Let's talk about fat.

[mkgal1]

This isn't about disdain at all. I just don't believe it. I don't believe it's even possible.

If anyone can show me a case of an adult person over 3 1/2 feet tall who, while eating a diet of 900 calories a day as strictly monitored by an independent third party, gained weight, I'll not only eat my words, but I'll write a scathing letter to my representatives demanding new research.

They may lose the first time.....but, like you saw in the weight-cycling study, it's gradually more difficult each time---and eventually the metabolism (and other body systems.....including the hormonal systems) are ruined because of the attempts. Then there are more issues than just elevated weight. That method does more harm than it does good (and the good is only temporary). The harmful effects last longer than the weight loss.

 

[seeingeyes]

They may lose the first time.....but, like you saw in the weight-cycling study, it's gradually more difficult each time---and eventually the metabolism (and other body systems.....including the hormonal systems) are ruined because of the attempts. Then there are more issues than just elevated weight. That method does more harm than it does good (and the good is only temporary). The harmful effects last longer than the weight loss.

How far does that go, though. Can they eventually become immune to starvation? Can they get to the point of eating 900 calories a day and gaining weight from it? No.

 

[Annessa3]

This thread is about physical sexual attraction between spouses, specifically involving controllable (with varying difficulty) aspects such as body fat.

If you see only your husband as physically sexually attractive, are you "judging" everyone else on earth as not physically sexually attractive?

If not, then judgmentalism is off topic for this thread.

Well, from the title of the thread, it isn't about physical sexual attraction between spouses, it's about FAT.

And no, I am not judging everyone else on earth by my perceptions.

See, that's where we differ.

 

[mkgal1]

How far does that go, though. Can they eventually become immune to starvation? Can they get to the point of eating 900 calories a day and gaining weight from it? No.

Long term.......yes. Our bodies adapt.

I don't know if it would be "immune to starvation" as the body wouldn't be getting what it truly needs (hormonal systems would be out of whack......adrenal systems wouldn't be functioning properly.....and most likely, there would be vitamin deficiencies). That can't be kept up, long term. The person would feel fatigued.....have brain fog....and muscle loss. It also takes another, further, reduction to maintain the weight as we get older and our metabolism fluctuates even more.

Here's an account of one person's journey that followed that trail:

why can't I eat <1000 calories a day for weight loss? I've seen the numbers on the scale, it's working..."

I've been there. Ten years ago I lost 65 pounds in about six months. For ten years I consumed between 700-900 calories per day. I started at 1000, but as I got older the weight kept creeping on even at that low amount, so I cut further to maintain. When I started eating 400 calories per day about six months ago, I realized it's not worth it. There are consequences for losing that quickly and in such an unhealthy way.

I have been put on new medication and doctors orders, 1600 calories per day. Not an amount that a person should gain on, but I am. I have put on fifteen pounds in an incredibly short period of time. When I finally balance out, I have a long road of weight loss ahead of me.

Starving like that has put me in a ten year battle with my weight that didn't have to happen. When done in a healthy way, weight loss can be achieved and maintained. Do it the way I did, and you are in for constant misery with the scale dictating your life. People would always say to me, "You're so lucky you're thin." They didn't know that I kept two food diaries (in case one was off), an exercise diary and an activity diary. I became a group fitness instructor so that I had a reason to exercise MANY hours a day. This is the path of starvation. This is what happens when you cut too drastically, and lose too quickly. It's still misery, it's just skinny misery.

I finish my medication in two weeks. I can tell you that I have been happier these last four weeks than I have been in years. I am not counting calories to the last degree. I am not constantly moving to burn more, and I'm not worried about what the scale will say next week (I only weigh once a week now instead of every day). I will drop some of these pounds, and I will do it in healthy way. I even increased my calories to 1850 to ensure that I can do it the right way. I can't go back to being a slave to the scale.

The next time you ask yourself if you should eat less calories than is wise, ask yourself if you are willing to give up eating and drinking with friends. Ask yourself what you will do as you age and can't maintain the loss anymore. Ask yourself what you will do when start driving everyone around you away because of your obsession with your weight. It's a road that is VERY hard to come back from.

Weight lost from starving CAN'T be maintained. What will you have left when the weight creeps up? It's not worth it. -end



Read more: 1000 Calories or Less: The Danger of Extreme Calorie Restriction 1000 Calories or Less: The Danger of Extreme Calorie Restriction

 

[jacks]

Maybe it's just us, but when my wife and I eat less and exercise more we lose weight. We have both kept trim for health and esthetic reasons. I feel better when I drop a few pounds both physically and emotionally. I can only speak for myself of course.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't know if it would be "immune to starvation" as the body wouldn't be getting what it truly needs (hormonal systems would be out of whack......adrenal systems wouldn't be functioning properly.....and most likely, there would be vitamin deficiencies). That can't be kept up, long term. The person would feel fatigued.....have brain fog....and muscle loss.

See, there's a difference between saying that fat loss is more complicated than simply not eating as a practical matter (primarily because eating less isn't all that simple), and creating or supporting a fallacious example to support that claim.

To say that a person, any person, could eat less than what a body needs to perform basic functions such as breathing and eating and thinking (900 calories would qualify) and still gain weight leads to one of two conclusions: One is that the conservation of mass doesn't apply to these people, that their bodies can create fat from nothing. Or two, that their bodies have a very serious problem which causes them to convert the energy that should be allocated for normal organ function to creating body fat. Such people would die of starvation in short order, body fat still intact.

The first is impossible. The second is not anything the world has ever seen before. One verifiable counter-example is all that is required to demonstrate this new thing.

 

[seeingeyes]

Well, from the title of the thread, it isn't about physical sexual attraction between spouses, it's about FAT.

And no, I am not judging everyone else on earth by my perceptions.

See, that's where we differ.

How do we differ? Is talking about FAT judgmental?

 

[mkgal1]

See, there's a difference between saying that fat loss is more complicated than simply not eating as a practical matter (primarily because eating less isn't all that simple), and creating or supporting a fallacious example to support that claim.

To say that a person, any person, could eat less than what a body needs to perform basic functions such as breathing and eating and thinking (900 calories would qualify) and still gain weight leads to one of two conclusions: One is that the conservation of mass doesn't apply to these people, that their bodies can create fat from nothing. Or two, that their bodies have a very serious problem which causes them to convert the energy that should be allocated for normal organ function to creating body fat. Such people would die of starvation in short order, body fat still intact.

The first is impossible. The second is not anything the world has ever seen before. One verifiable counter-example is all that is required to demonstrate this new thing.

Their bodies *do* have "a very serious problem"......their body systems are not functioning properly as they haven't balanced them properly with the nutrients necessary----that's my point, actually. The lack of nutrients is a crisis----and storing body fat becomes the priority. I don't know if death would come "in short order"......(I doubt it---as that one lady continued for ten years.....lowering her calories to 400 calories each day).....but other health issues will definitely arise (along with all the other detriments she listed).

Also......in your first conclusion.....900 calories isn't "nothing" ......so they aren't creating fat from nothing.

 

[seeingeyes]

Their bodies *do* have "a very serious problem"......their body systems are not functioning properly as they haven't balanced them properly with the nutrients necessary----that's my point, actually. The lack of nutrients is a crisis----and storing body fat becomes the priority. I don't know if death would come "in short order"......(I doubt it---as that one lady continued for ten years.....lowering her calories to 400 calories each day).....but other health issues will definitely arise (along with all the other detriments she listed).

Also......in your first conclusion.....900 calories isn't "nothing" ......so they aren't creating fat from nothing.

If those 900 calories are going to body fat, then how are they up walking around, breathing, talking, typing?

 

[seeingeyes]

Maybe it's just us, but when my wife and I eat less and exercise more we lose weight. We have both kept trim for health and esthetic reasons. I feel better when I drop a few pounds both physically and emotionally. I can only speak for myself of course.

It's good that you and your wife are on the same page in this.

The conflict seems to come when the two have differing views on the matter (regardless of weight loss or gain).

 

[mkgal1]

If those 900 calories are going to body fat, then how are they up walking around, breathing, talking, typing?

I can only guess that you're being deliberately obtuse.....but I'll respond anyhow.

I didn't say all 900 calories are going to body fat.....just that preserving fat would be the priority (and that disrupts the hormonal balance and other body functions).

There's quite a few degrees between dead, or even incapacitated, and healthy.

 

[bhsmte]

See, there's a difference between saying that fat loss is more complicated than simply not eating as a practical matter (primarily because eating less isn't all that simple), and creating or supporting a fallacious example to support that claim.

To say that a person, any person, could eat less than what a body needs to perform basic functions such as breathing and eating and thinking (900 calories would qualify) and still gain weight leads to one of two conclusions: One is that the conservation of mass doesn't apply to these people, that their bodies can create fat from nothing. Or two, that their bodies have a very serious problem which causes them to convert the energy that should be allocated for normal organ function to creating body fat. Such people would die of starvation in short order, body fat still intact.

The first is impossible. The second is not anything the world has ever seen before. One verifiable counter-example is all that is required to demonstrate this new thing.

I'm a physiologist and know a little about this topic and will throw in my two cents.

First of all, our bodies number one goal is to survive and when strict caloric reduction takes place, the body will reduce the metabolic rate, so energy can be retained and stored whenever possible. This is why eating very low calorie diets, is the absolute worst thing anyone can do to themselves, because of the metabolic changes that take place; reduced metabolism and propensity to store fat, because fat stores are your insurance policy from being starved and are a long term fuel source. You see, your body could care less whether you want to lose weight, your body only cares about adapting to the stress you place upon it and surviving.

In regards to body fat. Americans have increasingly become more fat and statistics are clear in this area. Almost 40% of Americans are considered close to or at clinical obesity. Increased body fat drastically increases one's risks for; heart disease, adult onset diabetes, various cancers, high blood pressure and other issues.

IMO, the number one issue with why Americans have gotten so fat, is much more related to lack of activity (sedentary lifestyle) than it has to do with diet. You simply can't diet yourself to becoming healthy, you need to exercise and our bodies were designed to be active, not sedentary. The fit person (who exercises 4-5 days a week, for 30 minutes at 70% or more of their max heart rate) is going to encourage all sorts of positive adaptations that occur, from exercise, that do not occur in sedentary people. Remember, your body adapts to the stress you place upon it.

Fit people, metabolize fat completely differently than sedentary people. Fit people burn more fat throughout a 24 hour time period than sedentary people. Why is that? When you exercise (regularly) your body stores glycogen in the muscles you use for exercise, so you are better able to complete the exercise you perform. Glycogen is your muscles fuel tank, just like your car and the more your exercise, the bigger the fuel tank becomes. So, when the fit person eats, they will prioritize the storage of fuel as glycogen (instead of fat) so your body is ready for the next bout of exercise. During rest periods, your body will retain the glycogen and instead burn a much higher percentage of fat, so the glycogen is available for exercise. Huge differences in the fit and sedentary people, in how they metabolize food.

Lastly, you can not lose fat quickly, it is physiologically impossible. One pound of fat has 3500 calories, which is enough energy for the average person to walk 30 miles. Hence, if you are losing more than 2 pounds per week, you can be assured, much of the weight loss in from lean tissue and lean tissue is 70% water and one gallon of water weighs 8 pounds. This is why, the scale is overrated and body fat% is the more reliable determination of whether you have too much fat.

 

[seeingeyes]

I can only guess that you're being deliberately obtuse.....but I'll respond anyhow.

I didn't say all 900 calories are going to body fat.....just that preserving fat would be the priority (and that disrupts the hormonal balance and other body functions).

There's quite a few degrees between dead, or even incapacitated, and healthy.

No, I'm not being obtuse. BMR (basal metabolic rate) is a measurable count of the number of calories needed to sustain the body while at complete rest. (This would be the number of calories necessary to sustain someone in a coma for instance - zero exercise of any kind).

The average BMR for women is around 1300 calories a day, with plenty of variation due to individual differences. 900 calories would a freakishly low BMR - even moreso if it were found in an overweight person (fat mass takes calories to maintain, though less than muscle mass). And that number would not even include energy expended by sitting up, talking, walking out to the car, or any physical activity at all.

So to find someone who is carrying any excess fat at all, who is walking and talking and going about their day and gaining weight on 900 calories a day is, well, statistically it's not going to happen.

Yet you would have me believe that this is so common that the average person trying to lose weight should be concerned about this. So common, that I must be utterly lacking empathy for those who struggle with their weight in order to not recognize it.

...So common that not even one verifiable example of this happening anywhere in the world is forthcoming.

 

[seeingeyes]

I'm a physiologist and know a little about this topic and will throw in my two cents.

First of all, our bodies number one goal is to survive and when strict caloric reduction takes place, the body will reduce the metabolic rate, so energy can be retained and stored whenever possible. This is why eating very low calorie diets, is the absolute worst thing anyone can do to themselves, because of the metabolic changes that take place; reduced metabolism and propensity to store fat, because fat stores are your insurance policy from being starved and are a long term fuel source. You see, your body could care less whether you want to lose weight, your body only cares about adapting to the stress you place upon it and surviving.

In regards to body fat. Americans have increasingly become more fat and statistics are clear in this area. Almost 40% of Americans are considered close to or at clinical obesity. Increased body fat drastically increases one's risks for; heart disease, adult onset diabetes, various cancers, high blood pressure and other issues.

IMO, the number one issue with why Americans have gotten so fat, is much more related to lack of activity (sedentary lifestyle) than it has to do with diet. You simply can't diet yourself to becoming healthy, you need to exercise and our bodies were designed to be active, not sedentary. The fit person (who exercises 4-5 days a week, for 30 minutes at 70% or more of their max heart rate) is going to encourage all sorts of positive adaptations that occur, from exercise, that do not occur in sedentary people. Remember, your body adapts to the stress you place upon it.

Fit people, metabolize fat completely differently than sedentary people. Fit people burn more fat throughout a 24 hour time period than sedentary people. Why is that? When you exercise (regularly) your body stores glycogen in the muscles you use for exercise, so you are better able to complete the exercise you perform. Glycogen is your muscles fuel tank, just like your car and the more your exercise, the bigger the fuel tank becomes. So, when the fit person eats, they will prioritize the storage of fuel as glycogen (instead of fat) so your body is ready for the next bout of exercise. During rest periods, your body will retain the glycogen and instead burn a much higher percentage of fat, so the glycogen is available for exercise. Huge differences in the fit and sedentary people, in how they metabolize food.

Lastly, you can not lose fat quickly, it is physiologically impossible. One pound of fat has 3500 calories, which is enough energy for the average person to walk 30 miles. Hence, if you are losing more than 2 pounds per week, you can be assured, much of the weight loss in from lean tissue and lean tissue is 70% water and one gallon of water weighs 8 pounds. This is why, the scale is overrated and body fat% is the more reliable determination of whether you have too much fat.

My post was specifically about the claim that someone could eat 900 calories a day and gain weight. Have you ever heard of such a case?

 

[Heinzzz]

First of all, if the only thing you care about is your spouse's body fat percentage, you're doing it wrong. Let's just get that out of the way.

But the other extreme, that body fat has (or should have) no effect on a marriage is also incorrect. (If my husband were 700 lbs and confined to bed, you can bet that I won't bring bringing him buckets of fried chicken every five minutes, and he sure ain't getting laid.)

There are all kinds of things in this life that can drastically and suddenly affect one's appearance: Car accidents, amputations, getting an anvil dropped on one's face. But fat is one that is actually controllable.

So what responsibility do we each have to stay (or return to) approximately the same shape that we were when our spouse was initially attracted to us?

Am I the first male to respond to this thread? I didn't read all the responses. So many ladies in a thread about body fat...could be dangerous for me...hoho lol.

I think it is always better to think in terms of your own health and the consequences of excess body fat, first. Personal health consequences for you.

I'm not sure you have any responsibility whatsoever to stay the same size (shape?) in your marriage, but I believe you've already answered your own question as well. An extreme weight gain by your husband means he isn't getting laid. It's understandable - by way of comparison - if I was married (I'm single) then if for some reason my wife stopped bathing regularly I'd be as equally turned off by it as by an (extreme) change in weight (that applies to being stick thin as well, not just overweight).

 

[seeingeyes]

Am I the first male to respond to this thread? I didn't read all the responses. So many ladies in a thread about body fat...could be dangerous for me...hoho lol.

I think it is always better to think in terms of your own health and the consequences of excess body fat, first. Personal health consequences for you.

I'm not sure you have any responsibility whatsoever to stay the same size (shape?) in your marriage, but I believe you've already answered your own question as well. An extreme weight gain by your husband means he isn't getting laid. It's understandable - by way of comparison - if I was married (I'm single) then if for some reason my wife stopped bathing regularly I'd be as equally turned off by it as by an (extreme) change in weight (that applies to being stick thin as well, not just overweight).

There have been a few guys sprinkled in, never fear.

This is a touchier subject for woman, probably because culturally, a woman's body (too fat, too thin, too this, too that) is everybody's business to chime in on. That particular trend seems to be catching up with the menfolk, though, unfortunately.

 

[Hetta]

I'm a physiologist and know a little about this topic and will throw in my two cents.

i am so glad you posted. This guy knows his stuff, ladies - he has set me straight in the past.

 

[Inkachu]

I'm fat. My husband's fat. We love, adore, and desire each other.

/thread

 

[akmom]

How far does that go, though. Can they eventually become immune to starvation? Can they get to the point of eating 900 calories a day and gaining weight from it? No.

The body's first reaction to running out of fuel is not to draw from fat stores, but to draw from glycogen stores in the liver. The longer you go without eating, the more of your eventual meal is stored as glycogen to tide you over in anticipation of that. I think the idea of eating more frequently is to trick your body into actually using the glucose instead of hoarding it as glycogen. Combined with sufficient and regular calories and little or no carbohydrates, the body will go into ketosis and burn fat as a primary source. But this is a temporary fat loss strategy. Long-term one needs to eat regularly (not starve) and consume balanced meals. The kind of starvation-based weight loss that takes advantage of the common sense observation that the body can't live off nothing is not only slow-acting but puts a person at risk of nutrient deficiencies like beriberi (a condition more common in third world countries experiencing famine, but recently making an appearance in bariatric surgery patients in the U.S. - in other words, obese people who ultimately eat too little to lose weight). Not to mention, too few calories will result in little energy and more sedentary lives, which is counterproductive, since exercise burns fat better than starvation, and has a cumulative effect over time as more muscle mass burns more body fat.

I definitely agree that sedentary lifestyles are a big factor. I think sedentary jobs and long commutes are a big part of this. Fewer people get regular exercise in their daily routine and have to make time for it in the "leisure" hours. I gained my weight after having kids, not because of the pregnancy itself in my opinion, but because of the time I was stuck at home holding, rocking, nursing and otherwise caring for a baby (not exactly physically strenuous). About the only "exercise" you can get is going for a walk (minimal exertion) and then even that is constantly interrupted by infant needs.

 

[Heinzzz]

I'm a physiologist and know a little about this topic and will throw in my two cents.

First of all, our bodies number one goal is to survive and when strict caloric reduction takes place, the body will reduce the metabolic rate, so energy can be retained and stored whenever possible. This is why eating very low calorie diets, is the absolute worst thing anyone can do to themselves, because of the metabolic changes that take place; reduced metabolism and propensity to store fat, because fat stores are your insurance policy from being starved and are a long term fuel source. You see, your body could care less whether you want to lose weight, your body only cares about adapting to the stress you place upon it and surviving.

In regards to body fat. Americans have increasingly become more fat and statistics are clear in this area. Almost 40% of Americans are considered close to or at clinical obesity. Increased body fat drastically increases one's risks for; heart disease, adult onset diabetes, various cancers, high blood pressure and other issues.

IMO, the number one issue with why Americans have gotten so fat, is much more related to lack of activity (sedentary lifestyle) than it has to do with diet. You simply can't diet yourself to becoming healthy, you need to exercise and our bodies were designed to be active, not sedentary. The fit person (who exercises 4-5 days a week, for 30 minutes at 70% or more of their max heart rate) is going to encourage all sorts of positive adaptations that occur, from exercise, that do not occur in sedentary people. Remember, your body adapts to the stress you place upon it.

Fit people, metabolize fat completely differently than sedentary people. Fit people burn more fat throughout a 24 hour time period than sedentary people. Why is that? When you exercise (regularly) your body stores glycogen in the muscles you use for exercise, so you are better able to complete the exercise you perform. Glycogen is your muscles fuel tank, just like your car and the more your exercise, the bigger the fuel tank becomes. So, when the fit person eats, they will prioritize the storage of fuel as glycogen (instead of fat) so your body is ready for the next bout of exercise. During rest periods, your body will retain the glycogen and instead burn a much higher percentage of fat, so the glycogen is available for exercise. Huge differences in the fit and sedentary people, in how they metabolize food.

Lastly, you can not lose fat quickly, it is physiologically impossible. One pound of fat has 3500 calories, which is enough energy for the average person to walk 30 miles. Hence, if you are losing more than 2 pounds per week, you can be assured, much of the weight loss in from lean tissue and lean tissue is 70% water and one gallon of water weighs 8 pounds. This is why, the scale is overrated and body fat% is the more reliable determination of whether you have too much fat.

Thanks for your post - but the last is incorrect. If by tissue you refer to "muscle tissue", it is incorrect. Unsaturated fats and carbohydrates are the human body's primary sources of energy. It is only a deficit of these that will force the body to start breaking down stored (saturated) fat. In the absence of all of these - it is then that it starts to break down muscle tissue.

It's a hierarchy of needs, basically. One needs to be able to use their muscles (to walk, type whatever - just move) before they need the stored body fat. If muscle tissue was one of the first things to go, a great many of us would be doomed to be...well...immovable blobs, lol - " I lost my muscle and I can't get up!"