Let's talk about fat.

[akmom]

Yeah, MKGal, I believe Sumo wrestlers were using that knowledge hundreds of years ago. All they ate was fish and rice, literally. But they ate their portions ALL right before bed, and not any other time of day. That's what you do when weight gain is the goal!

 

[seeingeyes]

I can't copy just the relevant points for some reason......but here is a study done by Dr. Wayne Miller.... where the conclusion was that there was no relationship between energy intake and adiposity [body fat]:

http://general.utpb.edu/fac/eldridge_j/kine6362/Readings/Nut3.pdf

This paper relies on self-reporting which has been shown to be unreliable. (Lack of efficacy of a food-frequency questionnaire in assessing dietary macronutrient intakes in subjects consuming diets of known composition)

 

[mkgal1]

Yeah, MKGal, I believe Sumo wrestlers were using that knowledge hundreds of years ago. All they ate was fish and rice, literally. But they ate their portions ALL right before bed, and not any other time of day. That's what you do when weight gain is the goal!

Thank God I didn't take on the body form (or size) of a Sumo wrestler.

 

[seeingeyes]

Seeing, you're lumping in far too large a demographic here. It's making your "case" look hasty and not well thought out at all. If your concern is ONLY people who are "morbidly obese" then you need to clearly state that. That's not how your posts have come across. You've made it sound as though everyone should be hyper-aware of their "fat" every minute of every day of their lives, and every single pound gained should be examined and critiqued and analyzed as to WHY it exists. You're railing just as loudly against someone who gains 5 lbs as someone who gains 500 lbs.

I think you need to narrow down the point you're trying to make here.

Who am I railing against? You seem to be reading more emotion into my posts than I'm putting there.

A person who gains 5lbs gained those 5lbs in the exact same way that a person who gained 500lbs gained those 500lbs. By eating more than their body needed. It's a difference of extent only.

Is it really so absurd to claim that body fat is a controllable factor?

 

[seeingeyes]

Yeah, MKGal, I believe Sumo wrestlers were using that knowledge hundreds of years ago. All they ate was fish and rice, literally. But they ate their portions ALL right before bed, and not any other time of day. That's what you do when weight gain is the goal!

They eat 20,000 calories a day.

 

[mkgal1]

This paper relies on self-reporting which has been shown to be unreliable. (Lack of efficacy of a food-frequency questionnaire in assessing dietary macronutrient intakes in subjects consuming diets of known composition)

There were both inpatient groups and outpatient groups---so it wasn't solely self-reporting (if you mean the patients weren't in a controlled environment).

 

[seeingeyes]

That is my problem. I'm only eating around 900 calories a day...I only drink water (and not enough of it) so I know that in order to lose weight I need to mindfully eat more and drink more water...some consume too many empty calories, others, like me, don't consume enough.

Do you keep a food journal? Write down everything you eat and drink (measure with a food scale, don't estimate) for two weeks. Don't try to eat less or more or change anything, just write down everything before you eat it. I learned so much about my own eating habits that way.

Are you trying to lose weight?

 

[mkgal1]

SeeingEyes......I know that video I posted is long (from Jonathan Bailor) but did you happen to watch the beginning of it? He was a personal trainer for years, and was trying to apply what he'd learned to his clients. At the same time......he also was trying to bulk up (so he'd increased his calories to 9000 calories per day). His female clients were on a 1200 calorie per day diet (and yes......it was self-reporting....but if they were trying so hard....why would they lie?). The women clients weren't losing.......and he wasn't bulking (and they all said they were doing everything "right"). That's what led him to do his own research of the studies that have been completed. No studies can back up the myth that it's just a matter of only consuming what your body needs (and no more).

 

[seeingeyes]

There were both inpatient groups and outpatient groups---so it wasn't solely self-reporting (if you mean the patients weren't in a controlled environment).

The inpatient group was doing a study on weight-cycling, which showed that if weight is lost with a reduced calorie diet, and then gained back, and then a reduced calorie diet is started again, the body will lose weight more slowly. Everyone in both groups lost weight, one group lost more slowly than the other.

In another study which had monitored calories (p.283 in the link) both groups had the same number of calories but one group had a higher percentage of whole wheat. Both groups lost weight. One group faster than the other.

In the study just after that, a fiber supplement was tested. Again, both groups lost weight with a reduced calorie diet.

People are complicated. There is no formula "eat x calories a day and lose x ounces per hour". We aren't measuring cups or something. There's a lot going on in our bodies that make such a formula impossible. But it certainly can be said, in a general sense, that eating fewer calories will result in fat loss over time.

Losing weight "faster" or "healthier" is going to require looking at the content of a diet as well as the total calories, of course. But there are no people who gain weight while on a hunger strike, and there are no people who would lose weight on that sumo diet (well, maybe one or two...America can make it happen!), because the the reason our body creates extra fat stores is to put away during the feast what it will need during the famine. If the famine never comes, those stores just keep growing.

 

[seeingeyes]

SeeingEyes......I know that video I posted is long (from Jonathan Bailor) but did you happen to watch the beginning of it? He was a personal trainer for years, and was trying to apply what he'd learned to his clients. At the same time......he also was trying to bulk up (so he'd increased his calories to 9000 calories per day). His female clients were on a 1200 calorie per day diet (and yes......it was self-reporting....but if they were trying so hard....why would they lie?).

I didn't watch the video, sorry. My internet is running really slow today.

I don't believe that self-reporting is unreliable because people are liars, I believe it's unreliable because we don't really remember what we aren't paying attention to.

If I asked someone how many times they touched their own face today, and they answered "five or six", but my creepy hidden cameras revealed that they had touched their own face 42 times, it wouldn't be because they were lying.

And eating is one of those things that the brain easily puts on auto-pilot. No one over the age of four has to think very hard about getting the fork to their mouth or opening a bag of nuts. So we just don't remember it.

The couple of bites of mac 'n' cheese snitched while cooking for the kids, the helping of mayo on a sandwich, the breading on the chicken on a salad, the little dollop of cream in the coffee, the little roll with a bit of butter eaten with dinner, the handful of pretzels grabbed on the way out the door. All of these things add up without even being registered as eating.

For those counting along, those things add up around 700 calories, so someone who believes that they are eating 1200 calories, but never registered these things throughout the day, is actually eating over 50% more than they think they are.

The women clients weren't losing.......and he wasn't bulking (and they all said they were doing everything "right"). That's what led him to do his own research of the studies that have been completed. No studies can back up the myth that it's just a matter of only consuming what your body needs (and no more).

No, the studies are all about the fastest way or the healthiest way to lose weight. Just like the one you linked is. All of them restrict the diet in some way. Every restriction leads to fat loss.

 

[mkgal1]

The inpatient group was doing a study on weight-cycling, which showed that if weight is lost with a reduced calorie diet, and then gained back, and then a reduced calorie diet is started again, the body will lose weight more slowly. Everyone in both groups lost weight, one group lost more slowly than the other.

In another study which had monitored calories (p.283 in the link) both groups had the same number of calories but one group had a higher percentage of whole wheat. Both groups lost weight. One group faster than the other.

In the study just after that, a fiber supplement was tested. Again, both groups lost weight with a reduced calorie diet.

People are complicated. There is no formula "eat x calories a day and lose x ounces per hour". We aren't measuring cups or something. There's a lot going on in our bodies that make such a formula impossible. But it certainly can be said, in a general sense, that eating fewer calories will result in fat loss over time.

Losing weight "faster" or "healthier" is going to require looking at the content of a diet as well as the total calories, of course. But there are no people who gain weight while on a hunger strike, and there are no people who would lose weight on that sumo diet (well, maybe one or two...America can make it happen!), because the the reason our body creates extra fat stores is to put away during the feast what it will need during the famine. If the famine never comes, those stores just keep growing.

From what I can tell (and I can totally be wrong)....I'm not seeing where the specifics are given about what groups were inpatient.....and what were self-reporting. I only saw the questionnaire mentioned under the study done on energy intake/body fatness study.

I think weight loss occurred in all the groups based on the composition of the diet---not just the reduced calories (which was the purpose of the study--to examine those relationships). The conclusion of the study was (repeatedly.....not just this study....but all studies) the findings disproved the idea that it's only about calories in/calories burned.

There's a difference between weight loss that occurs over a few months time......and what can be maintained by a typical routine over a long period of time. I thought we were speaking about long term results? If a person loses b/c of simply not eating.......once they *do* begin eating again, their metabolism is going to be slowed (like that one study on weight-cycling demonstrated). It doesn't really matter in the short term.......it's what can be achieved for a long-term......robust.....healthy life (where a person doesn't feel deprived or hungry all the time).

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Seeingeyes.... what are your credentials here? Are you a nutritionist? Doctor?

I don't mean to be snarky, by any means, but are you an expert?

I know from watching my mom all of my life and from my own weight loss struggles that eating fewer calories and working out doesn't always work the way we want it to. My mom has, in fact, counted every single thing that went into her mouth before. I've seen her do it. It's annoying. And what happens to her is she loses weight for a while and then hits a wall and the weight loss stops. She's eating 1000 calories a day and walking 6 miles a day plus lifting weights three times a week and her fat isn't budging.

Finally, at the age of 59 she talked to a doctor about it. The doctor told her she needs to eat more calories. When she eats only 1000 calories, her body goes into starvation mode and clings to every single one it can. It doesn't burn the fat stores, it saves them.

It's simply not true that fewer calories in than out is always the answer.

What really bothers me about the way people talk about this is that it turns it into a character flaw when people are overweight. If it's so easy to lose weight then that means people are just being lazy if they don't. I've seen people (like my mom) work really, really hard to lose weight and not have success. It's frustrating. And then to have people imply that they're just stupid or lazy on top of that is counter-productive.

I think that video mkgal posted was excellent. It's not how much we eat, it's WHAT we eat. And, frankly, the obesity epidemic is a poor person epidemic for a reason. Eating processed, high sugar foods is what causes the worst weight gain. And that's the cheapest food. Eating healthy can be expensive.

 

[seeingeyes]

From what I can tell (and I can totally be wrong)....I'm not seeing where the specifics are given about what groups were inpatient.....and what were self-reporting. I only saw the questionnaire mentioned under the study done on energy intake/body fatness study.

I think weight loss occurred in all the groups based on the composition of the diet---not just the reduced calories (which was the purpose of the study--to examine those relationships). The conclusion of the study was (repeatedly.....not just this study....but all studies) the findings disproved the idea that it's only about calories in/calories burned.

There's one place that specifically mentioned "inpatient", and the others give an exact kilo-joule count (I assumed that was monitored somehow).

There's a difference between weight loss that occurs over a few months time......and what can be maintained by a typical routine over a long period of time. I thought we were speaking about long term results? If a person loses b/c of simply not eating.......once they *do* begin eating again, their metabolism is going to be slowed (like that one study on weight-cycling demonstrated). It doesn't really matter in the short term.......it's what can be achieved for a long-term......robust.....healthy life (where a person doesn't feel deprived or hungry all the time).

That's exactly right. Anyone who stops eating today will lose body fat (among other things). And that's because fat is a function of how much we eat. The composition of what we eat is a factor of how much of our intake is stored as fat, but there must be intake in order for fat storage to occur.

The reason that people can't lose fat, then, is not because eating less doesn't work, but because they can't eat less. There are myriad reasons for that, but they are controllable (with varying difficulty) by the individual in a way that, say, crow's feet or getting hit by a meteor are not.

So my initial premise was simply "fat gain is controllable by the individual". That doesn't mean that it's easy, or even that everyone should be doing it (never trust a skinny chef!), it just means that body fat is something that people can conciously change if they choose to.

 

[Hetta]

It does get harder to keep the weight off as a person gets older. I've posted about this before, but I just completed a Developmental Psych class, and the reality is that in middle age, individuals lose height. These are facts from the text: from 30-50 yrs, men lose about 1/2" in weight and another 3/4 inch from 50-70. Women can lose 2" from 25-75yo (due to loss in the vertebrae). In 40s and 50s, skin begins to sag because of loss of fat and collagen in underlying tissues. After age 50, muscle loss occurs at a rate of 1-2% per year. There is a loss of strength in the back and legs. Maximum bone density occurs in mid-late thirties and then begins to be lost, accelerating in the 50s. Women's rate of bone loss is twice that of men ... these are natural, biological body changes. As the text suggests, exercising and eating healthily helps A LOT, especially weight training for women, but you do hurt more, you ache more, you are losing height and things start going south whether you want them to or not.

I have staved off osteoporosis not by taking a boatload of calcium, but by stepping up my weight resistance. But even now, for me, my body is very sensitive. I have developed some sensitivities to food that I did not have in my 20s or 30s. Because I recently tried to reintroduce one of those foods into my diet, my gut became inflamed and I gained *3lbs* just for no reason - other than inflammation. It will fall off again (I am determined!) but many people have sensitivities/allergies of which they are unaware. These can play havoc with the body weight.

I really don't get bent out of shape about how a body looks. Some larger people are often healthier than skinny people. It depends on a lot of things. If the skinny person is starving to stay thin, they are depleting their body of many things that the body needs. OTOH, the larger person may be eating very healthily but just a tad too much. A person needs to judge their health on annual check-ups, including a blood panel. When my doctor tells me that my cholesterol is excellent, my BP is excellent and I have no pre-diabetes (for which I am not at risk anyway), then I am quite happy. Not so happy when I become bloated because I ate the wrong thing, gah, but I'll get it out of my system and all will be well.

My dh, btw, is overweight. I worry because he also smokes, but no-one can force another to be healthy. These are his choices. I don't love him any less.

 

[seeingeyes]

Seeingeyes.... what are your credentials here? Are you a nutritionist? Doctor?

I don't mean to be snarky, by any means, but are you an expert?

I know from watching my mom all of my life and from my own weight loss struggles that eating fewer calories and working out doesn't always work the way we want it to. My mom has, in fact, counted every single thing that went into her mouth before. I've seen her do it. It's annoying. And what happens to her is she loses weight for a while and then hits a wall and the weight loss stops. She's eating 1000 calories a day and walking 6 miles a day plus lifting weights three times a week and her fat isn't budging.

Finally, at the age of 59 she talked to a doctor about it. The doctor told her she needs to eat more calories. When she eats only 1000 calories, her body goes into starvation mode and clings to every single one it can. It doesn't burn the fat stores, it saves them.

It's simply not true that fewer calories in than out is always the answer.

What really bothers me about the way people talk about this is that it turns it into a character flaw when people are overweight. If it's so easy to lose weight then that means people are just being lazy if they don't. I've seen people (like my mom) work really, really hard to lose weight and not have success. It's frustrating. And then to have people imply that they're just stupid or lazy on top of that is counter-productive.

I think that video mkgal posted was excellent. It's not how much we eat, it's WHAT we eat. And, frankly, the obesity epidemic is a poor person epidemic for a reason. Eating processed, high sugar foods is what causes the worst weight gain. And that's the cheapest food. Eating healthy can be expensive.

And the amount of calories the doctor told your mother to eat was more than 1000 but less than what she was eating pre-diet, correct? If she had stayed on that diet, she would no doubt have lost body fat, just like every other person in the world who was ever starved while working hard. But that diet wasn't sustainable psychologically over the long term (especially since she was probably exhausted).

Is claiming that body fat is a factor that is within the control of the individual really the same as saying that everyone who has extra fat on their body is lazy or stupid?

This is the over-correction that I was referring to in the OP. It is appalling the way that those with extra fat are treated, but that is not because extra fat is unavoidable or inevitable or uncontrollable, but because they are people made in God's image who should be treated with kindness and love and respect independent of shape.

(I hope your mother is doing well now.)

 

[seeingeyes]

It does get harder to keep the weight off as a person gets older. I've posted about this before, but I just completed a Developmental Psych class, and the reality is that in middle age, individuals lose height. These are facts from the text: from 30-50 yrs, men lose about 1/2" in weight and another 3/4 inch from 50-70. Women can lose 2" from 25-75yo (due to loss in the vertebrae). In 40s and0s, skin begins to sag because of loss of fat and collagen in underlying tissues. After age 50, muscle loss occurs at a rate of 1-2% per year. There is a loss of strength in the back and legs. Maximum bone density occurs in mid-late thirties and then begins to be lost, accelerating in the 50s. Women's rate of bone loss is twice that of men ... these are natural, biological body changes. As the text suggests, exercising and eating healthily helps A LOT, especially weight training for women.

I have staved off osteoporosis not by taking a boatload of calcium, but by stepping up my weight resistance. But even now, for me, my body is very sensitive. I have developed some sensitivities to food that I did not have in my 20s or 30s. Because I recently tried to reintroduce one of those foods into my diet, my gut became inflamed and I gained *3lbs* just for no reason - other than inflammation. It will fall off again (I am determined!) but many people have sensitivities/allergies of which they are unaware. These can play havoc with the body weight.

I really don't get bent out of shape about how a body looks. Some larger people are often healthier than skinny people. It depends on a lot of things. If the skinny person is starving to stay thin, they are depleting their body of many things that the body needs. OTOH, the larger person may be eating very healthily but just a tad too much. A person needs to judge their health on annual check-ups, including a blood panel. When my doctor tells me that my cholesterol is excellent, my BP is excellent and I have no pre-diabetes (for which I am not at risk anyway), then I am quite happy. Not so happy when I become bloated because I ate the wrong thing, gah, but I'll get it out of my system and all will be well.

My dh, btw, is overweight. I worry because he also smokes, but no-one can force another to be healthy. These are his choices. I don't love him any less.

Oh goodness. I'm only 5'3". If I lose height, I'm gonna disappear entirely! I'd better hit the gym!

This thread has wandered a wee bit off due to one of my premises, but the original question was not about "getting skinny", but of trying to maintain (roughly) the weight you were when your your spouse first winked at you.

Thoughts?

 

[mkgal1]

There's one place that specifically mentioned "inpatient", and the others give an exact kilo-joule count (I assumed that was monitored somehow).

That's what I would expect as well (that the kilo-joule count was monitored somehow).....not just based on what was being reported. Regardless......I think enough people have experienced how this change doesn't "work" long term (reducing caloric intake/working out more). Like Tins, CGolfer's mom, and myself have discovered....enough other people have experienced the need to actually *increase* the calories they're eating in order to rev up their metabolism. To me.....if I experience something that's *not* working......and discover what *does* work (and find others that support the same findings).....I consider that as truth.

That's exactly right. Anyone who stops eating today will lose body fat (among other things). And that's because fat is a function of how much we eat. The composition of what we eat is a factor of how much of our intake is stored as fat, but there must be intake in order for fat storage to occur.

It's not really reasonable to compare not eating at all to a routine diet. Sure.....if you stop eating.....you *will* lose weight (you won't live too much longer......but you'll lose weight). You can also amputate a leg....that's another way (but you may continue to gain and be right back where you were). I didn't think we were talking about temporary solutions......but long term. Fat storage isn't simply from how much we eat. There's more to it than that.

The reason that people can't lose fat, then, is not because eating less doesn't work, but because they can't eat less. There are myriad reasons for that, but they are controllable (with varying difficulty) by the individual in a way that, say, crow's feet or getting hit by a meteor are not.

So my initial premise was simply "fat gain is controllable by the individual". That doesn't mean that it's easy, or even that everyone should be doing it (never trust a skinny chef!), it just means that body fat is something that people can conciously change if they choose to.

Actually......your original premise that I'm arguing was "no one gains fat without eating more calories than their body needs. That's the bottom line."

I don't agree with that. You can't really "bottom line" it----because it's much more complicated than that. If you only reduce calories (and increase exercise).....often you will slow down your metabolism and also throw off your hormonal balance---making it more difficult to keep that weight off (and more difficult to lose each time you attempt to lose).

 

[Hetta]

This thread has wandered a wee bit off due to one of my premises, but the original question was not about "getting skinny", but of trying to maintain (roughly) the weight you were when your your spouse first winked at you.

Thoughts?

My husband isn't even in the same zipcode as he was when we met. I don't feel a responsibility to stay the same I was at 18. My body has had 44 years of damage since, including pregnancies and illness, and the ageing process has set in. Let me say, I get up at 5am at least 6 days of the week to exercise. At least three evenings of the week I do resistance training. I also walk in my lunch breaks and take the stairs as often as my knees will allow me to do so. I eat healthily (other than the occasional splurge), but my body is not the same as when I was 18, and I'm not going to apologize to anyone for that fact - especially not my husband, and I would be livid if he ever made an issue of it - because he doesn't have an 18 year old body either. And I do this exercise, not for him, but for me. I do it so that my body keeps on working and I don't lose all of my muscle, or all of my strength. I have noticed in the past 10 years a real decrease in my strength, even despite resistance training. It's quite frightening and upsetting (for me anyway, I liked being strong) to experience that. But, let me say again, it's for me that I do it. So that I can wear a dress I really want to wear, so that my body doesn't ache as much, so that I can live a little longer and perhaps stave off disease for a little longer. It's not a discussion that I have with my husband, we don't talk about it.

 

[seeingeyes]

Actually......your original premise that I'm arguing was "no one gains fat without eating more calories than their body needs. That's the bottom line."

In the OP I said "body fat is controllable".

Do you agree with that even if you do not agree that body fat is controllable by calorie restriction?

 

[Hetta]

What is meant by "body fat"?