Let's talk about fat.

[mkgal1]

Absolutely - but with caveats. I'm not going to be a trainer, I'm not going to be a coach and I'm not going to be any sort of accountability partner. I'm not going to track the miles he's walked - and I'm not going to prod him to do an "extra" or "see if he has one more in him." In my worldview - everything needs to come from him.

However, if he wants a friend, a person to go along, to talk to, etc...all throughout the process...by all means. I would make time for him.



To be honest, though, we have a pretty distorted perspective of what "food" actually is. We seem to think that "food" is anything that won't poison us immediately as it passes into our gut.

I would venture to say there are very few people who would get morbidly obese eating a diet consisting of nothing but fruits, vegetables and sparing lean meats.

I mostly asked because I think you may be surprised at what the results would be using conventional techniques. For someone that's that weight.....walking and lowering their caloric intake (focusing on calories.....instead of the types of food eaten) may be lots of effort with little positive results, or even none after a couple of weeks (that's why I linked that video way back). Here is a short video:

Jonathan Bailor on NBC's New Day Northwest Discussing THE CALORIE MYTH - YouTube

Healing the metabolic issues first is a necessity (he uses the phrase "unclogging your metabolism").

The main thing is.....weight struggles are not about moral failings......it's a metabolic disorder that needs to be healed.

 

[bhsmte]

I mostly asked because I think you may be surprised at what the results would be using conventional techniques. For someone that's that weight.....walking and lowering their caloric intake (focusing on calories.....instead of the types of food eaten) may be lots of effort with little positive results, or even none after a couple of weeks (that's why I linked that video way back). Here is a short video:

Jonathan Bailor on NBC's New Day Northwest Discussing THE CALORIE MYTH - YouTube

Healing the metabolic issues first is a necessity (he uses the phrase "unclogging your metabolism").

The main thing is.....weight struggles are not about moral failings......it's a metabolic disease that needs to be healed.

Funny thing is, metabolic disease didn't seem to an issue when lifestyles were different and less people were completely sedentary. What you eat is important, but is also not the complete answer, because our bodies were designed to need more than just "eating right".

Our bodies are adaptive machines and the body will indeed adapt to the physical stresses you place upon it.

 

[akmom]

What I'm saying is that there's a discernible pattern you see in life - and that it's foolish to ignore it. People relate to that which best approximates where they are - and where they would like to be. People have a hard time understanding/respecting others that are drastically outside of their own realm.

Everyone knows the level of work required to be where they are - and everyone knows the level of sloth that got them to that place as well. Everyone to a degree is insecure about themselves. Everyone wishes they maybe had done more - or could be just a bit better.

I don't think you're too far off on that. Honestly, I think that even applies to people who lose weight (or any other factor in their control). Suddenly that's their expectation for everyone else. I have that tendency toward viewing many life choices! (Though that has calmed down with age, and a gradual realization that my way of life is not actually the only way to live meaningfully.)

I would not have dated a morbidly obese man. It's not judgmental. And it isn't even entirely about physical attraction. For me, it would be the obvious conclusion that he can't be very active, that he probably won't live long, and the chances of getting to a good health are low. So what would that mean for our relationship? I assume it would mean limited opportunities and likely grief. For someone who is active and wants a family (as I did when I was single), that is not a very good prospect for a husband. Even if he was sweet and enjoyable. That said, if my husband became morbidly obese (though I'd like to think I wouldn't let it get to that point), I would still love and him and want to stay with him. Same with paralysis or brain injury or any other type of life-changing event. Because we have a history. But I would not have considered someone who was morbidly obese, paraplegic, or severely brain-damaged from the get-go. (Unless, of course, I was in the same situation. Because then our prospects would be the same anyway.)

 

[mkgal1]

Funny thing is, metabolic disease didn't seem to an issue when lifestyles were different and less people were completely sedentary. What you eat is important, but is also not the complete answer, because our bodies were designed to need more than just "eating right".

Our bodies are adaptive machines and the body will indeed adapt to the physical stresses you place upon it.

Oh....I agree with you. We also didn't have all the processed foods back then, either (and grain and corn were grain and corn---not the ag hybrids they are now). There is no quick fix.....and it's not as simple as just "eating right" (that's not what I'm saying.) There is a lot more information in that book that actually contradicts conventional understanding. The thing is......it's something that can be maintained for the long-run.

Your last sentence is actually what I'm talking about---although those adaptations are what cause us to feel more hungry when we're trying to lose weight by eating less and exercising more......they change our metabolism for the worse.........and cause us to store more fat. I think the good news is......that can also be reversed (as I'm sure you know). We just have to give our bodies the right support to carry out the reversal (and that involves quite a few elements).

One thing that took me years to discover was---even though I'd had my thyroid tested many times---I had all the symptoms of low thyroid (all the tests came back as "normal"). I then had my iodine levels tested.....and I was severely deficient in iodine (as most of us are---I have found out). My thyroid was "normal".....but it wasn't getting the "fuel" it needed to carry out its function.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, that's the reason I went down the road about the types of foods being eaten.

People seem to think that "food" means "whatever you can stuff into your mouth that won't poison you right away." Somehow, I can't help but think that you'd see far fewer fat people if they were eating solely from the produce aisle, legumes, and sparing lean meats (chicken, turkey, fish, etc)...and if they were a bit more active.

That's not counting calories - at least not insofar as the way that people normally do it. You're simply going back to a more natural (and I'd say far preferable) way of eating.

 

[mkgal1]

Bottom line, an impractical approach to fat loss is as useless as a scientifically invalid approach to fat loss. Sadly, eating less and exercising more is both impractical and scientifically invalid.

After all, studies show nearly 50% of women and 33% of men dieting, and that we’re getting way more exercise than any time in history. Exercise didn’t even become a mainstream concept until the 1968 publication of the book Aerobics. Take Dr. Entin from the department of Biological Sciences at Northern Arizona University on the recent history of exercise: “In the 1930’s and 40’s it was believed that weight training would slow an athlete and most athletic coaches banned weight training…high volume endurance training was thought to be bad for the heart. Through the 50’s and even 60’s, exercise was not thought to be useful in older people and endurance exercise was thought to be harmful to women.”

And no more: “Then it’s because heavy people are inactive throughout the day.” From researcher Nestle at the New York University: “…the activity levels of Americans appear to have changed little, if at all, from the 1970s to the 1990s [when the obesity rates rose the fastest].”

There’s also the point-blank studies showing eating less and exercising more failing 95% of the time. Clearly a 95% failure rate is bad. But just how bad is it? Studies show more folks are able to quit smoking cold turkey than are able to keep fat off by eating less and exercising more. Let that sink in for a second. More people are able to successfully give up one of the most addictive substances on earth than are able to lose fat effectively eating less and exercising more.~smarter scientific solution - The Calorie Myth and Your Smarter Science of Slim with Jonathan Bailor

The easiest way to free ourselves from the quantity myth and to internalize the smarter science of quality is to stop thinking about fat loss like a balance of calories in and calories out and to start thinking about fat loss like a clogged sink. Excess fat building up in our bodies is like excess water building up in a sink. And what causes water to build-up and overflow in a sink? The Clog: An abstraction of the body’s inability to respond to hormonal signals which otherwise automatically prevent us from storing excess fat. As Harvard Medical School researchers put it, “The circulating [hormone] level…directs the central nervous system in regulating energy [balance]…and metabolism… [However] The vast majority of obese humans…[are] resistant…to [these] weight-reducing effects.”

.

 

[DZoolander]

That's the thing though - I'm not arguing to eat less. I'm actually arguing that you should eat more (after all - digestion is a huge part of metabolic expenditures) - just change the foods you eat.

Do you have any idea just how many apples, oranges, ears of corn, heads of broccoli, etc...that you need to eat to come close to 1500 calories per day?

That's how food is supposed to be approached - and funny enough - it's pretty darn low on the caloric scale.

 

[mkgal1]

Well, that's the reason I went down the road about the types of foods being eaten.

People seem to think that "food" means "whatever you can stuff into your mouth that won't poison you right away." Somehow, I can't help but think that you'd see far fewer fat people if they were eating solely from the produce aisle, legumes, and sparing lean meats (chicken, turkey, fish, etc)...and if they were a bit more active.

That's not counting calories - at least not insofar as the way that people normally do it. You're simply going back to a more natural (and I'd say far preferable) way of eating.

I agree that's a main part of it.....but often repairing the damage to the metabolic and endocrine system has to also play a part as well (and I'm not a medical professional---but it's frustrating that it's so difficult to wade through the lies to discover the truth).

 

[DZoolander]

I think there's a good amount of common sense that should fill in the gaps.

Generally speaking, if you can't readily identify what the component ingredients are or what the food is by looking at it, you shouldn't be eating it. If it isn't something that you could pick, pull or kill with your bare hands, you probably shouldn't be eating it. The closer it is to it's natural source - the more likely it is to be good for you.

If someone chose to eat a well balanced diet of fruits and vegetables, along with occasional sparing lean meats (and coincidentally ended up probably lowering their caloric intake drastically as a result)...and eating 6-8 times per day...I can't imagine that there's a medical professional around that would say "Well, shucks...it's a shame you focused on the broccoli, brussel sprouts, kidney beans, oranges and apples. What you really needed was a Big Mac and a plate of lasagne to round out your diet."

 

[mkgal1]

That's the thing though - I'm not arguing to eat less. I'm actually arguing that you should eat more (after all - digestion is a huge part of metabolic expenditures) - just change the foods you eat.

Do you have any idea just how many apples, oranges, ears of corn, heads of broccoli, etc...that you need to eat to come close to 1500 calories per day?

That's how food is supposed to be approached - and funny enough - it's pretty darn low on the caloric scale.

Corn is the enemy (along with soy and wheat) for most of us---but I get what you're saying.

I ate like that for a long time (mostly vegetables-- since I'm an animal lover). That doesn't work for me. I needed more protein (like 30-50 gram servings 3-6X a day). From what I understand.....that activates something called "muscle protein synthesis". Also (what I understand) that process alone (that builds muscle tissue) burns calories---about 540 to 720 calories. That would be like doing intense exercise (not walking)......by just eating protein (at the right times.....in the right amounts).

 

[DZoolander]

Egg whites, turkey, chicken and tuna would probably be great for you then.

 

[mkgal1]

Egg whites, turkey, chicken and tuna would probably be great for you then.

Yes.......that's mostly what my protein is (along with salmon and pea protein powder). I feel like it's a lot of eating.....and I'm never hungry.....I have to eat because it's time to eat (not b/c I'm hungry).

 

[bhsmte]

I think there's a good amount of common sense that should fill in the gaps.

Generally speaking, if you can't readily identify what the component ingredients are or what the food is by looking at it, you shouldn't be eating it. If it isn't something that you could pick, pull or kill with your bare hands, you probably shouldn't be eating it. The closer it is to it's natural source - the more likely it is to be good for you.

If someone chose to eat a well balanced diet of fruits and vegetables, along with occasional sparing lean meats (and coincidentally ended up probably lowering their caloric intake drastically as a result)...and eating 6-8 times per day...I can't imagine that there's a medical professional around that would say "Well, shucks...it's a shame you focused on the broccoli, brussel sprouts, kidney beans, oranges and apples. What you really needed was a Big Mac and a plate of lasagne to round out your diet."

Of course there is no legit medical professional that would say focusing on fruits, vegetables, lean meats and the right type of carbs are what you shouldn't do, they have been saying the same for decades.

Fitness, conditioning and the impact this has on your body is where some medical professionals and the majority of lay people struggle. They think, the sedentary person who eats healthy, is in the same boat as the fit person who eats healthy.

It has only been in the last decade or so, that health professionals have recognized lack of exercise and or a sedentary lifestyle, is a major risk factor for health problems, specifically heart disease and when you combine overweight or over fat to the equation, all sorts of other major health issues.

Metabolism is very different, in the sedentary person vs the fit person, with all other issues aside and this gives the fit person more leeway in what they can get away eating, because they are burning up calories at a higher rate, they become more sensitive to insulin (which means fewer cravings for sugars and some carbs) and burn a higher percentage of fat, because of the adaptations.

I know people who appear to eat fairly healthy and still carry too much body fat. I do not know anyone, who exercises at a fairly high level (5 days a week for 30 min at 70%+ of your max heart rate) and has done so for year after year, that is carrying too much fat.

 

[bhsmte]

Corn is the enemy (along with soy and wheat) for most of us---but I get what you're saying.

I ate like that for a long time (mostly vegetables-- since I'm an animal lover). That doesn't work for me. I needed more protein (like 30-50 gram servings 3-6X a day). From what I understand.....that activates something called "muscle protein synthesis". Also (what I understand) that process alone (that builds muscle tissue) burns calories---about 540 to 720 calories. That would be like doing intense exercise (not walking)......by just eating protein (at the right times.....in the right amounts).

If you have active muscle mass that is stressed, your body will work to rebuild and retain that muscle mass and that requires energy, through chemical reactions. The key is, to stress the muscles enough for them to be maintained, or they will slowly atrophy and not factor into increasing metabolism.

Two best sources of protein, the whey portion of milk and egg whites (albumin) because each of these proteins contain the 6 essential amino acids that your body uses to build all the proteins it needs.

 

[DZoolander]

Agreed.

 

[mkgal1]

If you have active muscle mass that is stressed, your body will work to rebuild and retain that muscle mass and that requires energy, through chemical reactions. The key is, to stress the muscles enough for them to be maintained, or they will slowly atrophy and not factor into increasing metabolism.

Two best sources of protein, the whey portion of milk and egg whites (albumin) because each of these proteins contain the 6 essential amino acids that your body uses to build all the proteins it needs.

That's another area of confusion for me---mostly b/c I recently read this: (and switched to pea protein with a balanced amino acid profile)

Even high-quality whey isn’t the panacea you might think. One study found whey creates an insulinogenic effect similar to white bread. In other words, whey protein can elevate blood sugar (and subsequently, insulin) levels similarly to a high-carbohydrate food like bread.

While elevated insulin might be ideal after a rigorous workout, most folks aren’t using whey as a post-workout glycogen-storing fuel. You’re more likely using it as a meal replacement powder, where whey can become a serious disadvantage.

“It just doesn’t keep me full very long,” people often tell me about whey-based meal replacement drinks. Now you know why: Compared with other protein powders, whey absorbs very quickly. Great after a workout, but not so great as a meal-replacement powder where you want a slow-releasing protein to keep you full for hours.
Sports nutritionist John Berardi, PhD, notes several other problems with whey. Even though whey is mostly lactose free, even high-quality whey protein can contain traces of this sugar. Dried whey, a common food additive, contains almost 77% lactose.[2]

 

[bhsmte]

That's another area of confusion for me---mostly b/c I recently read this: (and switched to pea protein with a balanced amino acid profile)

Well, if you are intolerant to lactose, then it wouldn't be a good choice. Traces of sugar though, I don't see why this is an issue.

 

[mkgal1]

The key is, to stress the muscles enough for them to be maintained, or they will slowly atrophy and not factor into increasing metabolism.

I just recently read this:

"For Americans to begin losing weight through traditional cardiovascular exercise, the current USDA exercise guideline would have to be increased by almost 200%......Americans would have to exercise at least 2 hours per day, six days a week."~J. Eric Oliver.....Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic

To me.....it makes much better sense to use more resistance for a shorter duration (using more muscle fibers)......using more energy. From what I understand, we then leave our body with no other option but to produce hormones which free up energy stored as body fat.

 

[mkgal1]

Well, if you are intolerant to lactose, then it wouldn't be a good choice. Traces of sugar though, I don't see why this is an issue.

.....but if it elevates blood sugar like high-carb foods do? (I don't know if that's true). The way I judge things is by trying them out for a few weeks. I wasn't using whey as a post-workout drink.

 

[bhsmte]

I just recently read this:



To me.....it makes much better sense to use more resistance for a shorter duration (using more muscle fibers)......using more energy. From what I understand, we then leave our body with no other option but to produce hormones which free up energy stored as body fat.

I agree 200%.

As a physiologist I have studied how the human body adapts to the stresses of exercise and there are SO MUCH misinformation out there it is amazing.

First of all, what is the gold standard of determining fitness level or conditioning level of a person? It is, Max Vo2 update and anaerobic threshold. This is measured, by working out on a treadmill and wearing a mask to measure how much oxygen one can consume, before exercise becomes to difficult to continue.

The more oxygen a person can uptake, the more fuel they are capable of burning and the more work they are capable of doing before exercise must be ceased.

Let me give you two examples: both people same approx. weight.

Person 1:
runs 6 miles a day at a 10 min per mile pace.

Person 2:
runs 3 miles per day at a 8 min per mile pace.

Which person is going to have the higher conditioning level, higher Max Vo2 and greater ability to use oxygen?

It will be person number 2 by quite a bit and this person will have a higher level of positive physiological changes that occur that are beneficial both for exercise, strength of the cardiovascular system etc..

It is not the duration of each episode of exercise that is most important, but the QUALITY of each episode of exercise that matters most.

The person exercising for 25 min a day at 80% of their max heart rate, will be in better condition than the person exercising for 60 min a day, at 60% of their max heart rate.