Slashdot Mirror
Neuroscience Explains Why Dieters Rarely Lose Weight (nytimes.com)
HughPickens.com writes: According to a new study, the chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with severe obesity, suggesting that current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity. Now neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt writes in the New York Times that "in the long run dieting is rarely effective, doesn't reliably improve health and does more harm than good". And according to Aamodt, the root of the problem is not willpower but neuroscience.
Metabolic suppression is one of several powerful tools that the brain uses to keep the body within a certain weight range, called the set point. The range, which varies from person to person, is determined by genes and life experience. When dieters' weight drops below it, they not only burn fewer calories but also produce more hunger-inducing hormones and find eating more rewarding. If someone starts at 120 pounds and drops to 80, her brain rightfully declares a starvation state of emergency, using every method available to get that weight back up to normal. This coordinated brain response is a major reason that dieters find weight loss so hard to achieve and maintain. According to Aamodt dieting can actually lead to weight gain because dieting is stressful. Calorie restriction produces stress hormones, which act on fat cells to increase the amount of abdominal fat. Such fat is associated with medical problems like diabetes and heart disease, regardless of overall weight.... Aamodt recommends mindful eating -- paying attention to signals of hunger and fullness, without judgment, to relearn how to eat only as much as the brain's weight-regulation system commands.
Metabolic suppression is one of several powerful tools that the brain uses to keep the body within a certain weight range, called the set point. The range, which varies from person to person, is determined by genes and life experience. When dieters' weight drops below it, they not only burn fewer calories but also produce more hunger-inducing hormones and find eating more rewarding. If someone starts at 120 pounds and drops to 80, her brain rightfully declares a starvation state of emergency, using every method available to get that weight back up to normal. This coordinated brain response is a major reason that dieters find weight loss so hard to achieve and maintain. According to Aamodt dieting can actually lead to weight gain because dieting is stressful. Calorie restriction produces stress hormones, which act on fat cells to increase the amount of abdominal fat. Such fat is associated with medical problems like diabetes and heart disease, regardless of overall weight.... Aamodt recommends mindful eating -- paying attention to signals of hunger and fullness, without judgment, to relearn how to eat only as much as the brain's weight-regulation system commands.
Gut bacteria.
--sf
There are several whole industries devoted to convincing people that it's as simple as a bit of diet and exercise and if you or someone you know can't lose weight it's because they're fat and lazy. "Health" food, diet plans, pills and potions, exercise machines, surgery. All waiting to grab a dollar. And billions of people too scared or too stupid to know that if they're thin it's their good fortune, not a reason to put others down. Fat shaming is more socially accepted than any other form of discrimination on the planet.
It's trying to justify you're going to be stuck at your unhealthy weight whether you like it or not so you should just accept it fatty mclardbucket.
Worrying. Ms. Aamodt has links to the Healthy at Every Size (HAES) obesity apologists. HAES are as insane as anti-vaxxers, only they believe medical science is a worldwide racist conspiracy against fat people. Oh, and if you don't want to buy into their excuses, you're literally oppressing them.
In short, I'm worried that she appears to be peddling snake oil to people who are very, very desperate to avoid having to take personal responsibility for their unhealthy lifestyles. Diet and Exercise work -- as part of a lifestyle change. We know this, we have known this for years.
The problem is that humans are extremely, extremely poor at making judgements about food, and we have an entire industry ("Big Food") dedicated into manipulating people into overeating and eating cheaply produced unhealthy garbage.
Fat people aren't a "race"
Sure they are, they just don't race as fast as thin people unless you drop them from an airplane.
Just another day in Paradise
Yeah, like my high school science teacher. Gained 100 lbs in 3 years, got diagnosed with a thyroid problem. Went on medication, lost 100 lbs in 5 years. No changes to diet or habit in those 6 years. All her fault for being lazy.
Learn to love Alaska
I think the main issue here is that HEAS and fat acceptance people are overdoing it. Some people can be slightly overweight but everything can be fine health wise and try to force them to a normal weight is more likely to make things worse. There are also some complaints against "fat shaming" that are justified. Obesity is a significant lifestyle-based health issue, but there are many others such as smoking, lack of sleep, drug abuse, risky sexual behavior or being underweight. Shaming should to be fair: If people ignore smoking but are shaming slightly overweight people and claim that shaming is based on health concerns instead of aesthetics that is just bigotry or bad information.
A little big of overweight (BMI 25-27), especially with low levels of abdominal fat is not a big health issue, it might even be slightly more healthy than normal weight. Something like BMI 27 to 30 is unhealthy most of the time, but on average still causes smaller health issues than smoking. But many people are significantly fatter than that. They almost always have health issues caused by their weight and should really lose weight and could easily do so by swapping some high calorie count items in their diet with vegetables.
Jan
You cannot force yourself to lose weight.
You can will yourself to lose weight.
The two are distinct. The first is a method of control, which means that without changing your will, you put in place external methods of regulating yourself. The second is how most people lose weight, which is by regulating their desire by balancing it against their desire to be thinner. It's not a diet, it's a reduction.
All the people I know who lost weight and kept it off did so by focusing on their appetites and not rules for limiting consumption. They found ways to want less food, thus eat less, and if exercise played a role it was secondary.
Of course, none of them were obese by any realistic definition. Fifteen to fifty extra pounds is not out of the range of normal.
The doctors have adjusted the definition of "obese" (apparently) to include pot-bellies and thunder thighs. They are doing this in the War on Obesity, which like other Wars on Social Problems, is based in forcing people to do what is not natural for them. They think this will work because all humans are the same, identical and grey, without any context or surrounding needs. But as you point out, people vary. For some, a little extra weight is a good thing, especially in middle age.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find some eclairs...
Eating fat doesn't make you fat.
Stuffing yourself and not exercising does.
AFAIK the jury is till out on gut bacteria.
Sure they are, they just don't race as fast as thin people unless you drop them from an airplane.
Idiocy is more of a problem than obesity will ever be - as evidenced by the fact that you think more weight would make someone fall faster.
Where did he say that? He said "as fast as", not "faster than".
When did they stop talking about how gravity works in public schools?
Ironic.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
When the Texas school board found out gravity was a "theory".
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Whole fucking thread full of fat shaming.
I am currently up early and not sure if I can go into work today because you fat shamers have pushed somebody I care about to near suicide. I have literally no fucking clue if I can leave them alone in the house right now.
When somebody eats 300-600 calories per day and still gains weight, there is something else going on.
On the other hand, look at me! I'm only a few lbs overweight, and I eat like shit and drink all the time! I must be morally superior! I have no fucking clue how many calories I eat each day. My fucking body burns somewhere around 1500 calories at fucking rest last time I checked!
So what's my fucking secret? Nuclear hot wings? Is that what keeps my metabolism going while somebody I care about abso-fucking-lutely cannot control their weight? Eating McDonalds and Speedway shit every other day? Is that my fucking secret when somebody eating nothing but beans and rice in measured portions can't lose a single fucking pound?
Ah, it must be the smoking! Is 10-12 fucking cigarettes per day my fucking secret?! You tell me, asshole.
God, can we get past this period of history before science figures out what my fucking secret is and gives it to all the beautiful, talented people in the world whose body is their own worst enemy already?
If there is a hell, I hope you and all the other fat shaming ACs here burn in it. You have blood on your hands. If swear, if I fucking knew how to raise or lower somebody's metabolism, I'd set yours to fucking ZERO just to laugh at you while you ballooned up. Don't expect me to watch over you when you become suicidal. You deserve to feel anguish and total fucking despair.
It wasn't that she was lazy, it's that you were. Students that stay in high school for eight years will do that to a teacher. :)
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It's based on this scientific study: http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
Press release from the college here, a bit easier to read: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevent...
A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house.
There is more to it than just that. Even if you switch to a carefully managed, calorie counted diet you can still gain weight or at least fail to keep it off. After the initial weight loss period your body goes into starvation mode, reducing the idle calorie burn significantly (500 kcal/day is not uncommon). So if you were on 2,200 kcal/day and drop to 1,800, you will be gaining weight. Going below 1,800 starts to get dangerous for other reasons and you need to be extremely careful to get enough nutrition. Meanwhile you feel tired and stressed and hungry, and you feel that way forever because your body never corrects even after many years of sticking to your extreme diet.
That's why the contestants on shows like The Biggest Loser mostly regain all the weight afterwards. Dieting works in the short term, but once the body's set-point is too high the only known way to lower currently is a faecal transplant.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
i've never bought into any of the dieting fads nor tried them because they blamed random things without the science to back it up. one fateful day last summer i watched a documentary that claimed sugars in our food were to blame but it actually had the science to back it up.
Sugar is a drug, addictive and causes food cravings. This begs the question of why we aren't going through withdraw and the answer is that sugar has been added to all your foods specifically so you do not go through withdraw. Look at your raw pasta which has zero reason to have sugar added, it has about 3g of sugar added for every 56g (2 oz).
To make matters worse, food makers started using High Fructose Corn Syrup in products because it's inexpensive because corn is subsidized. Fructose is processed by your liver and it gets stored as fat unless you have low blood sugar. so products with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) are most likely to make you fat.
After removing sugar from my diet (not easy to find products without sugar!) I went through a few days of withdraw. After that, I actually felt like I more energy to do things, so much so that I wanted to exercise (that was never my goal). I started walking regularly and losing weight without any crazy diet, just not eating things with sugar added. Apples are a great source of sugar that have the fiber to balance it out so that it's absorbed slowly avoiding a traffic jam in your liver.
In the last year I have lost 65 lbs of fat and gained 15 lbs of muscle without ever having to go hungry or restrain myself from eating. I'm still overweight (for now) but I'm no longer obese.
The food supply is being drugged to increase profits.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It doesn't even take much "will power".
Then you're probably not one of the people with the problem. Huge numbers of people are though.
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong.
Your experience of being a few pounds overweight is not the same experience as someone who is seriously obese.
As a neuroscientist, I always feel a bit bad when I see headlines like "neuroscience explains X". It usually doesn't and here also it doesn't really (although that's not say the work is without merit, the blurb in the summary seems reasonable). However, neuroscience obviously doesn't tell us why people are getting so fat in the first place. This matters because it affects how to handle weight loss. I accept that different people may have different "natural weights", but this doesn't explain the steadily increasing obesity levels. Something is clearly changing with our relationship to food. Maybe it's increasing sugar levels. Maybe it's that fewer people cook and that encourages over-eating. Maybe it's increasing portion sizes. Perhaps all of those. The point is that there is a driving force to increasing obesity in the population at large, and as an overweight individual you are fighting against it (whatever it is). So if you want people to start losing weight then I reckon you need to understand very well why they're gaining it at such unprecedented levels. The food industry is, in general, not helping to clarify the issue.
soylentnews.org
Reality says he is right. It isn't that complex. If I dropped a morbidly obese person on a desert island and gave him an appropriate calorie diet they would lose weight 100% of the time.
That is because you missed the other part of the equation: exercise.
Yeah, like my high school science teacher. Gained 100 lbs in 3 years, got diagnosed with a thyroid problem. Went on medication, lost 100 lbs in 5 years. No changes to diet or habit in those 6 years. All her fault for being lazy.
And your estimation of the % of fat people who have thyroid problems is...?
(You can do the effort to multiply your proportion to the number of obese Americans before answering with your estimations on the largest epidemic of "Thyroid problems" in the history of mankind.)
When somebody eats 300-600 calories per day and still gains weight, there is something else going on.
...
My fucking body burns somewhere around 1500 calories at fucking rest last time I checked!
Do you know what happens when you eat 300 to 600 calories per day? Hint, you don't gain weight. Show me a person who consistently gains weight at that level of calorie intake, under controlled conditions. The study of that one guy could possibly revolutionize physics and biology. At that calorie intake level, the body will start reclaiming unused material (muscle and fat) for energy. Heck, one reasonable sandwich (ham, an egg, salad, tomato, pickles, no cheese or sauce) is already >80% of that daily calorie target.
I accidentally dropped 14 lbs in the last 10 days as I was too busy relocating to eat correctly... I actually ate junk food during those 10 days, but probably just around 1000 calories per day in one setting.
When somebody eats 300-600 calories per day and still gains weight, there is something else going on.
It doesn't work that way - any adult who is on 600 calories/day will definitely lose weight eventually, even if they do have medical problems.
OTOH, the number of people with physiological issues that make them fat is so small it's not even a rounding error - seriously, too small to measure - so of course I'm skeptical when 90% of obese people claim it's due to medical reasons. The odds of them being correct is the same as me winning a lottery multiple consecutive times.
IOW, the person you claimed is on 600 calories a day... probably isn't.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Obligatory get off my lawn post but here it comes anyway. Back when I was young (1960's) there were fat kids but not nearly as many and some of those that were considered fat back then would not be considered so now. Our parents were bigger then the kids but not remarkably so. Most of this stark change in obesity rates has taken place in 1 generation. To me, that is the question that needs an answer. What has caused this dramatic change?
Well, I'll certainly trust an anecdote of 1 versus this:
"Methods. We drew a sample of individuals aged 20 years and older from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004 to 2014. We analyzed data for 76,704 obese men and 99,791 obese women. We excluded participants who received bariatric surgery. We estimated the probability of attaining normal weight or 5% reduction in body weight."
You didn't even read the article, did you? Nevermind the fact that the summary's first link is to the scientific study in question.
The first link is a scientific study that looks at long term weight trends after an initial weight loss. Not "hunger" or "appetite." Food consumption over as much as 10 year is "actual eating." It doesn't even take much "will power" to locate the study and read it, versus cherry-picking a mass media commentary that itself cites seven studies and a metaanalysis.
Apply a version of your own philosophy. It doesn't even take much "will power." Just don't spew an "opinion" without reading each of the hyperlinked articles to check that little things like "it cites self-help books, not scientific studies" are not so egregiously incorrect that you appear to be a complete moron.
At that calorie intake level, the body will start reclaiming unused material (muscle and fat) for energy.
I bolded the important part. Yes, I'm fucking aware how little food 600 kcal is. Believe it or not.
Once the body decides it needs to burn muscle tissue instead of fat, the game is lost. Not all pounds are created equal. And I'm certain there's far more complexity and nuance there than you can fit into your tiny little head.
It starts with the fat shaming, just to "help." You're so helpful! That'll totally fix the problem! Before you know it, somebody is in hiding, starving themselves death. Sooner or later, they hit a wall. Then when they try to eat for energy, guess what! No energy, just straight to fat!
So then we fat shame them some more, just to "nudge them in the right direction." Just because we're such kind, altruistic, selfless people! More starvation diet. It doesn't work as well this time. Occasional binge that goes straight to fat.
I'm not sure how you get a much more controlled situation than somebody hiding out in self-imposed house arrest because assholes like you make them too ashamed to go out in public and do things that would probably fucking help them reverse the cycle.
Before you know it, it's become a crying fucking shame. Before you know it, suicide seems like the only way out. This is the real way that calorie in - calorie out just fucking fails. The hacker's diet is a tool for smug assholes who think their shit doesn't stink.
Yeah, for people like you or me, it absolutely works. I've used it myself. Then again, we haven't been fat shamed into the self-destructive binge/purge cycle that manifests. Call it weakness on the part of the victim if you want, and go ahead and proudly show how much of a self-centered pompous ass you are.
What the fuck do I know? I eat like shit and drink all the time, and I never gain a single pound. Why am I not drunk now? I should be. I'll bet I could post some hilarious fucking shit if I were right now.
I bolded the part of this comment you're going to miss just so it'll be even more fucking hilarious when you do miss it.
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong.
When observation contradicts your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. The observation that there were/are no fat prisoners concentration camps contradicts your so-called "science" (I use that term loosely here) that eating less does not lead to weight loss. It does, for a proper value of "less".
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I call BS on the NYT article ...
I reckon the basic problem with diets is the kind of diets ... the typical "reduce by half" diet, or counting calories etc. will not work over the long run, because they are either tedious to follow, or deprive the body of necessary nutrients along with calories.
The way out of the whole dilemma is by not reducing what you eat, but by changing your food to healthy food. And not even looking at how much of that healthy (mostly vegetables) food you eat, but rely on the relatively low calories of those food to take care of your excessive calorie intake.
Check out e.g. books by Dr. Fuhrman, like "Eat to live" or "End of dieting" ... his explanations - combined with referencing literally hundreds of studies done in the area of food and nutrition - will help most likely just about any person wanting to live healthier, and as a by-product - lose weight when followed ...
E.g., some 10 years back I decided I needed to lose weight (albeit I didn't have any noticeable health issues even though I would have been classified as slightly obese). I managed to go down something like 60 pounds within 3-4 months by reducing the amount of food - and snacks - I ate, and even managed to keep my weight down decently for several years, though over the last 3-4 year regaining my weight.
Last August, with a BMI of 31.5 (anything above 30 is classified as obese), I started going on a "diet" based on Fuhrman's books, managing to get down to 25.5 within 3 months; currently I'm down to 22.5, with a total of almost 70 pounds lost. My personal goal is reacing a BMI in the area of 21.5 and a total loss of about 75-78 pounds. By switching to about 90-95% vegetarian/vegan food, I've had not much of a problem losing the weight, without /ANY/ of the typical "dieting" problems like suffering from hunger etc. ... when hungry, I'll just eat something - like carrots, bell peppers etc. for snacks, or a nice bowl of salad ... I've never not eaten vegetables, but were pretty picky ... and the amount of meat etc. that I usually ate of course added to the calories ...
Of course, I won't be able to supply long-term results yet, but by effectively changing my general food source and type of eating, I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to keep the weight off, and iron out the occasional "rare and appropriate" (thanks to Penn Jillette for his inspiration!) event of eating "normal", unhealthy food ...
This article is a load of crap that contradicts the study's conclusion:
"those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing." ...
"Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight."
What they're saying is that the body will adapt to the change in calorie intake such that the person can maintain the weight loss. The NYT article makes wild and incompatible conclusions based on this very simple and narrow study.
The body does not burn muscle or other importance organs when their is still 400 pounds of fat surrounding these organs, period. Are you actually saying that you have reason to believe that your friend's metabolise is so fucked up that it skips over her fat reserves?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Sure, but the same low breeding that leads to racism now leads to fat shaming.
That argument is so thin it's can't even be rebutted.
Are you implying something? Something beyond "fat shaming is bad and people who do bad things are bad"?
What does racism have to do with anything here? Are we abducting fat people now to sell into slavery? We're certainly gonna need a bigger boat for that.
15 minutes of dance class or on the rowing machine is about 100 calories. You would have to do a lot of exercise every day of your life until death to make up for your body going into starvation mode. Even if you can manage it now, good luck when you are 60.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that it's exceptionally difficult which is why the odds against it working are so bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When I diet weight comes off. In the first week I lose 5-7 pounds and then settle into a steady 1-3 pounds a week. Why doesn't my body go into starvation mode?
Being a lazy fat ass causes you to have medical issues, being fat will affect your thyroid/gut/everything is negative ways. So I absolutely believe it that 100% of seriously obese people have medical issues, and that some of these hurt them in any attempt to lose weight.
Do you actually think that being obese does not cause any negative effects on anything other than chairs?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If you e.g. do fasting, after a few days you have no feeling for hunger anymore.
While it is true that the body as soon as you do a diet tries to convince you "hey you are starving, eat more! because you see: I have to burn the fat!" it should not be to hard to trick the body buy eating stuff that is hard to digest and has a relatively low amount of energy.
For every study: why diets don't work, there are plenty of diets and studies that actually do work.
For many people losing weight is actually not that hard, keeping it down and not falling back to bad eating habits is mich more challenging.
As far as I observe, the main reason for obesity â" besides eating to often and to much â" are wrong gut bacteria. Bacteria that allow you to digest fibers like a cow. A piece of bread with something like 80 kcal suddenly has 300 kcal if you can digest the fibers. Every vegetable that usually is only water, a bit of carbs, sugar and a few proteins transforms into a kcal bomb if you can digest the fibers.
(Fibres are basically the same as carbohydrates but to long chains to be able to broken up by the ordinary digesting enzymes)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
No, it really isn't. Not all calories are equal. Most of the nutritional studies done until recently have been associational. You cannot determine causal relationships from association studies!
When you read some of the recent studies that give people enough time to adapt to low-sugar diets you will see that it becomes apparent that about 2/3 of the general population is insulin-resistant. This _correlates_ to the increasing trend toward obesity, and may be the cause, but for now the science is mostly just working on properly defining the metabolic processes involved. Past nutritional work was pretty much bullshit guesses based on poorly selected groups that were not a very good representation of the general population.
I personally agree with Gravis Zero below and lean toward the hypothesis that modern high-sugar foods are the root cause. It may not be right, but it checks out so far based on some fairly well-designed long term studies. FYI, the current salt intake recommendation is probably increasing your heart disease risk by a factor of 2. Truly, any and all past diet "recommendations" and "guidelines" should be binned because they were not at all based on science. They were mostly based on what lobbyists paid to be published.
You are always free to experiment on yourself. Spend a few weeks eating your current normal diet and keep a diary of daily weight, totals of the macro nutrients consumed, and maybe some notes on how you feel. Then spend a few weeks avoiding sugar. You will most likely feel "bad" for a week or 2 while you experience the sugar withdrawal, but not everybody does. (Not everybody is insulin-resistant and I suspect that affects the addictive effects of sugar.) Remember from your reading that excess protein is pretty much converted to glucose in the liver, so try and keep the total daily intake around 1g/kg.
There is evidence that by the time the standard method is able to diagnose as diabetic, major pancreatic damage has already been done. There are new testing methods being developed to detect insulin-resistance earlier, and the simple fact is roughly 2/3 of the population genetically can't handle high-sugar diets without becoming obese and diabetic. It takes many years of abusing the liver and pancreas with sugar spikes to develop type-2 diabetes. If your risk factor is 2/3, why wouldn't you take a few simple steps to see if you are in the group that will suffer? If you stop eating sugar and lose weight and feel better, then you are probably in the larger group at risk. If you experience no change, then congratulations you are in the lucky group and can continue eating sugar with much less damaging effects. Telling everybody else to eat a small bowl of pasta because it works for you is simply not good advice.
If you believe human digestion and metabolism process are simple you are just fooling yourself. If you don't understand the complexity and preach that it is as simple as "calories in vs calories out", then you are simply ignorant of the recent advances in nutrition science and giving bad advice. I wouldn't recommend my diet to random strangers. It works for me, it might not work for you. What I do advise is education. There is a lot more and better science out there in the last few years then the previous 30 years of my life. Ultimately, you should do what works for you.
If swear, if I fucking knew how to raise or lower somebody's metabolism, I'd set yours to fucking ZERO just to laugh at you while you ballooned up. Don't expect me to watch over you when you become suicidal. You deserve to feel anguish and total fucking despair.
1. Discover technique to set metabolism to zero.
2. breed horses with metabolism set to zero.
3. Buy treadmill generators.
4. Infinite free energy.
5. Profit.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Do you actually think that being obese does not cause any negative effects on anything other than chairs?
I never even came close to saying that. I said that 600 calories a day will make your weight go down eventually. I did not claim that obesity does not cause medical problems.
I said that the amount of people who's obesity is caused by a medical problem is microscopically small, not that the amount of people who have a medical problem caused by obesity is small.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Wow the man with a plan again.
Perhaps you can tell us:
a) what exercises you would propose
b) how often per week
c) and how long per unit
So we can nitpick again a bit on your lack of knowledge :D ??
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's not the outright calorie burn that matters, it's the increase in muscle mass and metabolic rate that results from proper exercise.
Hence the saying I've heard among weightlifters: "You have to get bigger before you get smaller".
Eat the rich.
There was a program on Channel 4 here in the UK a while back called "Secret Eaters"
http://www.channel4.com/progra...
Explodes the myth of fat people claiming they don't each too much. Basically the premise of the program is people kept a complete food diary. This was then compared to what they actually ate determined by close surveillance. The result was that in all cases the fat people lied through their fat asses about what they ate to the tune of thousands of calories a day on average.
A bit of Googling tells me that the show is coming (or possibly has already come) to the USA.
No. It's decreasing because it's becoming a smaller fraction. Editor is dufus.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You should not go to work, you should retire. If what you say is true, you can easily claim the million dollar price for proving paranormal existence, as well the noble price in physics for disproving the pillar of scientific understanding that is the theory of the Conservation of Energy.
Hell, even that is thinking to low. You just solved word hunger and the energy crisis. Your friend should not be sad or suicidal, her genes can be used to make cows that produce more food calories then they consume and horses that generate power on treadmills. Your friend just prevented the heat death of the universe and the eventual extinction of all life.
She owes it to the world to come forward and share this miraculous discovery.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Ugh... This is a textbook example of poisoning the well by making some nonsense claims about HAES. The link to someone who is clearly upset and venting a little, spun into "oppression", is particularly awful.
HAES promote two basic ideas:
1. People should live a healthy lifestyle for the sake of well-being, rather than just for weight loss. So they are against binge diets, and for changing lifestyle to be more healthy. Seems sensible.
2. Simply dieting and increasing exercise is not effective for some people. This study and several other recent ones seem to confirm this. The medical community recognizes it too - surgery is recognized to be a reasonable option when diet and exercise fail in the UK, for example.
So while I'm sure you can dig up some quotes to show how awful HAES is, keep in mind that they have been making this argument for decades and after being dismissed for most of that time are now being proven right all along. People get upset and say stuff, there are idiots etc, but their basic ideas are good and shown to be valid by scientific study.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Don't drag anti-vaxxers down to this level.
Anti-vaxxers do not believe the current consensus for one medical issue, that the medical establishment is doing a good job making and using vaxxines. Which is not completely impossible because people makes mistakes and vaxxines are not magically infallible. the medical establishment has be horrendously wrong before, it's not particularly great are science, and it is really good at being greedy and caring about money more the patient health.
What Fat-Acceptance morons believe is that the theory of Conservation of Energy is not only false, but that are thousands and thousands of people in the word right now that are not only perpetual motions machines, but actually produce a net positive amount of energy/matter.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How did a "Scientists say" NYT diet article wind up on Slashdot? Just because the NYT is turning into the National Inquirer doesn't mean Slashdot should.
This article defies the laws of physics; it is bogus science. If you take in X calories and expend X + 1 calories you lose weight . If you expend X - 1 calories you gain weight. If set points were really running the show then in 1945 we would have busted down the gates at Dachau and the Japanese POW camps and found a fair number of fat people. We didn't. Calories in; calories out.
Set points are real and self control is a bitch. Your body is yelling at you "I want more food". Don't feed the body more than it needs, get some exercise and you will lose weight and eventually the body will adjust- it will shut up and stop yelling. The laws of physics are not related to the human urge to have a another bag of jellybeans before bedtime. Slashdot should stick to technology and science.
You say "when I diet", like you have done it more than once. That seems to answer your question.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
about twelve years ago I lost 30 lbs just by deciding to. I don't know how I did it, but I decided to lose weight, decided it was going to happen, didn't change my diet or activity and 30lbs was gone in a very short period of time.
I have been unable to do it again since gaining it back.
I've found that when I'm stressed, mentally exhausted regularly and feel like I'm carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders I gain weight easily. When I feel unburdened and things are going great I lose weight easily. Some of it is that I'm more likely to do recreational exercise when I'm less stressed, and indeed the last time I got down to a good weight that was the case, but I can't contribute it to that every yo-yo.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Actually, burning muscle before fat in that case is exactly what would happen. If you starve your body of too many calories, it turns to burning muscle as it costs more energy to maintain.
Eating fat doesn't make you fat.
Of course it does. Where should the fat go? You want to say: fat alone is not the reason? Then write it like that.
not exercising does. The effect of exercises is neglectible. You need to be an Athlet to influence the burning of energy in a way that you can eat more.
AFAIK the jury is till out on gut bacteria.
No it is not. The matter is settled since decades but America is slow again in accepting academic reports that are not american (or american funded).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is from yesterday, and while I generally don't like John Oliver, this is a great segment on the reporting of "scientific studies".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course, the term "healthy" is somewhat subjective as well.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Great. Now in addition to the chronically obese using the 'muh genetics' excuse, they can use the 'muh hardwired neurology' excuse, too.
Has it not occurred to anyone else that the current obesity epidemic is a relatively new thing, and not something that was a problem decades ago, or hundreds of years ago? That the crap food that we're eating (or that many of you are eating -- some of us don't) is more likely responsible? Seriously, I'd like to slap the shit out of these people who come up with this 'research' that just gives people with weight problems more excuses.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
People have this deep-seated need to believe that the universe is a just world. They don't want to believe in a world where some people are arbitrarily's given great advantages while others suffer, so they will resort to all sorts of non-scientific nonsense: everything from bogus economic beliefs to karma. Apparently this also includes beliefs about dieting and exercise.
The article cites scientific evidence that the body's metabolism and hunger response will struggle to maintain body fat, which is why so few people can sustain weight loss through any method. Nature doesn't give a shit about your opinions about personal responsibility. It's not going to take a survey about what metabolic response would be the most fair.
So if you are aware of any actual, fucking science that contradictions the author's conclusions, by all means please post them so we can better understand this issue. But if all you have to offer are shitty, unvalidated, opinions stemming from your psychological need to believe that fat people are bad and lean people are good and thus they deserve what they get, then please STFU,
Show me a person who consistently gains weight at that level of calorie intake, under controlled conditions.
Everyone who has gut bacteria that enables him to burn fibers.
At that calorie intake level, the body will start reclaiming unused material (fat and muscle ) for energy.
Fixed the order for you.
The body is not attacking its muscles as long as it has fat to burn. However with lack of protein intake the muscle cells that die and "get eaten" are not replaced (simplified speaking), due to lack of proteins.
However people doing a diet often are tired and "exercise" less, so the body is scaling down the muscles, too. With scaled down amount of muscles the base energy consumption of the body goes down, countering the diet effect.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
These mechanisms have been known for a long time. Likewise, it's been known for a long time that "willpower" and "dieting" don't work for weight loss; hunger is just too compelling. You need to change what you eat and how you live. I suppose it's good that even the NYT is waking up to the idea that "the science is settled... again".
Gut flora are turning out to be huge in this respect. But here are my simple counters to the above. If you put a bowl of candy(and keep it topped off) on everyone's desks at work, will they gain weight? If people walked to work (or at least a few miles of their journey) every day, would they lose weight?
I think that these "set points" are set by the body optimizing itself to a high caloric availability, and a low amount of work.
In the 1800s I don't think you found a whole lot of fat lumberjacks. HR people on the otherhand have a propensity to being blimps.
The point of exercise isn't to burn calories, so that's irrelevant.
Or is the claim that once someone is fat they are screwed since if they lose weight there body fo "into starvation mode"? In which case, I guess the only choice is to fat shame everyone who is just the tiniest bit fat to hopefully prevent them entering this inescapable spiral of fatness you seem to be arguing for.
No, your anecdote does not make the science wrong.
No one is disputing that if you are forced to stop eating by being in a concentration camp or a desert island you lose weight. That's not the issue. The issue is that "Eat less" is not simple. The body controls weight by appetite. And the strength of appetite, over the long term, is far stronger than the conscious will.
If you haven't experienced that, then you are a lucky person. Not a correct one.
What you're saying is not correct.
First of all this, this study does not confirm that "dieting and increasing exercise is not effective for some people". No where does it say that. It looked at a large number of obese people who did not receive bariatric surgery and tabulated the number and percentage of them that became normal weight. It doesn't say what percentage of them actually conformed to a diet and exercise regimen on which weight loss down to a normal weight would be predicted. It may be that the number who conformed were the exact number that became normal weight (1 in 124 for women and 1 in 210 for men). Indeed, if the population of obese people were at all likely to conform to effective weight loss regimens, then it is unlikely they would have become obese in the first place. So the result is not surprising.
Second of all, official HAES principles are posted online. Number 4 is "Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."
No where does this say it is just against "binge diets". It's against any diet that is intended for weight loss, or weight gain, or weight maintenance even; any "weight control". Mainstream, scientifically-based dietitians, nutrition scientists and medical doctors advise diets for weight control all the time. The standard treatment for anorexia nervosa is to first and foremost enforce a diet which brings weight back up to healthy levels. The standard treatment for an obese woman showing Pseudotumor cerebri is to lose weight. Etc.
For HAES to reject these practices is pseudoscientific.
It's a lot more complex than you seem to be aware of. As childish arguments like enforced diets on desert islands, thus entirely avoiding the critical question of appetite, clearly demonstrates.
If you think it's simple, then you haven't been affected by it.
It's being more honest, since similar to countries with Democratic in their names, if a field has Science in its name then it likely isn't.
For example, computer science and food science.
No it doesn't. I'm a yoyo dieter but my body has never gone into starvation mode. I've never had trouble losing the weight it's keeping it off but starvation mode is something I've never encountered in the 11 years since I started.
Actually, burning muscle before fat in that case is exactly what would happen. If you starve your body of too many calories, it turns to burning muscle as it costs more energy to maintain.
Only if you aren't overweight.
In the study, an example of a lean subject studied after death from starvation: it can be deduced that loss of body fat accounted for 28-36% of the weight loss and fat-free mass 64-72%. In obese individuals, the proportion of energy derived from protein (Pcal%) is only 6% compared to 21% in the lean individual. More than half the weight loss in the obese is fat, whereas most of the weight loss in the lean individual is fat-free mass.
from: https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/
I'm saying it takes a weak mind and weak character that has a need to feel superior to others even if the reason is manufactured.
You literally disputed that eating less reduces weight. That was, and still is, wrong because eating less will, in fact, reduce your weight.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
My neighbor eats > 200lbs of flour/bread (she bakes), a few gallons of cooking oil and 50lbs of sugar per year. I know this because I buy it in bulk from costco for her (she doesn't have a membership) and is thin I'm really shocked at how much and what she eats and have commented on this to my friends many times (and no, she doesn't have pets or visitors to give away and is retired). Also, she is from Greece and only eats home made food.
You wouldn't know if you're in starvation mode or not because you haven't regularly conducted complete metabolic panels to determine your resting metabolism at regular intervals. Furthermore, if you are consistently staying below your body's set point then you would not expect your body's set point to change. However, if you regain more and more body fat after each dieting cycle then your metabolism probably is changing and your body is probably actively resisting your attempts to lose weight, sorry to say.
Where did you see that the "set point" was supposed to be genetic? What you are saying actually causes the change instead of the set point is in fact what has actually raised the set point in the first place, and why it is so difficult for many people who are obese to lose weight. While it might seem that the simplest solution to this is to not get obese in the first place, even this can be difficult as well, due to cultural and other environmental factors unless one consciously makes a choice, and continually acts upon that choice, to not allow those factors to so impact one's health... and this has to be done even before it has become a serious issue, or else for most, they do not consider the impact that these factors will have upon them until they have already found themselves 40 or more lbs heavier than they used to be, gained over a period of many years, and they simply do not have the ready ability to reliably get that weight back down owing to that 'set point'.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The effect of exercises is neglectible. You need to be an Athlet to influence the burning of energy in a way that you can eat more.
Are you joking? Just running a mile burns around 130 calories. That's an open faced ham sandwich, run another mile and you can close the sandwich and add a piece of cheese. No you don't get condiments at those numbers but learn to live without seasoning the piss out of your food and you'll find losing weight is a whole lot easier. Go a whole hour and you're in big mac territory.
There's a rush when you only get a half-hour break for lunch. You can end up getting inadvertently conditioned to eat *all* of your meais quickly, even when you are not under any kind of time pressure, unless you make the conscious decision to force yourself not to do this. The big problem is that most people don't decide to consciously try and do something to control their weight until they are already too fat, where it *does* become difficult to get the weight back off and keep it off.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just to clarify. I can run an hour without issue and I definitely don't qualify as an athlete right now with a hernia and all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
LOL, came here to say this. Isn't it nice to be "on the spectrum" ?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
"Starvation mode" has been shown to be a myth. It comes down to basic math, calories in vs. calories out.
If you eat less and work out more, you lose weight. You do the opposite, you gain.
There's no way for the body to "magically" get fat when eating less. That violates the laws of thermodynamics. Sure, the rate of how quickly you gain or lose weight may change (e.g., when you eat less or change your macros to consume less sugar, you may find yourself being more lethargic in the short term until you get used to it, and so you will burn fewer calories). Or, as you lose weight, you need fewer calories (because there isn't as much of you to support).
But a calorie is a calorie and reducing ~3500 calories results in about 1lb of weight loss. Is it exactly 3500? No. Why? Because there are so many other variables at play. But is it closer to 3500 than, say, 500 or 10,000? You bet.
Food? Sorry, it's not informatious.
The problem I have with the HAES crowd is that they're completely twisting the actual medical facts. Sort of a "knows enough to be dangerous" thing. Yes, every individual has a different natural body size. But that doesn't mean it's healthy for a naturally skinny person to be fat, or for a naturally fat person to be extremely obese (for that matter, it's not healthy for a naturally fat person to be underweight). So, while the message of not shaming fat people is fine, telling people that they are healthy at every size is dangerous. Everyone is healthy at their own size, not the "every size fits all" crap they push.
No I didn't. You misunderstood.
I pointed out that it's not that simple.
Even then they're slower. More air drag, don't you know?
Last year I lost 40 pounds. It took me 3 months and I lost weight almost every week. Where was the starvation mode that prevented me losing weight as described above?
Seriously, the post was meant to be a joke. But, since you decided to be a smartass... I'm well aware that gravity affects us all the same, and that a feather and an anvil would fall at the same rate...in a fucking vacuum, moron, but then how the fuck would the airplane fly?
Just another day in Paradise
Even then they're slower. More air drag, don't you know?
Hmmm, that gives me an idea. Let's drop Chris Christie and Donald Drumpf, and see which hits first.
Just another day in Paradise
As one who has struggled with weight issues, I wholeheartedly agree with most of the article. But after pointing out that the metabolic set point derails most dieters in the long run, the conclusion is:
"Aamodt recommends mindful eating -- paying attention to signals of hunger and fullness, without judgment, to relearn how to eat only as much as the brain's weight-regulation system commands"
If the set point is a major component of the problem, how will listening to it help? Shouldn't the conclusion be that we need to learn to change the set point, not be mindful of a process that resists change?
Wouldn't the air resistance of the obese person be greater than the thin more aerodynamic person? We should set this up as an experiment. Throw thing people and fat people from planes and see which ones hit the ground first.
No I didn't. You misunderstood.
How on earth is it possible to misunderstand this:
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong. Your experience of being a few pounds overweight is not the same experience as someone who is seriously obese.
It actually is that simple - eat less, for a proper value of "less". The difficulty is in achieving the "eat less" part, not the "lose weight" part.
It actually is easy to lose weight - just "eat less". It may not be easy to "eat less", but that isn't what the OP claimed.
What he claimed is still correct, and if you have science showing someone taking in fewer calories than they use per day and *still* not losing any weight then get ready to receive your nobel prize.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Stop with the lazy student shaming.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I have never taken a narcotic drug (unless you count the weakest possible prescription, three or four days post-wisdom tooth removal). My daily expenditure in continuing to not take narcotic drugs is consequently next to zilch.
It's far from a life well lived to accumulate this kind of responsibility for no good initial reason (hair-shirted Calvinists perhaps excepted—bring on temptation so I can resist more good).
As I see this it's nothing short of a human tragedy that so many people—in an otherwise wealthy society—got themselves into this adverse metabolic state in the first place, though it's hard to see how the consumerist free market could have worked differently until the obesity epidemic reached push-back proportion. (Wouldn't it be lovely if we could some day discover an economic system which allows us to become wealthy without also making us collectively stupid—insert Coke commercial here—until the sins of societal wealth delivers its giant bill?)
Where you say "just" I spit.
Doctor: I've got good news and bad news.
Patient: What's the good news?
Doctor: You don't have to be fat forever.
Patient: What's the bad news?
Doctor: To become and remain thin, you will have to think about not eating food every day, all day, for the rest of your life.
Patient: Hooray! I don't have to be fat!
Patient dances a quick jello shuffle complete with an inflated underwear crotch grab, in a passable impression of Weird Al miming a fat Michael Jackson.
Doctor: You aren't by any chance mocking me, are you?
Patient: Of course not. Why on earth would I do that?
Perhaps you should look up how many kcals a sandwich actually has.
Also: we are talking about burning fat. It is a complete different thing of burning a sandwich you just have floating in your stomach or burning fat on your belly.
And to answer your question: no, I'm not kidding. And you are very misinformed.
Go a whole hour and you're in big mac territory.
To burn the energy of a big mc you need a day, not an hour. You must be extremely bad at math.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How on earth is it possible to misunderstand this
I don't know, but you're managing it quite well.
A little big of overweight (BMI 25-27), especially with low levels of abdominal fat is not a big health issue, it might even be slightly more healthy than normal weight.
FWIW being a little overweight is significantly better than being a little underweight
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Second of all, official HAES principles are posted online. Number 4 is "Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."
Mainstream, scientifically-based dietitians, nutrition scientists and medical doctors advise diets for weight control all the time. The standard treatment for anorexia nervosa is to first and foremost enforce a diet which brings weight back up to healthy levels. The standard treatment for an obese woman showing Pseudotumor cerebri is to lose weight. Etc.
That would come under the heading of "pleasure". It need not always be short term pleasure while eating - the displeasure of disease is great, so modifying diet to get rid of disease is modifying it for "pleasure"
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
About the time people starting putting Flat Earth videos on YouTube.
It would seem that the extra gravity in the South accounts for the extra weight of Southerners. Not their diet.
With no power tools. Just a collection of shovels and cultivators.
Eat the vegetables.
In the winter, shovel snow by hand.
I haven't figured out what to do in the spring & fall to keep from getting fat again, though.
The body is not attacking its muscles as long as it has fat to burn. However with lack of protein intake the muscle cells that die and "get eaten" are not replaced (simplified speaking), due to lack of proteins.
However people doing a diet often are tired and "exercise" less, so the body is scaling down the muscles, too. With scaled down amount of muscles the base energy consumption of the body goes down, countering the diet effect.
Actually it does once you get above a certain level of deficit... and "surviving" on 600 calories a day is way above that level of deficit. The body will even get rid of muscle without a deficit, if you simply don't use them enough. Muscle is expensive to gain and maintain, which is why people tend to go through bulk/cut phases with progressive muscle overload to maximize gains. The cut phase requires special care in the diet to minimize muscle loss and will reduce your PR in pretty much all the lifts. If you start using your muscle less, you will lose muscle mass.
Put another way, as I said in a previous thread last month... my BMI is borderline obese, with only 20% fat (checked through measurements and fat calipers). I lift 3 times a week, I run 3 times a week, I try to eat a balanced diet. Even at 0% fat with my current lean body mass, I'd be in the overweight BMI range. However that amount of lean body isn't something I'd be able to maintain for long without the extra amount fat I carry and the extra calories intake, except if I took steroids or similar. I'd need to properly check the proportions after my accidental weight loss, but a quick check with impedence (wildly inaccurate, I know, but my calipers are in a box I didn't open yet) tells me I gained a few % lean body mass and lost quite a few percent fat. In practice, if my back of the napkin calculations are correct: I lost around 1kg of lean body mass for every 2kg of fat I lost, rounded up with water loss. That was while being physically active up to 16 hours a day shifting boxes and furniture, and eating around 1000 calories (protein heavy, with carbs top-ups when feeling low on energy).
The body will even get rid of muscle without a deficit, if you simply don't use them enough.
As long as you have fat, no!
except if I took steroids or similar
That does not make any sense. Muscles need energy, not steroids, that are just hormones that stimulate muscle growths.
I lost around 1kg of lean body mass for every 2kg of fat I lost
Because you have less to carry around and the muscles are less trained. That is the effect I mentioned, dying muscles cells are not replaced due to "lack of exercise" and probably lack of protein intake.
Not because your body is "feeding" on them due to diet.
The body starts "eating" muscles as the very very very last resort. You basically need to starve 2 weeks or more without any body fat left until the body does that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Religious fervour detected, citation needed.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Sorry, meant to reply to parent of your post.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
period
You surely have peer reviewed research to support your argument rather than religious fervour. Unfortunately stupid Slashdot forgot to include the citation in your post - can you post again? This time hopefully Slashdot will include your citation.
thanks
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Religious fervor? I don't see how religion, not that I have one, plays into what I said. And for clarification, I had meant that it doesn't eat the fat first. It'll consume both during starvation.
As long as you have fat, no!
Then why did I lose muscle mass while exercising more than usual and still having ample fat reserves? It is commonly happening during the cut phase of the bulk/cut cycle. You will lose muscle mass at a calorie deficit even if you keep lifting 5 days a week, you will predominantly lose fat but also lose muscle mass. You will also be see your lifts go down during the cut phase (either the top weight or the amount of set/reps, sometimes both). The sad reality of the cut phase is that you can only minimize the amount of muscle mass you will lose, by watching your macros (protein heavy!) and lifting heavy. The only time when you won't lose muscle mass on a cut is during maybe the first months of serious lifting, because you have so little muscle mass to start with at that point.
That does not make any sense. Muscles need energy, not steroids, that are just hormones that stimulate muscle growths.
Intake of anabolic steroids and strength-training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers.
Why are AAS so overused in the body-building scene? They allow you to increase the amount of muscle mass above what your body would normally carry/sustain at a given exercise level. It basically lets you go above what is commonly called "your genetic maximum" which is really the maximum muscle mass your body will sustain by itself at a certain muscle use level. When you plateau in all your lifts, usually after a couple of years of "serious" lifting, you are faced with a choice. Switch to maintenance at that muscle mass or turn to steroids to keep increasing your muscle mass because your body won't carry more left to its own devices.
You basically need to starve 2 weeks or more without any body fat left until the body does that.
Two weeks without body fat left means you're dead or on life support. Anything below 2% to 5% is going to seriously mess up your body.
Yes, I replied to the wrong post. I replied to myself, just 11 minutes before this reply of yours, hoping to clarify - https://slashdot.org/comments.....
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Perhaps you should look up how many kcals a sandwich actually has.
An open faced ham sandwich has about 120 kcals, perhaps you should try reading what I said.
Also: we are talking about burning fat. It is a complete different thing of burning a sandwich you just have floating in your stomach or burning fat on your belly.
If you take in 1500 calories, but burn 2000 calories where do you think your body gets those other 500 calories?
To burn the energy of a big mc you need a day, not an hour. You must be extremely bad at math.
Big mac is 563 calories a 125 pound guy running for an hour burns 557 calories. If you weigh more you'll burn more calories.
Someone here is definitely bad at math but I'm not sure it's me.
If you take in 1500 calories, but burn 2000 calories where do you think your body gets those other 500 calories?
Usually from the sugar stored in the liver and the muscles.
The question is the "burn 2000 calories". Why do you think you burn 2000 kcal? The first thing the body is doing is: cutting down on burning. It takes a week until the body is really attacking its fat. Or in other words: if you want to burn your fat during exercises, you need to exercise long enough so that all stored sugar in muscles and liver is exhausted, that is usually between 45 - 60 mins. Only the amount of time you allot to it afterwards burns fat.
Big mac is 563 calories a 125 pound guy running for an hour burns 557 calories. If you weigh more you'll burn more calories. ...
You are right, I mixed up the numbers
An open faced ham sandwich has about 120 kcals, perhaps you should try reading what I said.
Then perhaps define what you want to call an "open faced ham sandwich", that number is retarded low. Sorry for the wording. I doubt you find a sandwich in any shop that has less calories than a burger, why should it have?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Usually from the sugar stored in the liver and the muscles.
The question is the "burn 2000 calories". Why do you think you burn 2000 kcal? The first thing the body is doing is: cutting down on burning. It takes a week until the body is really attacking its fat. Or in other words: if you want to burn your fat during exercises, you need to exercise long enough so that all stored sugar in muscles and liver is exhausted, that is usually between 45 - 60 mins. Only the amount of time you allot to it afterwards burns fat.
Once you are burning more calories than you are taking in you are on your way to losing weight. Once you burn more calories than the food you took in exercise has effectively earned you the ability to eat more food. It's pretty basic stuff. No you can't just run for an hour and see the fat on your stomach go down. But build up healthy habits wherein the exercise for your day meets or exceeds your caloric intake for the day and over time your stomach fat will shrink.
Then perhaps define what you want to call an "open faced ham sandwich", that number is retarded low. Sorry for the wording. I doubt you find a sandwich in any shop that has less calories than a burger, why should it have?
sandwich in a shop? what are you talking about? Take out a piece of bread, put meat on it. Why is that so difficult you would go to a store to buy it?
Big mac is 563 calories a 125 pound guy running for an hour burns 557 calories. If you weigh more you'll burn more calories. ...
You are right, I mixed up the numbers
Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour. The only ones who really have such a high metabolism are cyclists, they burn about 10kcal per day in races. Even a miner who has one of the highest metabolic rates in the working class burns not more than 3500 kcal per day (depending on weight ofc.).
sandwich in a shop? what are you talking about? Take out a piece of bread, put meat on it. Why is that so difficult you would go to a store to buy it? :D
Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich
Once you are burning more calories than you are taking in you are on your way to losing weight.
Wow, that was one of he smartest comments ever.
The problem is: to burn more calories than you take in. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Today you burn 1900 kcal, and eat roughly 1900 kcal. Obviously you are in an equilibrium.
Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat.
Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.
Depending on your personal metabolism you could try to do sports combined with reducing kcal intake. So you "try to" increase your burning to lets say 2100 kcal. Combined with the attempt of the body to scale down, you perhaps end up with 1900, because of the stress and the hormones produced during sports the body might switch to fat burning.
Anyway, in laymen terms: the body metabolism works in a way that kinda has a "kinetic momentum". The body is not easy switching from its ordinary: "burn most of it store the rest" to a "burn your storage and fill the niche with what you eat". The body rather tries to fall into a "burn most what you eat, try to save, and try still to store" mode.
To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.
On the other hand many people simply lose weight by switching to a healthy diet, e.g. low carb, without any bean counting.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour.
One mile of running burns 150ish kcal. One hour of running burns over 500 kcal
ashttp://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm/ seen http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator/ on http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/advice/a29580/workouts-that-burn-more-calories-than-jogging// websites http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951/
You're the one mixed up here.
Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich :D
Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat.
Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.
Drop your diet to 1700 kcal and your body go into saving mode and burn 1800 kcal per day.
see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//
To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.
Except there is no peer reviewed scientific paper out there that says that. In every single study the body reduces its burn by less than the caloric reduction. Once again see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//
"it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy."
Except there is no peer reviewed scientific paper out there that says that.
There are hundreds of papers saying so.
I know this since 30 years, or 40. And personal experience confirms that, AFAICT.
One mile of running burns 150ish kcal. One hour of running burns over 500 kcal :D For some reason I have memorized that you consume during jogging a little bit less than half the amount you do during swimming. Which would be in the range of 180 - 200 kcal. But well, perhaps I'm wrong. I will check again and update my "mind" :D Or in the same range as making love.
In total perhaps. But not on top of your base burn rate. And I doubt the in total. For diets it is relevant to know how much "more" you burn if you do a certain activity. Hm, OTOH you might have a point. Perhaps I underestimated how difficult jogging is in or days
In every single study the body reduces its burn by less than the caloric reduction. Once again see https://www.caloriecount.com/f...
Did you read your link? He supports my statement. And not yours. However instead of reducing intake -- as I said -- minimum by 30%, they talk about 50%. In other words: reducing it by a fixed amount of e.g. 500 kcal usually does not work, as the body goes into "saving" mode instead of "starvation" mode.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There are hundreds of papers saying so.
I know this since 30 years, or 40. And personal experience confirms that, AFAICT.
There are papers saying your body reduces its burn rate but they all say by less than what you reduced your intake. Read the Minnesota Semistarvation Study (1950) I linked you to an article about it.
Did you read your link? He supports my statement. And not yours. However instead of reducing intake -- as I said -- minimum by 30%, they talk about 50%. In other words: reducing it by a fixed amount of e.g. 500 kcal usually does not work, as the body goes into "saving" mode instead of "starvation" mode.
So you're arguing that if you don't trip the bodies natural fat conservation methods and instead maintain the same BMR but just reduce caloric intake you will gain weight because your body is in some "saving" mode that causes you to not burn fat despite maintaining your original BMR? I think you may be mistaken about what the BMR is.
If your BMR is 2000 kcal and you eat 2000 kcal you maintain the same weight. If you eat 1500 kcal and your BMR stays at 2000 kcal you will burn 500 kcal of reserves per day.
Where people say this is wrong is they claim if you drop your intake by 1500 kcal your bmr will reset to 1500 kcal (or possibly lower) to offset the difference "starvation mode". What actually happens is your body raises its bmr to lets say 2100 for a few days and you burn 600 kcal then drops to 1900 causing you to burn 400 kcal instead of 500 per day.
To run the study they used a diet restricted by 50%. However in actuality that feedback loop is going to apply at any amount. Starvation mode is just a way of preventing you from burning too many calories in a reduced nutrition situation through a feedback loop between your BMR and caloric intake. There's no alternate "Saving" mode, its all part of the same feedback loop, reduce calories by 30% your bmr goes down by 3%, reduce by 50% it goes down by 10%.
I'm not sure where you got the term "saving mode" from but it appears to just be an alternate term for starvation mode, which really isn't a mode per say as it is a feedback loop. The % you reduce your diet just affects how big a swing your BMR takes. the same starvation mode feedback loop is what causes your BMR to go up when you increase caloric intake when doing endurance training and the like. It's why guys like The Rock don't quickly turn into blimps the first time they take a day off from powerlifting.