let me know how it goes.

Ependymin
06-03-2016, 12:25 AM
It doesn't mean calories aren't a part of it. The point is they aren't the only thing involved.

jyng1
06-03-2016, 12:30 AM
It doesn't mean calories aren't a part of it. The point is they aren't the only thing involved.

Here's a summary (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/08/13/432087757/you-don-t-need-to-go-low-carb-to-burn-body-fat-study-says) of the study from NPR.


Instead, his evidence favors those who say if you want to lose body fat, total calories matter most.

"All calories weren't exactly equal when it came to losing body fat ... but they were pretty close," he says.

stuck
06-03-2016, 01:35 AM
Calories in/out is ruthlessly efficient GIVEN you have a baseline to work from. Not everyone at the same size has the same metabolism, and it can be influenced even by things like fidgeting, and yes, the body's past history. I haven't seen anyone disputing the Minnesota starvation study, and that showed a 10-40% effect on taking 1/2 your TDEE in calories for four months.

Since super obese people are a relatively new group as a statistic, I'm sure we're going to see more information about them. All that said, the biggest loser study is a floppy toilet dick of a study. A 1/4 cup of trailmix can be like 400 calories. Whoops I just overate.

starla
06-03-2016, 02:01 AM
Not everyone at the same size has the same metabolism, and it can be influenced even by things like fidgeting, and yes, the body's past history. I haven't seen anyone disputing the Minnesota starvation study, and that showed a 10-40% effect on taking 1/2 your TDEE in calories for four months.

I'm not disputing it, but you realize these men were starved down to 75% of their healthy weight? They weren't a bunch of fat guys on a diet, they were literally being starved. I don't think those results are relevant to your average dieter. It's like saying anorexia effects your body. Well duh.

TeresaJ
06-03-2016, 02:09 AM
Yeah I see people talking past each other here. Actual starvation obviously would be different from a morbidly obese person on a diet. And just as obviously, metabolism is incredibly complex and not at all completely understood. We haven't even gotten into genetic factors or how lifestyle affects epigenetic.

So I wouldn't expect the WWII starvation study to be relevant, but that in no way means that it's as simple as calories in minus calories out... I mean, yes, literally speaking that's what It comes down to, but as others have mentioned, what actually determines "calories burned" is what is so devilishly complex.

stuck
06-03-2016, 03:13 AM
All I know is this: if you want no bullshit advice on nutrition, read actual bodybuilding literature. They understand it better than anyone else because they have tortured their bodies into hideous forms. They regard metabolic adaptation largely as real. The widely-regarded intelligent way to cut fat is via a mild deficit with periodic refeeds purely to keep from inflicting too much agony on the thyroid and hormones.

Yes, there are a dizzying array of terrifying drugs available that aid the process, but they don't really work the way you imagine- except testosterone- that'll even put muscle on you just laying in bed.

Ependymin
06-03-2016, 05:50 AM
Here's a summary (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/08/13/432087757/you-don-t-need-to-go-low-carb-to-burn-body-fat-study-says) of the study from NPR.

That article is about different kinds of calories. My point is that claiming weight gain/loss is merely CICO is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that.

Fitz
06-03-2016, 06:56 AM
That article is about different kinds of calories. My point is that claiming weight gain/loss is merely CICO is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that.

How'd the twinkie diet work then?

http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/yes-you-canlose-weight-with-twinkies/

Ependymin
06-03-2016, 11:07 PM
How'd the twinkie diet work then?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Fitz
06-04-2016, 12:56 AM
I don't understand what you're asking.


If cico is a gross oversimplification and there are a dizzying array of other factors involved why does cico always work? Shouldn't I be morbidly obese if I subsist on twinkies and the like?

ACow
06-04-2016, 01:41 AM
That article is about different kinds of calories. My point is that claiming weight gain/loss is merely CICO is a gross oversimplification. Our bodies are much more complex than that.

Its not that CICO is the only factor, but it is the main one that will statistically overpower all the others in effect size (barring edge cases like just eating sugar, dying, and finding your rotting corpse loses weight)...

Obviously (?) human nutrition, and health, is more than just calories or obesity, but I'm guessing the vast majority of obesity problems are best explained by high calorie/low expenditure lifestyles.

Add in fibre/nutrients and you're probably at 99% optimal or some shit...

/only slight hyperbole...

jyng1
06-04-2016, 02:16 AM
Add in fibre/nutrients and you're probably at 99% optimal or some shit...

/only slight hyperbole...

I keep reading articles describing the problems with supplements, additional vitamins etc. The latest was a link with too much folate and autism.

There doesn't appear to be too many issues with eating not too much of a varied and balanced diet, high in vegetables and low in processed food.

flurps
06-04-2016, 02:21 AM
It's totally a thing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0) I'm surprised the article wasn't linked in the OP or by anyone at all.


The main factor in believing in metabolic "damage" or not (it's really an adaptation for one-time famine survivors to survive further famines) seems to be whether or not it has happened to you. Me, I've Oprahed 4 times in my life over a range of 50 pounds. The only thing that consistently keeps the fat off for me is growing and maintaining high muscle mass. That is pretty much the only thing that works long term for endomorphs. My metabolism is low to start with, and if I lose weight it slows further unless I keep it up artificially by using muscle's higher metabolic needs to maintain a higher resting metabolism than I would have normally. Cardio doesn't cut it by itself in my case. It's only good for about 10-20 pounds on its own because it has a lesser passive affect on resting metabolism.

It's fun getting in shape but maintenance is a bitch for perceivers, not to mention my weight is a pretty accurate barometer for my mental health which I would be happy to take back now after its gang rape by the world thank you very much.

jyng1
06-04-2016, 02:48 AM
It's totally a thing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0) I'm surprised the article wasn't linked in the OP or by anyone at all.

The major thing I'm a bit suspicious about with such huge urges to eat after substantial weight loss, is how they're measuring changes in metabolism. It kinda implies that he regained his weight because his metabolism slowed and he returned to a normal caloric intake, hence regaining all his weight and then some... and then goes on to talk about leptin reduction and feeling hungry all the time leading to binge eating.

I can totally appreciate the changes to appetite.

Sistamatic
06-04-2016, 03:00 AM
I know I haven't been putting it on the group fitness blog, but I have been maintaining my workouts every single day...even got a chinup bar, though I'm still just doing negative chinups (chindowns?) and flexed arm hangs. I weighed 165* when I started and I weigh 165 right now, but I look very different. My shirts are tight in the shoulders and my pants fit again. My waist has gotten narrower, my thighs and calves have increased muscle diameter, my arms and shoulders are solid and shapely, where as before the workouts I was sort of a fatty pear shape with skinny arms and soft thighs with a layer of fat just thick enough to obscure the musculature. I've determined that the weight my body has decided I am going to be at is between 160 and 165. Getting down to 160 is easy. Getting below 160 is ridiculously hard for me. So my choices are 160ish hard body or 160ish soft body. Before I became a firefighter and bulked up for the upper body strength, 145-150 was the number my body liked to be at. I am starting to accept that's never going to be the case again. It's hard to say if that means I'm getting older or if the bulking up affected me, but whatever. I can work with this. I think I look pretty good muscled up, plus I enjoy being strong. After reading this thread, I think if I ever start counting calories again, I'm going to set the program for weight maintenance instead of weight loss and see what effect that has.

Maybe the solution for over-eating and under-exercising is not to under-eat and over-exercise, but rather to simply stop overeating and start exercising.

*I'm 5'9"

Sistamatic
06-04-2016, 03:21 AM
If cico is a gross oversimplification and there are a dizzying array of other factors involved why does cico always work? Shouldn't I be morbidly obese if I subsist on twinkies and the like?

Metabolism is just part of the co equation. These metabolic changes do not violate cico, they just alter co. It's so much easier to calculate ci than co, and since humans didn't evolve to use calculators and bomb calorimeters to maintain their bodies, we come equipped with variable metabolic rates that adjust according to a dizzying array of factors. Our metabolism is made to work with the primitive and then agrarian environments that our genes were selected within up until a few hundred years ago. We've got a new environment now, and some of us have metabolism genes that respond to that environment in unfortunate ways. That twinkie diet doesn't exist in a vacuum...you respond to that differently depending on age, genes, exercise, and probably a million little things we haven't thought of yet. Stress, sleep, illness, sex, emotions ... all these things have an effect on metabolism, but not the same for every person.

So I don't know if you would be morbidly obese on a diet of twinkies, but I'm certain some people would. I don't keep them in the house. I have a whole bag of chips mentality. If there are twinkies in the house, I'm going to eat them all. My sister-in-law might eat one. My mother-in-law wouldn't touch them. My husband would probably eat one and then try to go for another one the next day only to find I've eaten them all. The more sugar I eat, the more I want. I get a little bit fat every holiday season because of the sugarpocolypse that surrounds me, then I spend months trying to stop thinking about food for five minutes, then I get in shape, usually starting around summertime. Then around September I get to where I want to be, and then the holiday season starts up again. Every year the reset is at a slightly higher weight. Every year I'm determined to stop the cycle and I just don't.

TeresaJ
06-04-2016, 03:39 AM
How'd the twinkie diet work then?

http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/yes-you-canlose-weight-with-twinkies/


Mark Haub limited himself to 1,800 calories a day. He ate Twinkies or another treat every three hours instead of meals, also consuming a protein shake and some vegetables over the course of the diet. A traditional Twinkie is only 150 calories making Haubs snacks low-calorie, albeit devoid of nutrients.

It's not that he only ate twinkies. It's that eating twinkies as part of your diet is not going to kill you. There's nothing inherently wrong with a twinkie other than that it's empty calories - few if any vitamins to go along with them, and no fiber. So it's fine as an occasional snack if you also eat healthy food.

This was not a supersize me diet.

Also, I wonder at the sort of self control it would take to eat one twinkie instead of a meal and then supplement it with nutritional shakes. ...I think the sort of people who would most likely benefit from not eliminating junk food (in terms of being able to follow the diet) unfortunately would also have a lot of trouble limiting their junk food intake to just one 150 calorie snack in three hours.

...What we(the general population) could really use is healthier junk food (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-junk-food-can-end-obesity/309396/).

flurps
06-04-2016, 03:52 AM
The major thing I'm a bit suspicious about with such huge urges to eat after substantial weight loss, is how they're measuring changes in metabolism. It kinda implies that he regained his weight because his metabolism slowed and he returned to a normal caloric intake, hence regaining all his weight and then some... and then goes on to talk about leptin reduction and feeling hungry all the time leading to binge eating.

I can totally appreciate the changes to appetite.

And then there's that too. It's a double whammy really.

stuck
06-04-2016, 04:12 AM
I had a think

Leptin could be largely responsible. You get hungry, you get depressed, you lay around more. Baboom lowered expenditure. Even if you try to offset it by getting adequate exercise, you're ultimately slowing your heart rate and relaxing more.

So obese people, especially ones who got fat before adolescence, would have this happening all the time- having more fat cells than skinny people which never go away, they just shrink. All of those cells have a greater surface area than a skinny person's fat cells, and they're all producing hormones from the surface of their cell walls.

Fitz
06-04-2016, 04:30 AM
Metabolism is just part of the co equation. These metabolic changes do not violate cico, they just alter co. It's so much easier to calculate ci than co, and since humans didn't evolve to use calculators and bomb calorimeters to maintain their bodies, we come equipped with variable metabolic rates that adjust according to a dizzying array of factors. Our metabolism is made to work with the primitive and then agrarian environments that our genes were selected within up until a few hundred years ago. We've got a new environment now, and some of us have metabolism genes that respond to that environment in unfortunate ways. That twinkie diet doesn't exist in a vacuum...you respond to that differently depending on age, genes, exercise, and probably a million little things we haven't thought of yet. Stress, sleep, illness, sex, emotions ... all these things have an effect on metabolism, but not the same for every person.

So I don't know if you would be morbidly obese on a diet of twinkies, but I'm certain some people would. I don't keep them in the house. I have a whole bag of chips mentality. If there are twinkies in the house, I'm going to eat them all. My sister-in-law might eat one. My mother-in-law wouldn't touch them. My husband would probably eat one and then try to go for another one the next day only to find I've eaten them all. The more sugar I eat, the more I want. I get a little bit fat every holiday season because of the sugarpocolypse that surrounds me, then I spend months trying to stop thinking about food for five minutes, then I get in shape, usually starting around summertime. Then around September I get to where I want to be, and then the holiday season starts up again. Every year the reset is at a slightly higher weight. Every year I'm determined to stop the cycle and I just don't.

I'm not really sure how a lack of self control or varying metabolic rates and even metabolic damage changes the concepts behind cico. A given metabolism whether damaged or healthy is still consuming energy. That energy has to come from somewhere whether it be food or your own body is all on you.

The entire problem with the biggest losers regaining weight seems to be the contestants failing to account for their metabolic changes and adjusting their caloric intake accordingly thus they were never really eating at a deficit or maintenance point.


It's not that he only ate twinkies. It's that eating twinkies as part of your diet is not going to kill you. There's nothing inherently wrong with a twinkie other than that it's empty calories - few if any vitamins to go along with them, and no fiber. So it's fine as an occasional snack if you also eat healthy food.

This was not a supersize me diet.

Also, I wonder at the sort of self control it would take to eat one twinkie instead of a meal and then supplement it with nutritional shakes. ...I think the sort of people who would most likely benefit from not eliminating junk food (in terms of being able to follow the diet) unfortunately would also have a lot of trouble limiting their junk food intake to just one 150 calorie snack in three hours.

...What we(the general population) could really use is healthier junk food (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-junk-food-can-end-obesity/309396/).

The supersize diet was bullshit too. You can lose weight eating only mcdonalds. (http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56-pounds-after-eating-only-mcdonalds-six-months-2D79329158) It's almost like what you eat doesn't even matter.

This always seems to come down to an individual's lack of self control or their inability to accurately gauge the calories they consume and then expend.

What we could really use is some personal responsibility.

stuck
06-04-2016, 04:45 AM
What we could really use is some personal responsibility.

Eat your damned radishes, Cato. We have a perfectly good mountain of obese people here, it's an opportunity for acceleration towards a terrifying future, one which I'm not gonna pass up. Imagine after the nanobots control our hormones! *shudders*

I'm gonna go watch hellraiser.

stuck
06-04-2016, 04:54 AM
Lol, leptin was only discovered in 1994. We're in the dark ages.

jyng1
06-04-2016, 05:08 AM
Lol, leptin was only discovered in 1994. We're in the dark ages.

There's the whole poop pill (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/14/eating-poop-pills-could-make-you-thin-seriously/) thing going on recently as well...

Was listening to something on National Radio this afternoon about longevity/rapamycin (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thiswayup#audio-201803351) and negative feedback loops which I might have to listen to again...

Oh... no, it was Serengeti Rules (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thiswayup#audio-201803353).


Carroll is a biologist and science writer and in his new book The Serengeti Rules: The Quest to Discover How Life Works and Why it Matters (Princeton University Press) he argues that regulation underpins life at every level and on every conceivable scale.
These are the rules that regulate the amount of every molecule in our bodies and rules that govern how many animals and plants there are in the wild. And according to Professor Carroll, the rules that regulate life are basically the same whether you look down a microscope or examine the whole planet and its ecosystems.

TeresaJ
06-04-2016, 05:12 AM
I'm not really sure how a lack of self control or varying metabolic rates and even metabolic damage changes the concepts behind cico. A given metabolism whether damaged or healthy is still consuming energy. That energy has to come from somewhere whether it be food or your own body is all on you.

The entire problem with the biggest losers regaining weight seems to be the contestants failing to account for their metabolic changes and adjusting their caloric intake accordingly thus they were never really eating at a deficit or maintenance point.

The supersize diet was bullshit too. You can lose weight eating only mcdonalds. (http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56-pounds-after-eating-only-mcdonalds-six-months-2D79329158) It's almost like what you eat doesn't even matter.

This always seems to come down to an individual's lack of self control or their inability to accurately gauge the calories they consume and then expend.

What we could really use is some personal responsibility.

Yes but what happens is that a formerly obese person must have substantially more self control than a never-overweight person in order to maintain the same weight. Yes it can be done, but it's not exactly useful to tell people in general to just starve themselves (in the sense of constantly going hungry, which is what they have to do from a hormonal standpoint, not from a physical standpoint); end of discussion.

I mean I suppose you could look at it as a spiritual endeavor. You will be constantly hungry; use your hunger to focus on the inner selfless self. Embrace the unsatisfied craving; it is your longing for God and in the emptiness of that longing God is truly embracing you.

...You could go that route, for sure.

But I think that encouraging personal responsibility is not mutually exclusive with studying ways to aid people to achieve their goals. It's like you're saying "stop all this nonsense about set points and hormones and just make people feel bad about themselves" as if that alone is going to summon the level of personal responsibility required.

stuck
06-04-2016, 05:15 AM
im pretty excited about the poop pill yeah

Fitz
06-04-2016, 06:52 AM
Yes but what happens is that a formerly obese person must have substantially more self control than a never-overweight person in order to maintain the same weight. Yes it can be done, but it's not exactly useful to tell people in general to just starve themselves (in the sense of constantly going hungry, which is what they have to do from a hormonal standpoint, not from a physical standpoint); end of discussion.

I mean I suppose you could look at it as a spiritual endeavor. You will be constantly hungry; use your hunger to focus on the inner selfless self. Embrace the unsatisfied craving; it is your longing for God and in the emptiness of that longing God is truly embracing you.

...You could go that route, for sure.

But I think that encouraging personal responsibility is not mutually exclusive with studying ways to aid people to achieve their goals. It's like you're saying "stop all this nonsense about set points and hormones and just make people feel bad about themselves" as if that alone is going to summon the level of personal responsibility required.


I am a formerly obese person. I've no sympathy for people that succumb to their weakness.

It's all just hand-waiving bullshit whilst land-whales wait for a magic pill to shove up their asses instead of putting in the work to fix the damage they've done. What if the magic never comes?

No one said it would be easy. Now go on, have another twinkie.

jyng1
06-04-2016, 07:09 AM
It's all just hand-waiving bullshit whilst land-whales wait for a magic pill to shove up their asses instead of putting in the work to fix the damage they've done. What if the magic never comes?

There are quite a few obese people at work, several of whom have had bariatric surgery. There's a pronounced difference between them and those that can maintain their weight (and commonly their fitness) and it's their commitment to making exercise part of their lives and what they stick in their mouths.

There's a lot of hooey and not much dooey.

stuck
06-04-2016, 03:22 PM
I believe the success rate at long term weight loss is around 20%.

starla
06-04-2016, 04:14 PM
I think people really underestimate how many calories are burned just by normal moving around. Fidgeting, pacing, walking over to your coworker's cube, etc. Its easier to stay skinny if you're restless. I also think it's really hard to reduce your appetite, or at least that has been my experience. I went from an active factory job to an extreeeeeemly sedentary one in an office of 3 where there's no walking down to the breakroom, no walking over to the fax machine, no walking over to your coworker's cube instead of calling. We have lunch brought in every day and eat at our desks. It's horribly detrimental to the calories out side of the equation. I think my TDEE (not including any exercise) is lower than even the standard calculation for a sedentary woman of my size. In the meantime, my body is still wanting the nearly the same number of calories in that I was getting when my TDEE was much higher. I don't have exact number, but I would guess it went from around 2500 cal/day to maybe 1300-1400 cal/day, just based on how I was eating. There aren't even calories to cut when you're at 1300/day, I was already eating light and eating healthy, gaining weight and still starving all the time. Eating healthy is no magic bullet if you're not moving enough. It didn't help that I probably lost muscle mass sitting on my ass all day. So has my metabolism adapted? I guess so, in that I need less calories now to stay the same weight. But it's not magic or some kind of curse. I'm moving less and I lost muscle mass. That's it.

I'm currently on a diet/cardio plan to try to get down to 105, which is a stretch goal, but I'm still going to try to get there. Doing it with diet alone was impossible. I don't think maintaining it will be possible without increasing my muscle mass. I plugged some numbers into one of those online calculators, and it turns out that a fairly small increase in lean mass vs. fat translates into a fairly significant increase in TDEE.

BTW, the fewer distractions you have in life, the easier it is to lose or maintain your weight. I've had the most luck with weight loss during periods of my life when I've had few obligations and little social interaction. Basically, all I would do is go to school/work, work out, and concentrate on not eating. That's basically my life right now. I'm lucky to have a supportive spouse who doesn't bring junk food into the house (on purpose, anyway. My idea of junk food and his are completely different). I don't think I'd be able to do it if I had kids sucking up my time or friends that wanted to go out all the time, or a job that ate up 12 hours a day.

Ependymin
06-04-2016, 07:15 PM
I am a formerly obese person. I've no sympathy for people that succumb to their weakness.

Do you believe all obese bodies are the same?

Madrigal
06-04-2016, 07:18 PM
I think people really underestimate how many calories are burned just by normal moving around. Fidgeting, pacing, walking over to your coworker's cube, etc. Its easier to stay skinny if you're restless.

Yep. My weight began to change when I stopped teaching (which meant not just standing up in class all the time but also going from office to office to teach in different parts of the city). It used to hover at 110 pounds and now it never goes below 120.

I have noticed though that I don't like the way my face looks when I drop below 125 pounds, which I have recently dropped below.


I'm currently on a diet/cardio plan to try to get down to 105, which is a stretch goal, but I'm still going to try to get there.

How tall are you? That sounds a bit drastic.

Fitz
06-04-2016, 07:35 PM
There are quite a few obese people at work, several of whom have had bariatric surgery. There's a pronounced difference between them and those that can maintain their weight (and commonly their fitness) and it's their commitment to making exercise part of their lives and what they stick in their mouths.

There's a lot of hooey and not much dooey.

Yep. I've got an immediate family member that had half of her guts cut out to lose weight. It worked for about 2 years and now she's fatter than when she started with the additional disabilities that came from her surgery.

She'll try everything except diet and exercise.


Do you believe all obese bodies are the same?

Human bodies tend to be really similar. I'm sure you just have big bones though.

http://i.imgur.com/i9Hfk.jpg

starla
06-04-2016, 09:12 PM
How tall are you? That sounds a bit drastic.

5'3". 105 is on the low side but still ok. I've been there before and it felt great. At a few pounds under 105 I start looking out of proportion again.

stuck
06-04-2016, 09:41 PM
Yep. I've got an immediate family member that had half of her guts cut out to lose weight. It worked for about 2 years and now she's fatter than when she started with the additional disabilities that came from her surgery.

She'll try everything except diet and exercise

Sorry, man. That must drive you crazy being on the other side.

notdavidlynch
06-04-2016, 10:27 PM
It's all just hand-waiving bullshit whilst land-whales wait for a magic pill to shove up their asses instead of putting in the work to fix the damage they've done. What if the magic never comes?


Methamphetamine suppository.

Fitz
06-04-2016, 10:30 PM
Methamphetamine suppository.

I want 30% off the top.

ACow
06-04-2016, 11:41 PM
I think people really underestimate how many calories are burned just by normal moving around. Fidgeting, pacing, walking over to your coworker's cube, etc. Its easier to stay skinny if you're restless. I also think it's really hard to reduce your appetite, or at least that has been my experience. I went from an active factory job to an extreeeeeemly sedentary one in an office of 3 where there's no walking down to the breakroom, no walking over to the fax machine, no walking over to your coworker's cube instead of calling. We have lunch brought in every day and eat at our desks. It's horribly detrimental to the calories out side of the equation. I think my TDEE (not including any exercise) is lower than even the standard calculation for a sedentary woman of my size. In the meantime, my body is still wanting the nearly the same number of calories in that I was getting when my TDEE was much higher. I don't have exact number, but I would guess it went from around 2500 cal/day to maybe 1300-1400 cal/day, just based on how I was eating. There aren't even calories to cut when you're at 1300/day, I was already eating light and eating healthy, gaining weight and still starving all the time. Eating healthy is no magic bullet if you're not moving enough. It didn't help that I probably lost muscle mass sitting on my ass all day. So has my metabolism adapted? I guess so, in that I need less calories now to stay the same weight. But it's not magic or some kind of curse. I'm moving less and I lost muscle mass. That's it.

I'm currently on a diet/cardio plan to try to get down to 105, which is a stretch goal, but I'm still going to try to get there. Doing it with diet alone was impossible. I don't think maintaining it will be possible without increasing my muscle mass. I plugged some numbers into one of those online calculators, and it turns out that a fairly small increase in lean mass vs. fat translates into a fairly significant increase in TDEE.

BTW, the fewer distractions you have in life, the easier it is to lose or maintain your weight. I've had the most luck with weight loss during periods of my life when I've had few obligations and little social interaction. Basically, all I would do is go to school/work, work out, and concentrate on not eating. That's basically my life right now. I'm lucky to have a supportive spouse who doesn't bring junk food into the house (on purpose, anyway. My idea of junk food and his are completely different). I don't think I'd be able to do it if I had kids sucking up my time or friends that wanted to go out all the time, or a job that ate up 12 hours a day.

We had a concept in Canberra called the "public service 10kgs".

That is to say, the observation that changing ones lifestyle from walking around campus, playing sports, etc, moving to a sedentary office job and driving added an instantaneous 10 kg to a person's weight without doing anything else.

It's eye opening and depressing when it happens to you...

jyng1
06-05-2016, 01:45 AM
We had a concept in Canberra called the "public service 10kgs".

That is to say, the observation that changing ones lifestyle from walking around campus, playing sports, etc, moving to a sedentary office job and driving added an instantaneous 10 kg to a person's weight without doing anything else.

It's eye opening and depressing when it happens to you...


Driving is 99% correlated with obesity. http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679157/mapping-the-link-between-obesity-and-car-driving

Hephaestus
06-05-2016, 03:37 AM
Driving is 99% correlated with obesity. http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679157/mapping-the-link-between-obesity-and-car-driving
No kidding. It's such an obvious driver of obesity--I remember when I was out walking or biking as a teen, half the time I had people trying to give me a lift to where I was going. I appreciate that they thought they were being helpful, but I was trying to choose a more active and healthy lifestyle. I kept having to explain I liked walking or riding my bike to places. I'd planned on it, and getting a lift was going to kill my exercise.

And of course, being a truck driver is correlated with my falling back into obesity, so I'm biased.


im pretty excited about the poop pill yeah

It's gonna be the shit.

TeresaJ
06-05-2016, 06:26 AM
Self control is a major predictor of success in and satisfaction with life. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-JbhIJ6KDU)

Self control can be taught (http://www.parentingscience.com/teaching-self-control.html).

jyng1
06-05-2016, 06:58 AM
Self control is a major predictor of success in and satisfaction with life. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-JbhIJ6KDU)

Self control can be taught (http://www.parentingscience.com/teaching-self-control.html).

Oh... been watching Why Am I? (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/why-am-i)

Ependymin
06-05-2016, 08:06 AM
Human bodies tend to be really similar.

That's not what I asked, though. Is it your belief that all obese bodies are the same? Is your belief that all obese bodies are like yours was?

jyng1
06-05-2016, 08:15 AM
That's not what I asked, though. Is it your belief that all obese bodies are the same? Is your belief that all obese bodies are like yours was?

I'm pretty sure all obese bodies will respond to calorie restriction and exercise. After sitting for 8 hours on several ocassions next to a person who had bariatric surgery several years ago and regained most of the weight she lost, I'd have to say it's pretty hard to lose weight when you eat more than twice as much as your body needs every day.

Ependymin
06-05-2016, 08:18 AM
Yeah, I think my words are getting misinterpreted. I just wanted to understand Neville's beliefs.

jyng1
06-05-2016, 08:28 AM
Yeah, I think my words are getting misinterpreted. I just wanted to understand Neville's beliefs.

I think you're asking the wrong questions. It's pretty much indisputable that you'll lose weight if you eat less than your body uses... You'd have to wonder why such a lot of people can't control their diet and can't be fucked exercising when most have control of the rest of their lives.

Part of that is why they make such a lot of noise about metabolism and any other fad of the moment (like juicing etc).

TeresaJ
06-05-2016, 01:58 PM
I think you're asking the wrong questions. It's pretty much indisputable that you'll lose weight if you eat less than your body uses... You'd have to wonder why such a lot of people can't control their diet and can't be fucked exercising when most have control of the rest of their lives.

I think that that wondering is exactly what this thread is about. Can you adjust how much self control is necessary (metabolism) as well as how people exercise self control? Because simply bullying people into self control does not seem to work.

TeresaJ
06-05-2016, 02:38 PM
Oh... been watching Why Am I? (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/why-am-i)

The closest I get is YouTube. :/

starla
06-05-2016, 04:26 PM
Because simply bullying people into self control does not seem to work.

Is that true though? I mean, maybe not bullying, but I think social pressure and social norms do play a role in how big people get. You don't see a lot of fat people in California, an obese person sticks out like a sore thumb here. But you go to the bible belt and everyone at church is at least 50lbs overweight.

Hephaestus
06-05-2016, 05:42 PM
Is that true though? I mean, maybe not bullying, but I think social pressure and social norms do play a role in how big people get. You don't see a lot of fat people in California, an obese person sticks out like a sore thumb here. But you go to the bible belt and everyone at church is at least 50lbs overweight.

California also has more sunshine.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2twdBAJw--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/ldxsd4accabufmhxbrab.png

I've known a few Californians that moved up here that commented on how much fatter the average person is--and that they had become--because the weather didn't encourage spending as much time active outside, and indeed, actively discourages people from such behavior.

Of course, this varies a bit depending on where in California you are, as some places are just too goddamn hot to do anything. You'll find more overweight people in those areas too, though not many behemoths as that amount of heat becomes extra miserable--which also plays a role in the amount of obesity in places that are sunny but not wretchedly hot and dry.

But it's also worth noting that according to the CDC, no state in 2014 had an obesity prevalence of less that 20%.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/images/data/brfss_2014_ob_overall.jpg

So I guess one in five to one in four Californians sticks out like a porcupine in a petting zoo for blind kids. Which is more than a porcupine in a petting zoo for blind lepers, and less than poison dart frog in a petting zoo for compulsive finger lickers.

TeresaJ
06-05-2016, 06:56 PM
Being in a place where it's pleasant to be outside makes a huge difference. Climate and infrastructure and culture all play a part. Part of the reason Austin is so popular is, although it does get hot, it is significantly less miserable than, say, the south proper. The city and the culture encourage each other: the city provides tons of fantastic and accessible parks and the population uses them with gusto. The fact that it's a relatively young, wealthy, and self-conscious populace all feeds into the loop.

There's not even a good damn swimming hole where I live. We're surrounded by lakes but they're full of bugs, bacteria, and lethal snakes. There are people who do bike out here but they take their life in their hands because, forget bike lanes, there aren't even sidewalks, and we're talking about winding forest roads with zero visibility around every bend. There's exactly one major bike path in the city.

Now, could people still do more? Could they park in the back of the parking lot and adopt an artificial elevator phobia? Yes of course. But if you're stacking so many odds against people it's no surprise to me that most fail.

All I'm saying is that society could do a hell of a lot more to encourage success, and I don't mean surgery or pills.

Ependymin
06-05-2016, 07:17 PM
I think you're asking the wrong questions.

We're talking about different things. I've come across this before and in this venue I have the opportunity to ask questions to understand why someone would believe what they believe.

Sistamatic
06-05-2016, 07:56 PM
I'm not really sure how a lack of self control or varying metabolic rates and even metabolic damage changes the concepts behind cico. A given metabolism whether damaged or healthy is still consuming energy. That energy has to come from somewhere whether it be food or your own body is all on you.


Nothing changes the concept of cico. Cico is backed by fundamental laws of physics. But the concept of metabolic damage still exists. There is evidence that keeping ci extremely low while keeping co extremely high (as is done on biggest loser) will cause your body to become extremely efficient and burn as few calories as possible and store as many as possible, and to adjust your hormone (leptin/ghrelin) balance so that you feel extremely hungry all the time, and that these adjustments may remain even after the weight is gone. That exists withing the concept of cico. I suspect we'll eventually find a whole bunch of long term epigenetic changes that occur in response to what the body interprets as starvation.


It seems as if it is neccesary that the body make microadjustments to metabolism on a daily basis based on your conscious contributions to cico. Humans have no trouble maintaining steady weights without calculators if they live a healthy lifestyle. If I run a few miles lift weight and eat a balanced breakfast, a sandwich on whole grain for lunch, and a healthy balanced supper almost every day, but sit on my ass, stuff myself to the point of pain at a pizza buffet, and then tear into a dozen donuts one day, I won't convert the entire extra bajillion calories into fat. But if I've been restricting my calories before I do that, my body will hang onto as much of that as it can. If I restrict myself long enough, I might get the point that just eating healthy gives me more ci than co, and on top of that, I might produce so many hunger hormones that I feel like I'm starving when I'm not, making it even more difficult to maintain weight. That is what has happened to some of the biggest losers. Again, the concept of cico is still intact.

Of course individual genetics and willpowers vary. There are probably some very interesting scientific discoveries on the way in this area.

Hephaestus
06-05-2016, 08:36 PM
^^^The problem with applying CICO is that it's bloody impossible to know what either the CI or the CO really are. Even bomb calorimeter data is just a rough guess of the caloric potential of a food item--and no good method I know of for knowing if it's an over or underestimate of that. How many calories the individual eater will actually get is going to be less than the total potential calories that are actually in the food item. Similarly, the number of calories expended is highly variable, and dependent on the efficiency of the action, and the efficiency of the body in it's use of calories.

The irony is that when we talk about metabolic damage, we're actually talking about metabolic improvement. What people are really experiencing is how strong their body is and it's ability to grow more efficient in extracting energy from food and in it's usage of energy to do things. But what else do you expect when you force yourself to do more with less? Just as pushing more weight around stimulates the body to get stronger and able to push that weight more easily, your body gets better at using and conserving resources when you make it work without a glut of intake.

People who've lost massive amounts of weight are actually uniquely adapted to make the most of minimal amounts of food and are thereby capable of some pretty tremendous feats of austerity in terms of how little food it takes for them to thrive. Unfortunately it comes with constant hunger.

I think counting calories in tends to work mostly because of the inefficiencies in extracting the potential energy of our food items. We're going to be wrong about what our calorie deficit is, but we can be right about there being a caloric deficit.

oxyjen
06-05-2016, 08:52 PM
As a species, the time in which we have hacked the calories issue is a mere blip. Our bodies are not machines where we're all the same and our mere calories in/calories out explains why one person weighs less than the other. That's like saying the reason I am not an alcoholic why someone else isn't is because I have willpower to put a drink down and they don't. People just focus on that because right now it's the only thing you have any control over.

The Biggest Loser shows are equivalent of a circus freak show and shouldn't exist. Of course when someone leaves their families, quits their jobs, and exercises for 6+ hours a day all while restricting their caloric intake they are a) going to lose a ridiculous amount of weight (15+ loss a week for repeated weeks is going to shock the system, no matter what your starting weight), b) going to gain some back because the lifestyle is impossible to maintain.

If a woman weighs 110 pounds due to weight loss, she has to eat fewer calories than the person that has always been 110 pounds. I can't recall if that's due to leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, BMR slowing, etc., but it's pretty much a given that getting thin/then maintaining thin is more "difficult" calorically than "naturally" being that weight.

(With my first pregnancy I was down to prepregnancy weight at this time, while this time I gained more and have twenty pounds to still lose. I remember being so goddamn hungry this time...once my husband made fajitas and I was like THESE ARE THE BEST FAJITAS I HAD IN MY WHOLE LIFE. It was like eating while high. Now I'm not pregnant and those fajitas are only pretty good, and my appetite has ramped up in order to try to maintain my higher weight. The difference in my body's urging to snack is noticeable. This is probably compounded by breastfeeding too, tho)

ETA: crossposted....agree with Heph and Sista, as per.

Fitz
06-05-2016, 11:16 PM
Maybe we should treat obeasts like the drug addicts they are and we can finally get somewhere.

Hephaestus
06-05-2016, 11:31 PM
Maybe we should treat obeasts like the drug addicts they are and we can finally get somewhere.

Make obesity a felony? Certainly would be among the easiest criminals to spot.

And catch.

Easy propaganda too.

"Why should someone who so obviously makes poor life decisions be allowed to vote and thereby influence how others get to live their lives?"

"Food would be more abundant if the fatties weren't eating it all."

"Catering to the tastes of the obese leads to mass production of low quality foods! Eliminate the obese demand and the cry for healthy foods will win the day!"

"How can you trust someone to work on your home that you can't trust alone with a marshmallow?"

"If we made all the fatties ride generator cycles, they could power the country for weeks!"

Madrigal
06-05-2016, 11:36 PM
Maybe we should treat obeasts like the drug addicts they are and we can finally get somewhere.

Well, I think it is an addiction. I get the whole "personal responsibility" angle but I can sympathize a lot more with someone trying to lose 60+ pounds than someone trying to lose 20, for example. The former requires more than your average amount of willpower. But seriously, you seem weirdly spiteful. Nobody's making you fuck them.

oxyjen
06-05-2016, 11:39 PM
Neville's gonna neville.

pensive_pilgrim
06-05-2016, 11:54 PM
How many calories the individual eater will actually get is going to be less than the total potential calories that are actually in the food item.

Yeah, but the calories you read on the label and on the nutritional information you see posted for things like produce already takes into account the efficiency of the body in converting food to energy. There's also the fact that not all the energy you get comes from the food, it also comes from the oxygen you breathe in. Foods with higher "energy density" actually require more oxygen for that energy to be used. It's not what you'd read on a bomb calorimeter, it's what's called the "metabolizable energy" of the food. The way the food is processed and enters the body can definitely change this though, along with stuff like the unique composition of your gut flora(they use up some of the energy). All those caloric values you read for a food are really just the best estimates of this whole process.

But yeah, trying to accurately estimate your own BMR, along with the actual food energy you're using to do a certain amount of work (the body is only like 40% efficient at converting calories to mechanical energy, and this also varies with things like how efficient you are at breathing) is probably even harder.

Here's the thing though: unless you're really, really overweight or underweight, I think people need to stop looking at scales as an indicator of fitness. Too many average or skinnyfat sedentary people look at their bodyfat and think "I need to lose weight" when what they should think is "I should exercise regularly and try to eat healthy foods and avoid unhealthy foods". I know, people want to look good, but what makes you look good is even more complicated than what affects how much you weigh, and most people will be happier with their results by generally increasing their fitness, including muscular and cardiovascular and sleep and eating foods that will sustain energy rather than causing blood sugar spikes and so on, and that fitness and general feeling of healthiness will make you look better than if you suffer and strain to have a six pack or a thigh gap or whatever. That's what I think.

Madrigal
06-06-2016, 12:00 AM
thigh gap

First time I ever heard of this. I always regarded it as unfortunate. :wtf:

pensive_pilgrim
06-06-2016, 12:06 AM
First time I ever heard of this. I always regarded it as unfortunate. :wtf:

Oh man, google "bikini bridge" and "a4 waist".

Fitz
06-06-2016, 12:10 AM
Make obesity a felony? Certainly would be among the easiest criminals to spot.

And catch.

Easy propaganda too.

"Why should someone who so obviously makes poor life decisions be allowed to vote and thereby influence how others get to live their lives?"

"Food would be more abundant if the fatties weren't eating it all."

"Catering to the tastes of the obese leads to mass production of low quality foods! Eliminate the obese demand and the cry for healthy foods will win the day!"

"How can you trust someone to work on your home that you can't trust alone with a marshmallow?"

"If we made all the fatties ride generator cycles, they could power the country for weeks!"

This sounds amazing and I'm more than down with the cause but I meant sending them to rehab programs.


Well, I think it is an addiction. I get the whole "personal responsibility" angle but I can sympathize a lot more with someone trying to lose 60+ pounds than someone trying to lose 20, for example. The former requires more than your average amount of willpower. But seriously, you seem weirdly spiteful. Nobody's making you fuck them.

Firstly, you should see the entitled morbidly obese chicks on every dating/hookup service. It's weird and gross.

Secondly, I'm ok with spite. The societal acceptance of the obese is inching forward as fast as their waistlines and it's disgusting. It's even worse when you've been on both sides of the battle and you see the hoards of obese growing larger and larger and their insanity spreading further than the ranch dressing on their pizza.

We have really simple solutions that work really well and yet what happens? ...but i'm hungry. I can't do it. This is hard. muh metabolism :(

https://media.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif


Neville's gonna neville.
https://media.giphy.com/media/H3Yz4Zj4hsEuI/giphy.gif

Madrigal
06-06-2016, 12:12 AM
Oh man, google "bikini bridge" and "a4 waist".

Didn't know about these either, although the bikini bridge doesn't seem weird, it happens to plenty of naturally skinny young people when they lie down.


Firstly, you should see the entitled morbidly obese chicks on every dating/hookup service. It's weird and gross.


What does that mean? How are they entitled? Just curious.

Fitz
06-06-2016, 12:22 AM
What does that mean? How are they entitled? Just curious.

They'll describe the type of male(athlete or abercrombie model type usually) they're looking for while simultaneously disparaging the types that don't fit their ideal. Any male that is their ideal but also repulsed by the size of their fupa is then berated for being "fatphobic".

Madrigal
06-06-2016, 12:27 AM
They'll describe the type of male(athlete or abercrombie model type usually) they're looking for while simultaneously disparaging the types that don't fit their ideal. Any male that is their ideal but also repulsed by the size of their fupa is then berated for being "fatphobic".

Holy shiiiiiit. You mean you found someone on the internet that wants to date above their league? I really hope you called the police.

stuck
06-06-2016, 12:34 AM
Scales are useful precisely because it's very difficult to know your TDEE from a calculation. If you're trying to put on muscle, it's very hard to do that unless you're putting on weight. It's also very deceptive to look at yourself in the mirror or trust how your clothes fit because your body changes due to water retention and muscle inflammation-that stuff comes and goes. When you're losing weight, especially if you're very fat, the first fat to go is often the fat around the organs rather than the fat at the surface. Weight (in terms of the trend beyond the fluctuations) and exercise markers provide decent short term feedback.

pensive_pilgrim
06-06-2016, 12:34 AM
Didn't know about these either, although the bikini bridge doesn't seem weird, it happens to plenty of naturally skinny young people when they lie down.

Well I don't think anyone should be shamed for it, but I really don't like the idea of protruding bones being promoted as sexy and something to strive for. Another example: coins on collarbones.


Scales are useful precisely because it's very difficult to know your TDEE from a calculation. If you're trying to put on muscle, it's very hard to do that unless you're putting on weight. It's also very deceptive to look at yourself in the mirror or trust how your clothes fit because your body changes due to water retention and muscle inflammation-that stuff comes and goes. When you're losing weight, especially if you're very fat, the first fat to go is often the fat around the organs rather than the fat at the surface. Weight (in terms of the trend beyond the fluctuations) and exercise markers provide decent short term feedback.

You make a good point. I guess I was thinking more of how the solution to "I want to look better" is always "I need to lose weight" when a lot of these people would both look and feel better if they maintained their current weight and started exercising effectively. Sedentary people with little muscle mass focusing only on losing weight seems bad for both health and appearance. I think it's a big part of why so many people who want to "get in shape" find the experience frustrating and demoralizing and give up.

Fitz
06-06-2016, 12:55 AM
Holy shiiiiiit. You mean you found someone on the internet that wants to date above their league? I really hope you called the police.

Nah, I "lol"d her message to me.

Madrigal
06-06-2016, 12:58 AM
Nah, I "lol"d her message to me.

Tits or gtfo, Nevs. xox

stuck
06-06-2016, 01:09 AM
You make a good point. I guess I was thinking more of how the solution to "I want to look better" is always "I need to lose weight" when a lot of these people would both look and feel better if they maintained their current weight and started exercising effectively. Sedentary people with little muscle mass focusing only on losing weight seems bad for both health and appearance. I think it's a big part of why so many people who want to "get in shape" find the experience frustrating and demoralizing and give up.

I agree with your original point too fwiw. It's just that nutrition and health are a really subtle and complex issue to understand. Your typical obese person has to go through several stages of at least a year in order to get healthy. My hardgainer wife desperately needs to get used to the sensation of being in a caloric surplus, which is tremendously disorienting for her- at least as hard as my trying to stay in a deficit. When she gets on a scale that tells her she only gained six pounds after eating and lifting like a fiend for four months, it helps her understand her health a little bit more.

However, you're totally right. The average person is so ignorant to their nutrition that they try to crash diet 20 pounds- lose a bunch of water and muscle and some fat, and then wonder why they get even fatter when they go back to their old habits.

Try to tell someone the opposite- that the only way they'll change is to permanently change, that they need to undertake a profound amount of education on issues both subtle and cutting edge like leptin resistance and coarse and timeless like CICO-and that's the only way they'll have the inklings of a fighting chance.

I have out-eaten an hour of intense cardio per day (heart rate above 180) as a vegetarian. I don't look like a blimp when I'm overweight, most I ever got was "chubby". Half measures don't work for people like me, I need a lifestyle overhaul.

Fitz
06-06-2016, 01:14 AM
Tits or gtfo, Nevs. xox

That's not fair. I don't have tits!

Hephaestus
06-06-2016, 02:28 AM
Scales are useful precisely because it's very difficult to know your TDEE from a calculation. If you're trying to put on muscle, it's very hard to do that unless you're putting on weight. It's also very deceptive to look at yourself in the mirror or trust how your clothes fit because your body changes due to water retention and muscle inflammation-that stuff comes and goes. When you're losing weight, especially if you're very fat, the first fat to go is often the fat around the organs rather than the fat at the surface. Weight (in terms of the trend beyond the fluctuations) and exercise markers provide decent short term feedback.
This is why I use a scale that also guestimates my bodyfat percentage. That's the number I'm most interested in seeing go down. If I got under 20% bodyfat but still weighed over 250, I'd highfive myself so loud people would assume it was another Krakatoa.

I for one, am very happy that weight loss generally starts with visceral fat. I measure the success of my exercise and diet by how good my hear vitals are, and how good I feel. The aesthetic side is secondary--although it's definitely exciting to see happen.


I have out-eaten an hour of intense cardio per day (heart rate above 180) as a vegetarian. I don't look like a blimp when I'm overweight, most I ever got was "chubby". Half measures don't work for people like me, I need a lifestyle overhaul.

I know this feel. To be healthy, I need to have more hours a day dedicated to physical exercise than a typical employment will permit--well, when my play requirements are being met anyway--and a typical employment doesn't meet my 'me-time' requirements to begin with! Frustrating.

I'm also in the category of people who "carry their weight well" (which if you know anything about adipose deposition, is really code for "likely to die early of a heart attack"). People are almost always surprised to learn I weigh as much as I do. I'm not big boned, I'm burly-fat, which is somehow less appalling than being doughbese.


That's not fair. I don't have tits!

Just find someone to inflate your pecs with saline. Boobs for a day.

stuck
06-06-2016, 02:47 AM
If you had 200 lbs lean body mass at anything less than like 6'4" you'd be a monster. That's like top 1% genetics.


Or a lot of drugs

Hephaestus
06-06-2016, 03:35 AM
If you had 200 lbs lean body mass at anything less than like 6'4" you'd be a monster. That's like top 1% genetics.


Or a lot of drugs

Like I said. I'd high-five myself so hard, it would reverberate around the world.

Ependymin
06-06-2016, 05:52 PM
Neville's gonna neville.

Ah.

kari
09-18-2017, 06:31 AM
Wow. Metabolic adaptation is very real. Ive had the privilege to experience it in my own body recently.

I'm undergoing bulimia recovery atm, trying to heal my body. The past few months I've been in a starvation mode (my body metabolically adapted to disordered eating). I had a lot of the symptoms displayed by the starved participants in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Slow heart rate, very low libido, I even lost my period, ravenous primal hunger. This is despite being a normal weight + eating a decently amount of calories. But yeah the metabolic adaptation happened a few times to me in the past decade, and they were ALL caused by a period of extreme dieting (either the exclusion of food groups, VLCD (200-700kcals! or overexercising).

Ever since increasing my calories, eating proper meals at set times, I can definitely feel the difference. I have more energy, my libido is better. Don't get me wrong, my food anxiety is flaring up and I'm kind of terrified. I'm only a few weeks in and I'm really determined to heal. It breaks my heart to think that so many people are starting to diet now and many will probably experience the same thing, and wonder why their body is going crazy.

Still I am in awe. The human body and its ability for allostasis is amazing. I definitely wouldve survived a famine.

stuck
09-18-2017, 06:55 AM
I had a lot of the symptoms displayed by the starved participants in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Slow heart rate, very low libido, I even lost my period, ravenous primal hunger. This is despite being a normal weight + eating a decently amount of calories.

I'm so curious and want to ask questions but don't really want to upset your allostasis, especially if you're eating sufficient calories now.

kari
09-18-2017, 07:22 AM
I'm so curious and want to ask questions but don't really want to upset your allostasis, especially if you're eating sufficient calories now.

Wait how would you upset it? Ask away!

stuck
09-18-2017, 07:28 AM
Wait how would you upset it? Ask away!

Do you weigh your food? do you worry about macronutrients? any other orthorexic behavior?

kari
09-18-2017, 08:03 AM
Do you weigh your food? do you worry about macronutrients? any other orthorexic behavior?

You mean during recovery?

Recovery -
No I don't weigh my food. I'm following structured eating, which has the following rules:
- eat 3 meals + 3 snacks, spaced no more than 3 hours apart but no less than 2 hours apart
- I include all macros in meals. They recommend 50% carbs, 25% protein & 25% fat, but I just trust my body and eat intuitively

I would say massively increasing my fat intake particularly has been biggest libido-booster. It's insane, I didn't even notice how low it was until I regained it.

During disordered eating -
- yeah I've had a period of weighing my food
- worried about macros
- I've exhibited every orthorexic behaviour under the sun but could never really keep up anything for long - Being strictly healthy makes me incredibly unhealthy in the long run...

kari
09-18-2017, 08:12 AM
Here are the symptoms of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment

https://i.imgur.com/1LPo9hn.png

Blorg
09-18-2017, 12:20 PM
kali I remember those symptoms too. Actually the other day my friends were talking about the weird cheap food concoctions they ate in university. I told them a few of my concoctions (like mustard and rice) and they laughed and then I got a stabby feeling because I remembered that I ate like that primarily because I was starving myself and it was one of the weird rituals I developed due to the accompanying psychological imbalance.

stigmatica
09-18-2017, 10:19 PM
Also known in the scientific literature as "metabolic adaptation".

The issue seems to be particularly polarising and I am curious to see what you guys think. Does it exist? Is it mere myth?

You might have heard of the recent Biggest Loser study that claims to prove the existence of metabolic damage. I profess I haven't looked into it too much (quick skim). But surely it can't be too surprising that most of the contestants regained all the weight + more since they quit a lifestyle that resulted in an extremely high caloric deficit? I mean surely the weight regain is due to aggregation of these factors:
- returning to a sedentary lifestyle (from exercising like 6 hours a day for the show)
- lower BMR due to lower weight, hence it's harder to achieve a caloric deficit everyday simply because they weigh less
- probs eating a tad more than they would like to admit

Not because their metabolic ability has somehow been slowed down amazingly?

But the study claims that their metabolisms have slowed far less than expected for their size, and that they burn fewer calories per day.

Thoughts? Experiences?

This is intuition speaking, but yes. I'm becoming pretty sure we all have a "natural" size as per our comfortable selves, and this on changes when our lifestyle changes. But don't get me wrong, the word "lifestyle" is an annoying word. I don't mean it like it's mostly used. You change from a physical job to a desk job, that's a lifestyle change that will reduce your weight without you thinking about it. Deciding to ride your bike to work (if you're so lucky to even have that as an option) would be a lifestyle change. Running everyday in a circle to lose weight is NOT a lifestyle change. It's a temp.

Some people have a lower comfortable weight at lifestyle A than others. It's totally not fair.

BUT...

You can creatively change your lifestyle if you make it a priority in a lot of circumstances, but not all. I think a better weight loss program would be about changing ones lifestyle where it's possible, and sometimes it's not without changing jobs. Basically, life is not always fair.

Sinny
09-18-2017, 11:23 PM
Pissed off because a quick Google doesn't get straight to the point about what "metabolic damage" is.

Whole long introductions about weight loss goals and lifestyle choices, and blah blah blah.

As somebody who regularly bounces between extremes (In regards to anything), including eating lots and not eating at all... No I don't think there's any damage.

I've lost just over a stone in the last 2 1/2 months by moving more and eating less.

Working nights has had adverse effects on my diet.

I'm always hungry, but rarely able to eat through lack of "wanting", not needing. Same goes when under stress. Food is the very last thing that crosses my mind.

Most days over the last couple of months have seen me taking in 500-1500 calories.

Some days I binge and can eat around 3000 in one sitting.

In 2015 I got fat, from eating more and moving less.

Real simple equation. Really predictable out comes.

kari
09-18-2017, 11:39 PM
Pissed off because a quick Google doesn't get straight to the point about what "metabolic damage" is.

Whole long introductions about weight loss goals and lifestyle choices, and blah blah blah.

As somebody who regularly bounces between extremes (In regards to anything), including eating lots and not eating at all... No I don't think there's any damage.

I've lost just over a stone in the last 2 1/2 months by moving more and eating less.

Working nights has had adverse effects on my diet.

I'm always hungry, but rarely able to eat through lack of "wanting", not needing. Same goes when under stress. Food is the very last thing that crosses my mind.

Most days over the last couple of months have seen me taking in 500-1500 calories.

Some days I binge and can eat around 3000 in one sitting.

In 2015 I got fat, from eating more and moving less.

Real simple equation. Really predictable out comes.

My bad, metabolic damage really is a misnomer - there is no damage, nor is it irreversible. It's a label for a phenomenon whereby the body adapts to its environment. Hence metabolic adaptation is a much better label. If you decrease caloric intake and increase caloric expenditure for long enough (I'm talking months of deprivation) then your body will eventually adapt to mitigate weight loss.

Through not just metabolism slowdown (which is why I say allostasis rather than homeostasis), but also:

enhanced mitochondrion function to produce more energy (ATP) from fewer calories
to behavioural sluggishness to limit further caloric expenditure
by decreasing circulating leptin
and increasing circulating ghrelin
and finally, the one thing that makes you binge uncontrollably: primal hunger driven by dopamine - the "wanting" neurotransmitter.


Which is why the body is fucking amazing. Think of all the other ways your body adapts to perceived deprivations and stressors in your life!

Since this process kind of takes months to develop, a lot of people never really experience this "starvation mode" just because their willpower sucks and they usually quit dieting within the first few days or weeks. I used to think it was a simple CICO (calorie in, calorie out) equation too. But quality of calories matters. Your macronutrient ratios have a profound effect on body composition, like the amount of lean mass or fat mass you develop (see: nutrient partitioning)