Thread: Reducing weight

Is drastically reducing the amount you eat the only solution to losing weight? From what I've heard lately this seems to be the case. Personally I have no worries, but when I see the stats about obesity around the world, then I'm alarmed.
Go back only a few decades and many people were underweight, but that didn't always harm them. People who live to a ripe old age are nearly always small eaters. The body quite likes a bit of famine.
Recently I have heard that even the effects of exercise for weight loss are greatly exaggerated. Exercise should only be considered as an aid rather than a cure.

So I am led to believe that:
Food should not be treated like a medicine. There is no such thing as healthy food and basically all of it is junk.
Food should not be used as a comfort. Find something else.
As you are burning calories even when sitting down forget about going to the gym. The gym is for weight-loss losers who pound the treadmill and then go for a burger or kebab. Go for a walk or a run around the block instead and save your money.
Be atheistic when it comes to food. No more multiple course meals. Have one course only or eat small portions.
Don't be taken in by food packaging. The brighter the packing the more harmful the food.
Avoid fast food joints. They are little more than fat dispensaries.
Have days when you skip a meal or don't eat at all. Avoid snacking. Possibly we could be encouraged to have a 'no eating day' once a month.

And what about the Body Mass Index? Should we take any notice of this at all? I have my doubts.

It is just a problem of energy balance. Calories in = calories out. If you count your calories and do the math you will quickly understand that it takes an awful lot of excercise to work off the same calories that could be saved by skipping a few extra treats. This does not mean you shouldn't exercise.

Intermittent fasting is a strategy that's been tried by some people with some success. This doesn't mean it will work for everybody.

Food is not "all junk." We need it to get our daily requirements of macronutrients and micronutrients. Especially when you go on a diet, you need to make sure you are eating the right foods and limit the "empty" calories.

Body mass index is a handy reference but can be very misleading if somebody has a lot of muscle mass. Maybe a better indicator is the amount of fat on your belly that you can pinch between your fingers.

All of this advice is great to know, but following it is a whole other problem.

Exercise appears to be important for reasons other than losing weight. There has been some work that shows that a few minutes of intense exercise a few days a week is more effective than large amounts of low-level exercise. But that is still better than sitting around all day.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It is just a problem of energy balance. Calories in = calories out. If you count your calories and do the math you will quickly understand that it takes an awful lot of excercise to work off the same calories that could be saved by skipping a few extra treats. This does not mean you shouldn't exercise.
...
All of this advice is great to know, but following it is a whole other problem.

Yes but I've known people who hardly exercise at all and live beyond 90. Also what they don't do is eat a lot. The body is burning calories whether you exercise or not.
Now why should this be difficult to follow? It sounds so easy to me, but then I've never been overweight.

Originally Posted by ox

Yes but I've known people who hardly exercise at all and live beyond 90.

That is the same sort of "logic" as people who say that their grandfather smoked 80 cigarettes and drank a bottle of whiskey a day, and lived to be 120. Both of those things are proven health risks even if some people are lucky.

Originally Posted by ox

Now why should this be difficult to follow? It sounds so easy to me, but then I've never been overweight.

Well, mainly because you get hungry. Some people are fortunate and can be satisfied with moderate intake of food. For others, it's a struggle.

Some body builders who strip fat from their bodies for competitions use frequency of food and eating only protein, something like fish, every 4 hours night and day. The idea is that the increased frequency of food means the body doesn't store any excess as it is been fed so often.

Now most of us probarbly wouldn't won't to go that extreme and eating nothing but protein could lead to some serious headaches, but eating more protein, less fat & carbohydrates, and increasing the frequency of food could be a good way for reducing body fat, the idea of just losing weight seems a bit arbitrary and it seems healthier to reduce body fat than actual body mass. Simply because you could lose a stone in weight by stopping eating for a while but end up fatter because the body thinks it's starving and starts storing fat like there's no tommorow.

Originally Posted by Strange

Exercise appears to be important for reasons other than losing weight. There has been some work that shows that a few minutes of intense exercise a few days a week is more effective than large amounts of low-level exercise. But that is still better than sitting around all day.

Could you link me to this research? I would like to show it to my girlfriend

Here you go: BBC News - Can three minutes of exercise a week help make you fit?

The problem as I see it is not one of exercise but rather one of lack of movement. People simply sit down too much. The body needs to be moving all the time - it doesn't have to be high paced, full-on exercise, just moving. Stand up desks would do much to improve the general health of people who work at computers all day.

As for weight loss, when the main energy source is switched from carbs to animal fats the body is much more efficient and a stable weight is gained and maintained regardless of calorie intake - unless you vary by 1000's of calories of course. Hyperlipid for an explanation of the difference between fat and carb metabolism.

Ditch the sugar and health/weight loss follow soon after.

I eat and exercise.

I wish I could keep weight ON!

I sink like a stone in the ocean.

Only this morning I heard that 61% of the UK population is now overweight. (Last week it was 60%). This includes the British Prime Minister. Of these 25% are classed as clinically obese. This is astonishing data, and it can only get worse.
The answer is not so hard to find. Food has become part of pop culture and a state of mind rather than an energy source which nature intended. At one time there was only one cookery program a week on TV. Now there are about 20. You are made to feel guilty if you do not cook.
Then there are the mixed messages. First I hear that chocolate is bad for you. Then I hear that it is good for you.
Well of course chocolate is not good for you. It never has been and it never will be. But small amounts occasionally are unlikely to be bad for you. I also hear that the protein in chocolate will fill you up and silence your stomach. That's another bit of bad science.
Kids are taught that certain foods are good and others bad. When they join up as adults to their local fat fighters' group they still get taught the same misleading thing.
Then there is the wonder of certain vegetables. Tomatoes are good for you, and so is broccoli. While they are unlikely to be bad for you, no tests have ever proved that these are a form of medicine.
I would say that no food item is actually bad for you (even the mcshit and the friedshit) but it's the quantity you eat that's bad for you, and the one and only way to reduce weight is to cut what you eat.

Originally Posted by Strange

Here you go: BBC News - Can three minutes of exercise a week help make you fit?

Where does that claim it reduces weight?
I remember watching the hour long TV program. It was more about how fitness could be better achieved by a brief vigorous workout on an exercise bike. Michael Mosley was overweight and he was also going try the crackpot idea of not eating at all for 4 days. I wager he's still overweight.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Strange

Here you go: BBC News - Can three minutes of exercise a week help make you fit?

Where does that claim it reduces weight?

It doesn't. I thought we had all agreed that exercise was important for reasons that have nothing to do with losing weight.

Originally Posted by ox

Only this morning I heard that 61% of the UK population is now overweight. (Last week it was 60%).

That has to be bogus. Statistics cannot be gathered that quickly. I assume this is two different reports, perhaps of the same survery, where one rounded down and one rounded up.

You are made to feel guilty if you do not cook.

Surely, you are more likely to eat healthily if you cook fresh food than if you eat pre-prepared meals. I really don't know what your point is.

Then there are the mixed messages. First I hear that chocolate is bad for you. Then I hear that it is good for you.

You can blame shoddy journalism for that. (I'm guessing you are a Daily Mail reader?)

Well of course chocolate is not good for you. It never has been and it never will be.

Really? What do you base that on?

That's another bit of bad science.

Really? What do you base that on?

Then there is the wonder of certain vegetables. Tomatoes are good for you, and so is broccoli. While they are unlikely to be bad for you, no tests have ever proved that these are a form of medicine.

No one has ever claimed that they are "medicine". But there is a lot of evidence that vegetables are an important part of the diet. And brassicas especially so: health brassicas - Google Scholar

I can't imagine what you think a healthy diet consists of. Based on your comments above, a Big Mac and fries perhaps (no veg and nothing freshly cooked).

Whether chocolate is good for you or not depends on what sort of chocolate you are eating and how much and how your general health is in the first place. I eat raw chocolate or 85% chocolate about 50g a week. I'm afraid I don't count any mass produced sweets as chocolate (in England) because they are so adulterated they are almost not chocolate.

I also think you are reading the Daily Mail - my parents do and I dip in when I go there of a weekend..... as some-one once said "its like half an hour in a mental hospital".

There is more bullshit written about, and believed, on weight, exercise, diet and health than anything else, short of new age crap.

First : there are only two ways I know of (supported by good research) that permit long term weight loss. That is: excessive exercise (like the body builder who pumps iron for 4 hours a day, or the ultra marathoner who runs two hours a day), or else surgery. And only surgery will permit long term weight loss without ongoing effort.

Those who try moderate to slight exercise to lose weight will not succeed. Those who try to diet to lose weight may succeed short term, but will almost certainly put it all back on again long term, and may put on far more than they lost. Diet is not a good action for long term weight loss.

However, moderate exercise is excellent for health gain. Not weight loss, but health gain. Ditto for an improved diet. By far the most important factor for living and being healthy into advanced old age is genetics. Second is not smoking. Moderate exercise and good balanced diet are also important, but are a lot less important than the top two.

There are a lot of factors determining how much weight we put on or lose. The old saying about calories in = calories out is bullshit. There is far more to it than that. Those who are led to believe that old saw are left feeling guilty when their efforts to lose weight based on that fallacy fail. Do not feel guilty, because weight gain/loss is about far more than calories in versus calories out.

For example : we now know that our microbiome affects weight. That is : the types of bacteria in our guts. Hormone balance has an effect, because there are hormones (like ghrelin) that affect appetite. When a person undergoes a stomach staple surgery, he/she loses appetite. That is due, not to a smaller stomach as most people believe, but due to a change in appetite hormone balance. Stomach stapling is probably the most effective method of losing weight.

If ou have an interest in this field, forget the popular myths. Look up the good science. Best advice of all. Forget about weight loss, and concentrate on a healthy life style, with no smoking, good exercise, and good diet. You will not lose weight, but your health will improve.

Right now there are a number of research projects under way to find a pill that will enable weight loss. If and when this succeeds (I predict within a decade) you will be able to keep weight off by simply popping a pill each day.

Eat healthy, and in Moderation. Exercise, IT DOES HELP you maintain weight.

Babe

Exercise is of limited, if any, value in weight control. The human body adapts to changes. When you diet, it alters to conserve calories. When you exercise, your appetite increases leading to increased calory intake, and metabolism alters as needed. End result is that weight changes are of short duration. There has been a lot of research into weight control, and the results of that research show how futile most efforts to lose weight really are.

Exercise is great, of course, and we should all keep up a good exercise program. It is just not effective as a weight control measure.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Babe

Exercise is of limited, if any, value in weight control. The human body adapts to changes. When you diet, it alters to conserve calories. When you exercise, your appetite increases leading to increased calory intake, and metabolism alters as needed. End result is that weight changes are of short duration. There has been a lot of research into weight control, and the results of that research show how futile most efforts to lose weight really are.

Exercise is great, of course, and we should all keep up a good exercise program. It is just not effective as a weight control measure.

All I can speak of is my own and those around me experience.

I simply do not agree with you.

I have always been athletic, in spite of my size.

I was a gymnast, I played on the varsity JHS volleyball team as a setter, I was a soft ball pitcher, down hill and water skier, aerobic dance queen *chuckle*, and avid golfer. I have also puttered around other sports.

I really do believe exercise is of value, for helping burn fat (if done right) , building muscle and also for general health.

Diet is also extremely important.

People I know who balance their lives with a healthy diet and exercise seem to remain trim.

I have talked to scientists (like real real ones) about this.

They do agree that diet and exercise DO play a part in maintaining weight. Then again there is the vehicle, *you, and I" who has to do both to make it work.

I have seen people lose weight on diets.....and gain it back, but most everyone, I PERSONALLY KNOW, who has maintained a healthy diet and an exercise (NOT TALKING EXTREME) program have managed to maintain their weight.

My husband included. Who with diet and exercise has maintained his weight for 35 years.

Babe

Diet and exercise do play a role in weight control, but not one that can be readily controlled by personal effort. There are people with naturally low appetites who stay trim, and there are people who enjoy exercise, and do not gain appetite as a result. However, most people are not like that. Most people who try to lose weight through diet and exercise simply fail in the long term. Sure, they can lose weight short term, but they almost always put it all back on, and rather often a bit more, in the long term.

One research study I read divided people who wanted to lose weight into two groups. One had no weight loss program. The other group was encouraged to lose weight through diet. Five years later, only 5% of those who lost weight still weighed less than when they started, while 60% had put back so much weight that they were heavier than the non diet group. All of which means that most people, most of the time, are harmed by efforts to lose weight.

The modern view of weight gain/loss has the realisation that many other factors are involved, and the old idea of calories in = calories out is a fallacy. You cannot control weight in that simplistic manner, since our bodies respond to such efforts, generally in such a way as to stymie our efforts.

However, I will still tell anyone wo is prepared to listen that a good balanced diet and moderate regular exercise is important. But it is not important for controlling weight. It is important for increasing health.

Why do we all find it so hard to lose weight?, It seems you only have pick up a magazine or pop on a website and there is this diet or that one, some new miracle supplement, colon cleanser or fat burner. Yet the reality is that much of Western society is plagued by an obesity epidemic and so many people unhappy with their body image. Is it because all these plans, programs, pills & diets just don't work?, could it be we are just to stupid to understand them or lack the disipline to follow them?, whatever the actual reason it seems there should some practical way to achieve a sensible weight and body shape for your normal average everyday person without spending 6 hours a day in gym. Also surely if the food companies and suppermarkets are to blame for selling us crap foods that just make us obese then they should also be subject to some kind of regulation to provide more healthy products.

It seems we are always hearing about some new campaign to improve a nations health from more nutrious school dinners to more healthy fast food but none of it seems to have had any effect on obesity statistics, so if private companies can't provide an answer to this problem and people themselves arn't managing it how about government stepping in and demanding the end of crap food and that everybody has to do some kind of mandatory community exercise? It may not be a perfect solution but at least it could be a real and serious attempt at reducing the tide obesity and promoting weight loss at a national level.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Why do we all find it so hard to lose weight?, It seems you only have pick up a magazine or pop on a website and there is this diet or that one, some new miracle supplement, colon cleanser or fat burner. Yet the reality is that much of Western society is plagued by an obesity epidemic and so many people unhappy with their body image. Is it because all these plans, programs, pills & diets just don't work?, could it be we are just to stupid to understand them or lack the disipline to follow them?, whatever the actual reason it seems there should some practical way to achieve a sensible weight and body shape for your normal average everyday person without spending 6 hours a day in gym. Also surely if the food companies and suppermarkets are to blame for selling us crap foods that just make us obese then they should also be subject to some kind of regulation to provide more healthy products.



It seems we are always hearing about some new campaign to improve a nations health from more nutrious school dinners to more healthy fast food but none of it seems to have had any effect on obesity statistics, so if private companies can't provide an answer to this problem and people themselves arn't managing it how about government stepping in and demanding the end of crap food and that everybody has to do some kind of mandatory community exercise? It may not be a perfect solution but at least it could be a real and serious attempt at reducing the tide obesity and promoting weight loss at a national level.

Skeptic, this is to you, also.

I don't believe in dieting.

I DO believe in eating healthy!

I don''t believe (sorry, in my line of work, believe is the optimum word) everyone is meant to be thin, but I think that if you eat healthy and excercise, you will be the best you can be, and that is wonderful. We aren't clones.


I am naturally slender. I am the ONLY One in my family that way. I am also the only one who is interested in sports. My eldest sister also has an auto-immune disease which has every doc puzzled. Youngest sister doesn't eat healthy.

Everyone is different, for sure, but I still think eating healthy and exercise is very important for general health.

Babe
Eating healthy and good exercise are definitely important for health.

It is the weight loss area where so much crap is preached.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Babe
Eating healthy and good exercise are definitely important for health.

It is the weight loss area where so much crap is preached.

food in moderations...smaller portions...work much better than "diets"

I eat everything and anything I want...but discipline is also needed .....period....you eat like a porkette you will become one....not everyone is supposed to look like runway model frankly IMHO...although I am very slender....I don't starve myself at all! However I am a eating one major meal a day.....and eating smaller things during a day....even when I am working...what you want to MAKE happen you can, regardless of your schedule!

I have surgery tomorrow so no food after midnight...so I am eating little bits every hour till then *L*

Originally Posted by Strange

I'm guessing you are a Daily Mail reader?

Then you guessed wrong. I don't read any newspaper and I take no notice of journalism as most of it gets proved wrong sooner or later (isn't it the Daily Express which is always on about about the nation's health when I glimpse headlines?).
The rest of your replies are just clutching at straws.
By eating any food at all you are transferring fat and sugar and who knows what else from a dead body into your own living body. It is a risk that needs to be taken as the body needs a source of energy but it only needs to be done in small doses.
The food corporations have made their money by lacing our food with fat, sugar and salt and so getting us addicted to food. Why else would they do that other than for profit? The consumer has limited choice, and it is all misleading. The sugar in a 'healthy' glass of orange juice is about the same as that in 'unhealthy' cola.
This figure of 60-61% of people now overweight seems accurate to me in my general observation of the UK population. So we need to ask why is NOTHING done about it? One answer could be because nearly all the politicians are themselves overweight so they do not want to talk about it. The previous Prime Minister Brown was obese and the present one Cameron is going that way. I would love to put these guys on the spot because this is the biggest problem facing the nation today.

Originally Posted by ox

By eating any food at all you are transferring fat and sugar and who knows what else from a dead body into your own living body

And if you didn't do that (as long as we include plants among your "dead bodies") you would die.

It is a risk that needs to be taken

WTF Are you one of those people who finds eating an unpleasant chore that you have to go through every so often?

The consumer has limited choice, and it is all misleading.

The consumer has choices. They could cook for themselves (although you seem to disapprove of that for some reason) so they can control exactly what they are eating.

And, certainly, tabloid headlines and adverts may be misleading, but there are reliable sources of information (which, perhaps, you should look for as you seem woefully uneducated about food and diet).

The sugar in a 'healthy' glass of orange juice is about the same as that in 'unhealthy' cola.

And do you really think the sugar content is all that matters?

So we need to ask why is NOTHING done about it?

Things are being done. You might argue that it is not enough, or they are the wrong things. There has been a long debate but final agreement about labelling prepared foods with "traffic lights" (*). There has been a campaign and legislation to improve school and prison meals (but not hospitals, for some reason) and to improve education about food and cooking in schools. There are advertising campaigns for exercise and healthy eating. And so on and so on. Not exactly NOTHING.

(*) which I think is a really bad idea because it leads to the sort of stupid simplifications that you are using; e.g. "sugar is bad"

I would like to suggest that one aspect of obesity in our society is that people do not adjust their diet for their age and level of activity.

As one who has bred and worked with performance athletes in the canine and equine world, genetics are an important consideration when breeding. Humans, for the most part, are indiscriminate breeders and each of us is stuck with our genetic inheritence which will impact our body type and the weight we are predisposed to carry. An awareness of our actual caloric and nutrient needs at various stages of our life would appear to be lacking.

As example, growing horses require more protein and calories in their first year of life and these are supplied by the mare's milk and forage. During their early years, most young horses are gangly and thin in the wild as they grow quickly and have to compete for forage. Since domestication and intense management by humans, many horses suffer from developmental orthopedic disease which in my opinion arises predominantly from our management and intervention as in nature, these individuals would not survive/breed but that is another debate. My point is that genetic selection, diet and management all contribute significantly.

Feeding Young Horses for Sound Growth

Humans. like horses, do not require the same nutrient intake for their entire life yet many do not seem to be aware of this. When young and active, most can wolf down calories in any form and stay thin. As we become more sedentary, most of us lose this luxury of self-indulgence. (When I was training and racing in the Yukon Quest, I was feeding my dogs, each around 50 lbs, up to 6000 calories a day. In summer maintenance, they only required 1200. Likewise, I could consume 6000 calories a day and remain at my same weight because I needed most of those calories to stay warm.)

My observations from working in a grocery store for eight years now, is the generalization that people really do look like what they have in their shopping carts so you will be hard pressed to convince me that our modern food is not part of the problem but the actual problem is the people themselves, in the developed world. They have the option of choice, yet those choices may be constrained by financial concerns and the least expensive foods are often calorie rich yet nutritionally poor.

In conclusion, I think that most people eat more calories than they need and that most are quite unaware of this fact. Food is worshipped in our culture and every celebration and event has foods that we specifically promote and indulge in at those times of year. Food is comparatively inexpensive and readily available and our fast-paced lifestyle is addicted to convenience. The path of least resistance is the one most species will take, in order to conserve energy.

We are now consuming and conserving far more energy than most of us need.

Thank you for providing me with job security, lol.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I would like to suggest that one aspect of obesity in our society is that people do not adjust their diet for their age and level of activity.

As one who has bred and worked with performance athletes in the canine and equine world, genetics are an important consideration when breeding. Humans, for the most part, are indiscriminate breeders and each of us is stuck with our genetic inheritence which will impact our body type and the weight we are predisposed to carry. An awareness of our actual caloric and nutrient needs at various stages of our life would appear to be lacking.

As example, growing horses require more protein and calories in their first year of life and these are supplied by the mare's milk and forage. During their early years, most young horses are gangly and thin in the wild as they grow quickly and have to compete for forage. Since domestication and intense management by humans, many horses suffer from developmental orthopedic disease which in my opinion arises predominantly from our management and intervention as in nature, these individuals would not survive/breed but that is another debate. My point is that genetic selection, diet and management all contribute significantly.

Feeding Young Horses for Sound Growth

Humans. like horses, do not require the same nutrient intake for their entire life yet many do not seem to be aware of this. When young and active, most can wolf down calories in any form and stay thin. As we become more sedentary, most of us lose this luxury of self-indulgence. (When I was training and racing in the Yukon Quest, I was feeding my dogs, each around 50 lbs, up to 6000 calories a day. In summer maintenance, they only required 1200. Likewise, I could consume 6000 calories a day and remain at my same weight because I needed most of those calories to stay warm.)

My observations from working in a grocery store for eight years now, is the generalization that people really do look like what they have in their shopping carts so you will be hard pressed to convince me that our modern food is not part of the problem but the actual problem is the people themselves, in the developed world. They have the option of choice, yet those choices may be constrained by financial concerns and the least expensive foods are often calorie rich yet nutritionally poor.

In conclusion, I think that most people eat more calories than they need and that most are quite unaware of this fact. Food is worshipped in our culture and every celebration and event has foods that we specifically promote and indulge in at those times of year. Food is comparatively inexpensive and readily available and our fast-paced lifestyle is addicted to convenience. The path of least resistance is the one most species will take, in order to conserve energy.

We are now consuming and conserving far more energy than most of us need.

Thank you for providing me with job security, lol.

Yep.

1) COOK for yourself and your family and VARY it.

2) Eat slowly, and STOP when you start to feel full.

3) CUT the cola. Entirely.

4) WALK, don't drive. Even in cities, public transport is better for you than a car - and you see your fellow human beings.

It seems that no one is taking the blindest bit of notice of anything I said. So the bullshit keeps flowing.

There is a lot of research on weight loss, and it shows clearly, that for the vast majority of people, attempts to control weight by exercise and dieting simply fail. In fact, for diet at least, far more harm than good results. 60% of those who try to lose weight through diet end up weighing more than a control group that does not diet.

So telling people to lose weight is actually doing them harm.

Only two methods of long term weight loss are proven to work reliably.
1. Excessive exercise - hours per day. This is something that few people can do, because it requires such discipline.
2. Surgery, such as stomach stapling. This is by far the most effective weight loss method.

Moderate exercise and good diet are very valuable, but not for weight loss. If a person weighs (for example) 100 kgs, and goes onto a program of healthy eating and healthy exercise, then 5 years later he or she will weigh about the same 100 kg as when he/she started. But the weight will be more muscle, and less fat, and that person will be much healthier. What he or she will not have done, is lose weight. Long term, that 100 kg will be fairly stable.

Anyone giving advice about losing weight (except a doctor who recommends surgery) needs his or her arse kicked, and kicked with painful force. Such advice nearly always does far more harm than good. Giving advice about improving general health through diet and exercise is different. That can be very valuable.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It seems that no one is taking the blindest bit of notice of anything I said. So the bullshit keeps flowing.

There is a lot of research on weight loss, and it shows clearly, that for the vast majority of people, attempts to control weight by exercise and dieting simply fail. In fact, for diet at least, far more harm than good results. 60% of those who try to lose weight through diet end up weighing more than a control group that does not diet.

So telling people to lose weight is actually doing them harm.

Only two methods of long term weight loss are proven to work reliably.
1. Excessive exercise - hours per day. This is something that few people can do, because it requires such discipline.
2. Surgery, such as stomach stapling. This is by far the most effective weight loss method.

Moderate exercise and good diet are very valuable, but not for weight loss. If a person weighs (for example) 100 kgs, and goes onto a program of healthy eating and healthy exercise, then 5 years later he or she will weigh about the same 100 kg as when he/she started. But the weight will be more muscle, and less fat, and that person will be much healthier. What he or she will not have done, is lose weight. Long term, that 100 kg will be fairly stable.

Anyone giving advice about losing weight (except a doctor who recommends surgery) needs his or her arse kicked, and kicked with painful force. Such advice nearly always does far more harm than good. Giving advice about improving general health through diet and exercise is different. That can be very valuable.

I know plenty of people who have become overweight through neglect and once they have returned to a disciplined lifestyle, they have gradually lost weight, regained fitness and remained that way, without stomach stapling or working themselves into heart attack territory through exercise.

I agree with you, skeptic, only in that adopting a diet for an interval DOES NOT WORK.

A lifestyle change is required.

One of my coworkers started to pay attention to the number of calories she was eating in February. She has now lost 41 lbs and treated herself to some French Fries on our Ladies Lunch Date last Wednesday. She has been jogging now for a while, for the first time in a decade, and remarked to me the other night at work,"I can't believe how simple it is. Everyone was absolutely right! Eat the right foods and add some activity and you will lose weight without hardly trying!"

Her reason for becoming overweight was psychological. She wasn't the pretty, talented one in the clan and from what she shared, food became a panacea and how she looked did not matter. I take some small credit for getting her back on a skookum horse for the first time in eight years and gradually she has started to recognize that her life is not over at 30.

It has only just begun.

You are the most negative person that I have encountered on several forums, skeptic. Please don't take that amiss. I am just commenting on my personal observations, which I admit are purely subjective.

Have you been swimming with the sharks lately? If not, perhaps you are overdue for some R & R.

Scheherazade

You will be please to know that I am swimming with sharks this coming Saturday. I am taking a two week holiday to the Philippines, where they have thresher sharks.

I am not particularly negative, as such. Instead, I am realistic. My view is that what is correct, is correct, regardless of whether people think that view is positive or negative. On a different forum, I have a long running argument with a real pessimist who thinks that humanity is headed for global disaster, and my contrary views he deems to be way over-optimistic.

On diet, though, there is more crap written than anything short of pyramid power. Certainly you can lose weight through diet. Happens all the time. But that is meaningless unless you can keep it off. The research study I quoted found 1 in 20 could maintain a lower weight for 5 years or more. Not an inspiring success rate!

Don't be nipping the sharks now, skeptic. They have a right to their carnivorous opinion.

I do agree that far too many people are lining their pockets by selling false hope and miracle cures, so on that we DO agree.

The general failing, in my opinion, is that people do not do their research and the result is unrealistic expectations. Most of them do not commit to a lifestyle change, therefore they suffer the rebound effect of the body's ability to adapt. I have a brother who eats too many meals at the golden arches and with the onset of middle age, he is sadly showing spread of the same. His genetics do not predispose him to obesity but his diet surely does.

An interesting correlation I have noted is that apathy about weight seems to increase along with the increase in weight. He (and others) talks about eating healthier and getting more active, yet four hours later he is 'just grabbing a bite' at another convenience 'human feedlot'.

All of the people that I know, (which admittedly is not a huge sum) who do not indulge in processed food/take out save on rare occasion, are of a healthy weight.

Of the overweight ones that I am in close enough proximity to observe their dietary habits, I would confidently say that an extended period on a caloric restricted diet with activity would restore them to a 'generally regarded as healthy' weight. Unless the psychology of what is causing them to eat more calories than they utilize is addressed, the weight loss would not be permanent.

Please note that I am not talking about people who may have disorders that affect the way their body processes food.

The people that I have observed are stuffing their maws like cattle at a feedlot. 'Why?', is the question that comes to my mind.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I would like to suggest that one aspect of obesity in our society is that people do not adjust their diet for their age and level of activity.

As one who has bred and worked with performance athletes in the canine and equine world, genetics are an important consideration when breeding. Humans, for the most part, are indiscriminate breeders and each of us is stuck with our genetic inheritence which will impact our body type and the weight we are predisposed to carry. An awareness of our actual caloric and nutrient needs at various stages of our life would appear to be lacking.

As example, growing horses require more protein and calories in their first year of life and these are supplied by the mare's milk and forage. During their early years, most young horses are gangly and thin in the wild as they grow quickly and have to compete for forage. Since domestication and intense management by humans, many horses suffer from developmental orthopedic disease which in my opinion arises predominantly from our management and intervention as in nature, these individuals would not survive/breed but that is another debate. My point is that genetic selection, diet and management all contribute significantly.

Feeding Young Horses for Sound Growth

Humans. like horses, do not require the same nutrient intake for their entire life yet many do not seem to be aware of this. When young and active, most can wolf down calories in any form and stay thin. As we become more sedentary, most of us lose this luxury of self-indulgence. (When I was training and racing in the Yukon Quest, I was feeding my dogs, each around 50 lbs, up to 6000 calories a day. In summer maintenance, they only required 1200. Likewise, I could consume 6000 calories a day and remain at my same weight because I needed most of those calories to stay warm.)

My observations from working in a grocery store for eight years now, is the generalization that people really do look like what they have in their shopping carts so you will be hard pressed to convince me that our modern food is not part of the problem but the actual problem is the people themselves, in the developed world. They have the option of choice, yet those choices may be constrained by financial concerns and the least expensive foods are often calorie rich yet nutritionally poor.

In conclusion, I think that most people eat more calories than they need and that most are quite unaware of this fact. Food is worshipped in our culture and every celebration and event has foods that we specifically promote and indulge in at those times of year. Food is comparatively inexpensive and readily available and our fast-paced lifestyle is addicted to convenience. The path of least resistance is the one most species will take, in order to conserve energy.

We are now consuming and conserving far more energy than most of us need.

Thank you for providing me with job security, lol.

Yep.

1) COOK for yourself and your family and VARY it.

2) Eat slowly, and STOP when you start to feel full.

3) CUT the cola. Entirely.

4) WALK, don't drive. Even in cities, public transport is better for you than a car - and you see your fellow human beings.

AND from fresh ingredients when possible....but great recommendations! My kids still grab, as adults, fruit or a carrot or something rather than junk food......

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Don't be nipping the sharks now, skeptic. They have a right to their carnivorous opinion.

I do agree that far too many people are lining their pockets by selling false hope and miracle cures, so on that we DO agree.

The general failing, in my opinion, is that people do not do their research and the result is unrealistic expectations. Most of them do not commit to a lifestyle change, therefore they suffer the rebound effect of the body's ability to adapt. I have a brother who eats too many meals at the golden arches and with the onset of middle age, he is sadly showing spread of the same. His genetics do not predispose him to obesity but his diet surely does.

An interesting correlation I have noted is that apathy about weight seems to increase along with the increase in weight. He (and others) talks about eating healthier and getting more active, yet four hours later he is 'just grabbing a bite' at another convenience 'human feedlot'.

All of the people that I know, (which admittedly is not a huge sum) who do not indulge in processed food/take out save on rare occasion, are of a healthy weight.

Of the overweight ones that I am in close enough proximity to observe their dietary habits, I would confidently say that an extended period on a caloric restricted diet with activity would restore them to a 'generally regarded as healthy' weight. Unless the psychology of what is causing them to eat more calories than they utilize is addressed, the weight loss would not be permanent.

Please note that I am not talking about people who may have disorders that affect the way their body processes food.

The people that I have observed are stuffing their maws like cattle at a feedlot. 'Why?', is the question that comes to my mind.

I agree. One has to change for more than as long as it takes to lose XX number of pounds to keep it off.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Don't be nipping the sharks now, skeptic. They have a right to their carnivorous opinion.

I do agree that far too many people are lining their pockets by selling false hope and miracle cures, so on that we DO agree.

The general failing, in my opinion, is that people do not do their research and the result is unrealistic expectations. Most of them do not commit to a lifestyle change, therefore they suffer the rebound effect of the body's ability to adapt. I have a brother who eats too many meals at the golden arches and with the onset of middle age, he is sadly showing spread of the same. His genetics do not predispose him to obesity but his diet surely does.

An interesting correlation I have noted is that apathy about weight seems to increase along with the increase in weight. He (and others) talks about eating healthier and getting more active, yet four hours later he is 'just grabbing a bite' at another convenience 'human feedlot'.

All of the people that I know, (which admittedly is not a huge sum) who do not indulge in processed food/take out save on rare occasion, are of a healthy weight.

Of the overweight ones that I am in close enough proximity to observe their dietary habits, I would confidently say that an extended period on a caloric restricted diet with activity would restore them to a 'generally regarded as healthy' weight. Unless the psychology of what is causing them to eat more calories than they utilize is addressed, the weight loss would not be permanent.

Please note that I am not talking about people who may have disorders that affect the way their body processes food.

The people that I have observed are stuffing their maws like cattle at a feedlot. 'Why?', is the question that comes to my mind.

I think your point about take-aways (or carry-outs) is a good one. I've always cooked, even just for myself when I was single. Cooking is quite therapeutic but it always takes longer to cook something than to eat it. So there's always a balance between how hungry one is and the effort of getting up and cooking. Resorting to pizza or a hamburger is fatal if it becomes a habit. You forget how to cook, you can sit on the sofa without even venturing out to buy food ingredients, and just order whenever you feel like it, with no effort. Result - an unenviable impression of the Graf Zeppelin and an inability to climb the stairs without becoming breathless.

Another good discipline is traditional eating together, at table, with a bit of ceremony. It's ridiculous to present junk food at such an occasion. The tradition is common to most cultures but long working hours and TV tend to break it down if you don't watch out.

Thee things are habits which need to be embedded in lifestyle, permanently. A quick fix diet will do nothing if habits are not permanently changed.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Don't be nipping the sharks now, skeptic. They have a right to their carnivorous opinion.

I do agree that far too many people are lining their pockets by selling false hope and miracle cures, so on that we DO agree.

The general failing, in my opinion, is that people do not do their research and the result is unrealistic expectations. Most of them do not commit to a lifestyle change, therefore they suffer the rebound effect of the body's ability to adapt. I have a brother who eats too many meals at the golden arches and with the onset of middle age, he is sadly showing spread of the same. His genetics do not predispose him to obesity but his diet surely does.

An interesting correlation I have noted is that apathy about weight seems to increase along with the increase in weight. He (and others) talks about eating healthier and getting more active, yet four hours later he is 'just grabbing a bite' at another convenience 'human feedlot'.

All of the people that I know, (which admittedly is not a huge sum) who do not indulge in processed food/take out save on rare occasion, are of a healthy weight.

Of the overweight ones that I am in close enough proximity to observe their dietary habits, I would confidently say that an extended period on a caloric restricted diet with activity would restore them to a 'generally regarded as healthy' weight. Unless the psychology of what is causing them to eat more calories than they utilize is addressed, the weight loss would not be permanent.

Please note that I am not talking about people who may have disorders that affect the way their body processes food.

The people that I have observed are stuffing their maws like cattle at a feedlot. 'Why?', is the question that comes to my mind.

I think your point about take-aways (or carry-outs) is a good one. I've always cooked, even just for myself when I was single. Cooking is quite therapeutic but it always takes longer to cook something than to eat it. So there's alway's a balance between how hungry one is and the effort of getting up and cooking. Resorting to pizza or a hamburger is fatal if it becomes a habit. You forget how to cook, you can sit on the sofa without even venturing out to buy food ingredients, and just order whenever you feel like it, with no effort. Result - an unenviable impression of the Graf Zeppelin.

I live in Hawai'i, ten months a year.

My husband lives in Hawa'i about 3 months a year.

We live together about 5 months a year.

I cook for myself every day.

He barely can eat what he cooks for himself, but to give him credit, he did ask me questions and eats healthy.

Cooking for one sucks.

I prefer cooking for two.

Point is.

It takes time to cook for one. I have gotten to the point I WILL make chicken in white whine (oops wine) sauce for one...and I am good with it!

But it does take a bit a discipline...and sometimes I just really want a small Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza...but we have none

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Don't be nipping the sharks now, skeptic. They have a right to their carnivorous opinion.

I do agree that far too many people are lining their pockets by selling false hope and miracle cures, so on that we DO agree.

The general failing, in my opinion, is that people do not do their research and the result is unrealistic expectations. Most of them do not commit to a lifestyle change, therefore they suffer the rebound effect of the body's ability to adapt. I have a brother who eats too many meals at the golden arches and with the onset of middle age, he is sadly showing spread of the same. His genetics do not predispose him to obesity but his diet surely does.

An interesting correlation I have noted is that apathy about weight seems to increase along with the increase in weight. He (and others) talks about eating healthier and getting more active, yet four hours later he is 'just grabbing a bite' at another convenience 'human feedlot'.

All of the people that I know, (which admittedly is not a huge sum) who do not indulge in processed food/take out save on rare occasion, are of a healthy weight.

Of the overweight ones that I am in close enough proximity to observe their dietary habits, I would confidently say that an extended period on a caloric restricted diet with activity would restore them to a 'generally regarded as healthy' weight. Unless the psychology of what is causing them to eat more calories than they utilize is addressed, the weight loss would not be permanent.

Please note that I am not talking about people who may have disorders that affect the way their body processes food.

The people that I have observed are stuffing their maws like cattle at a feedlot. 'Why?', is the question that comes to my mind.

I think your point about take-aways (or carry-outs) is a good one. I've always cooked, even just for myself when I was single. Cooking is quite therapeutic but it always takes longer to cook something than to eat it. So there's alway's a balance between how hungry one is and the effort of getting up and cooking. Resorting to pizza or a hamburger is fatal if it becomes a habit. You forget how to cook, you can sit on the sofa without even venturing out to buy food ingredients, and just order whenever you feel like it, with no effort. Result - an unenviable impression of the Graf Zeppelin.

I live in Hawai'i, ten months a year.

My husband lives in Hawa'i about 3 months a year.

We live together about 5 months a year.

I cook for myself every day.

He barely can eat what he cooks for himself, but to give him credit, he did ask me questions and eats healthy.

Cooking for one sucks.

I prefer cooking for two.

Point is.

It takes time to cook for one. I have gotten to the point I WILL make chicken in white whine (oops wine) sauce for one...and I am good with it!

But it does take a bit a discipline...and sometimes I just really want a small Papa Murphy's take and bake pizza...but we have none

Well, I only got married at 47 and lived mostly on my own before that. But I rowed a lot and had a big appetite. I found cooking something simple when I got back from work was a nice way to relax - and of course cooking for the various girlfriends when they came to stay the weekend was a reason to do something decent. Then I married a Frenchwoman, whose family always puts a tablecloth on and serves a couple of courses, if only a main dish, followed by salad, plus usually cheese. Which is nice: one takes one's time, one chats, - there may be a bottle of wine, and often it's then bedtime. Doesn't leave much room for TV, but that's no loss. And the children are damn' well expected to participate and stay until the meal is finished, which they happily accept, actually. Having tried it, Im sure this lifestyle is the key to a healthy attitude to food.

While obesity rates are lower in France than elsewhere in Europe, they are catching up and even there it has become a political issue.
I am asking as to why it is not a political issue in the UK, and the reason for this is that it would be a brave politician to do so as nearly all MP's are overweight including the PM. The last thing that David Cameron ought to mention is obesity.
Why is being overweight sometimes seen even today as a symbol of success?
There is one undoubted fact that nobody has touched on and that is we have a global food chain and have done for about 30 years which coincides with the world obesity crisis. We don't need to worry about food shortages after the failure of the local harvest. People would sometimes go hungry during the winter months and that was one sure way of keeping the weight down. So today it is effectively summer all year round.

Originally Posted by ox

While obesity rates are lower in France than elsewhere in Europe, they are catching up and even there it has become a political issue.
I am asking as to why it is not a political issue in the UK, and the reason for this is that it would be a brave politician to do so as nearly all MP's are overweight including the PM. The last thing that David Cameron ought to mention is obesity.
Why is being overweight sometimes seen even today as a symbol of success?
There is one undoubted fact that nobody has touched on and that is we have a global food chain and have done for about 30 years which coincides with the world obesity crisis. We don't need to worry about food shortages after the failure of the local harvest. People would sometimes go hungry during the winter months and that was one sure way of keeping the weight down. So today it is effectively summer all year round.

I think I alluded to some of the factors, but to list them briefly I'd say:

- we've all grown richer, so both the availability of food and its preparation can be taken for granted, if one chooses to pay for it,
- we often work longer hours, and sometimes the hours worked by different family members do not coincide, raising issues of who cooks and when, and who eats when and with whom, all of which conspire to make mealtimes less fun,
- we have a TV culture, which creates pressures to eat quickly and to a schedule determined by what's on the box,
- some of us, especially across the Atlantic, have been conned into thinking it's desirable to drink sweet fizzy drinks at any time of day, and even with food.

So it's a sort of pigs in clover effect and if one takes the line of least resistance one can end up a fat bastard.

Like you, I've noticed Cameron inflating. I suspect it's long hours, hence eating the wrong stuff, quickly, at the wrong time, combined with too much compulsory socialising. Imagine the dinner invitations he must get as PM!

I guess I am old school.

Dinner was at 6:30, at the kitchen table, with napkins and no television, radio or anything else. Food was passed around the table and we had to talk.

EVEN when I was working, just minus me.

EVEN when there were basketball and baseball and volleyball and golf schedules.

Dinner maybe a little later but the same drill.

My personal take on this is that talking about weight loss is very misleading. Muscle weighs more than fat, so if someone is using diet and exercise, they will probably not see any weight loss. They may actually see weight gain, which depresses them, hence the diet fails.

Using weight as a yardstick is misleading also because your weight will vary depending how much water your body is retaining, or whether you have been to the loo before weighing. Also most bathroom scales do not give consistent readings - depending on heat etc. - one needs to take a rolling average of the last 5 readings and look at the overall trend to reduce this problem.

Another factor is the amount of calories - mostly in the form of hidden sugars - that is in our daily food. Many people do not realise that even something such as tomato ketchup has got high fructose corn syrup in it these days, which is basically rocket fuel and way too calorific.

I have to say though that the size of portions in the USA can be obscene! A 'single portion' of pasta you get in some establishments could easily feed 2 normal people. Also the number of folk who cannot seem to do anything without constantly drinking from a 'double gulp' container of some hideous liquid that is basically thinly disguised sugar in solution - enough to last you a whole week in one go. Obesity seems to me to correlate with lack of intelligence.


My advice to anyone who will listen is to throw away the bathroom scales and simply use a mirror. Excess fat on the abdomen is very easy to see and is very bad for one's health. As a doctor friend once told me; the prognosis is not good. Exercise and eat healthily to reduce your body fat but DO NOT weigh yourself. Measure your progress with a mirror and the fit of your clothes.








OB

Originally Posted by One beer

My advice to anyone who will listen is to throw away the bathroom scales and simply use a mirror. Excess fat on the abdomen is very easy to see and is very bad for one's health. As a doctor friend once told me; the prognosis is not good. Exercise and eat healthily to reduce your body fat but DO NOT weigh yourself. Measure your progress with a mirror and the fit of your clothes.


Speaking of fit; Babe, you look fantastic!

OB

Mahalo!! I eat pretty healthy. I love fruit, and I exercise and power walk on the beach (in the sand with water at least up to my ankles if not higher) about 2 1/2 miles pretty much every day...the other days, I hit the gymn for about a 10 minute upper body workout. I golf. I also have done sit ups, pushups and stretches every night since I was around 8.

Mainland I walk with my clubs as I no longer carry but push cart it and we are a bit up and down so about 4 miles 3 days a week. Same night schedule.

I was a gymnast, for 10 years, and at school, also played softball (pitcher), volleyball (setter, JHS), plus theatre which includes movement.

Keeping fit means diet and exercise. Not extreme's, just consistency IMHO.

Thanks for the compliment. Very kind of you.

Originally Posted by One beer

Obesity seems to me to correlate with lack of intelligence.

That's interesting. Can you provide some evidence.

I too do press-ups and sit ups every week day, 30 of each, and have done so since I was a teenager, (I have a rest at weekends). Many of my peers cannot believe my age when I tell them - they assume I am about 5 years younger than I actually am. So as well as keeping fit, it must have a beneficial effect on one's overall health and wellbeing. I also run/jog cross country about 10km roughly once a week, sometimes twice.

I don't do gyms - I prefer to run in the countryside and observe all the wildlife and trees etc. - so I have no gym fees to pay and can exercise whenever I want. The only equipment I need is running kit and trainers, and I carry a couple of 1.5kg weights in my hands when I run, just to give my arms and shoulders a bit of a workout too.

Combine this with healthy eating - keeping away from the fat and sugars, and it works for me; It's also very easy to do. The very simple, easy exercises that I do take no more than 10 mins a day, and about 40 mins for the run every week. This keeps me trim, lean and well toned - I have good definition and more than a hint of a six pack. My heart/lung health and efficiency are also kept high.

My personal theory is that if your body is well toned, rather than covered in fat, then calories get burnt up more by the muscle than fat would do? So it is easier to keep trim.

I can't believe the size of some people one sees - how on earth do they let themselves get into that state?


ox: I have no evidence per se, just my own observations - and I'm talking obese, not just a little plump. There are exceptions of course, but I see a general correlation.



OB

Originally Posted by One beer

And it shows!

That's interesting, I too do press-ups and sit ups every week day, 30 of each, and have done so since I was a teenager, (I have a rest at weekends). Many of my peers cannot believe my age when I tell them - they assume I am about 5 years younger than I actually am. So as well as keeping fit, it must have a beneficial effect on one's overall health and wellbeing. I also run/jog cross country about 10km roughly once a week, sometimes twice.

I don't do gyms - I prefer to run in the countryside and observe all the wildlife and trees etc. - so I have no gym fees to pay and can exercise whenever I want. The only equipment I need is running kit and trainers, and I carry a couple of 1.5kg weights in my hands when I run, just to give my arms and shoulders a bit of a workout too.

Combine this with healthy eating - keeping away from the fat and sugars, and it works for me; It's also very easy to do. The very simple, easy exercises that I do take no more than 10 mins a day, and about 40 mins for the run every week. This keeps me trim, lean and well toned - I have good definition and more than a hint of a six pack.

My personal theory is that if your body is well toned, rather than covered in fat, then calories get burnt up more by the muscle than fat would do? So it is easier to keep trim.

I can't believe the size of some people one sees - how on earth do they let themselves get into that state?


OB

Can't run....tried to again was in bed for three weeks and my doctor almost shot me..comment "WHAT THE **** were you thinking of *******!!! NO RUNNING

I eat what I want, but balancing diet with exercise you are pretty ok.....I have privilege to two gyms so this is easier for me. Here when I am in Cali visiting for a few months..I have access but *L* I have to get stuff done at the house! I golf but I don't get to the gym a lot.....though we have a very small one in the house here.
I do NOT do treadmills...

Babe, you seem to do all the right things, but what about the lazies like me?
I get up in the morning and I do the full 5 Tibetan Rites in 5-6 minutes, so I don't need the gym. Where I fall down somewhat is that I could do better with the T5T rites diet. I'm not overweight but this makes massive sense to me: Low fat, low sugar and only one course per meal taken only 2-3 times per day.

Yeah,

When I was very young and at home, we had just three modest meals per day. Breakfast, lunch and tea.....and that was pretty much it! Sometimes; for a treat on Sundays, Mum would cut a normal sized Mars bar into five pieces and each family member had a little piece.

Nothing else. NO snacks, NO supper, NO 'ooh I just feel a little peckish'. And we were all normally sized. There might have been just one or two fat kids in the whole school.

But now....Well ox has hit the nail on the head:

The food corporations have made their money by lacing our food with fat, sugar and salt and so getting us addicted to food. Why else would they do that other than for profit? The consumer has limited choice, and it is all misleading. The sugar in a 'healthy' glass of orange juice is about the same as that in 'unhealthy' cola.

Food companies have learned how to get money out of us - it has become a science in itself. They have made us addicted to food and advertised it ruthlessly. If you analyse breakfast cereal for example, they are constantly trying to invent new and better ways of selling us more sugar. Sugar is a very cheap ingredient, so it makes lots of profits, but it is also highly addictive, so they sell lots of it. Sugar that is ingested but not used by the body as energy straight away is converted into fat and stored in our bodies. Not many fat people seem to understand this basic fact.

Fruit juice is another example. It is marketed as being healthy, which it sort of is, BUT; A glass of apple juice contains about 5 apples reduced to liquid. You can easily drink the juice in one go but you would struggle to eat 5 apples in one go. And if you did, you wouldn't be hungry again for hours. And that is one problem - hidden sugar, even natural fruit sugars will make you fat.

I now do the 5 and 2 diet; You eat normally for 5 days and choose any 2 days in the week, not consecutive ones, and eat only 600 calories for men, 500 for women on those two days. You can drink tea/coffee etc. but no alcohol on the fast days - a benefit in itself. I am not overweight - the reason I do this is for my health; It turns out that the human body does not maintain and repair itself when it is full of food. It only repairs itself when it is fasting. Sounds counterintuitive, but that's what they are saying now. Anyway, eating just 600 calories for one day is do-able. You do feel hungry, but after an hour or so the hunger goes away. And the next morning you can eat a full breakfast. But actually, in my experience, by the time next morning comes around, and I have been promising myself a big breakfast, I find that I am no hungrier than normal, and tend to eat a normal breakfast. I have been following this for 4 months and have lost 3kg and my clothes are loose.


OB


(By the way, the only reason I know I've lost weight is because I just had my annual pilot's medical. As I've said, don't bother weighing yourself during a diet - use a mirror).

Originally Posted by ox

Babe, you seem to do all the right things, but what about the lazies like me?
I get up in the morning and I do the full 5 Tibetan Rites in 5-6 minutes, so I don't need the gym. Where I fall down somewhat is that I could do better with the T5T rites diet. I'm not overweight but this makes massive sense to me: Low fat, low sugar and only one course per meal taken only 2-3 times per day.

First of all, I am not perfect. In fact I am so FAR from that it does not even boggle my mind nor anyone else's.

I'm being blunt, but do not mean to offend.

Get off your duff and make the effort to do it! Once you start, and make it part of your routine, it will be just like your morning 5 Tibetan Rites!

Originally Posted by One beer

Yeah,

When I was very young and at home, we had just three modest meals per day. Breakfast, lunch and tea.....and that was pretty much it! Sometimes; for a treat on Sundays, Mum would cut a normal sized Mars bar into five pieces and each family member had a little piece.

Nothing else. NO snacks, NO supper, NO 'ooh I just feel a little peckish'. And we were all normally sized. There might have been just one or two fat kids in the whole school.

But now....Well ox has hit the nail on the head:

The food corporations have made their money by lacing our food with fat, sugar and salt and so getting us addicted to food. Why else would they do that other than for profit? The consumer has limited choice, and it is all misleading. The sugar in a 'healthy' glass of orange juice is about the same as that in 'unhealthy' cola.

I now do the 5 and 2 diet; You eat normally for 5 days and choose any 2 days in the week, not consecutive ones, and eat only 600 calories for men, 500 for women on those two days. You can drink tea/coffee etc. but no alcohol on the fast days - a benefit in itself. I am not overweight - the reason I do this is for my health; It turns out that the human body does not maintain and repair itself when it is full of food. It only repairs itself when it is fasting. Sounds counterintuitive, but that's what they are saying now. Anyway, eating just 600 calories for one day is do-able. You do feel hungry, but after an hour or so the hunger goes away. And the next morning you can eat a full breakfast. But actually, in my experience, by the time next morning comes around, and I have been promising myself a big breakfast, I find that I am no hungrier than normal, and tend to eat a normal breakfast. I have been following this for 4 months and have lost 3kg and my clothes are loose.

OB

(By the way, the only reason I know I've lost weight is because I just had my annual pilot's medical. As I've said, don't bother weighing yourself during a diet - use a mirror).

Congrats. I do think that cooking for yourself is really important. I often make a little more for my "snack".

Growing up, dad was an airplane technician for the US Govt. on a Naval Base. He was on the swing shift detail, so during summers and on weekends, dinner was at 1:00 p.m. At 5:00 we had a light "supper" of some soup, or salad. Not really a bad way to eat.

Agree about the mirror and clothing also.

Mirror and clothing do not work.

Mirror - people can have very distorted body images and see fat when it isn't there, or see themselves as thinner than they are. It's a set up for an eating disorder. As a matter of fact, yesterday I was in a department store (not clothes shopping) and I happened to glance at myself as I walked past a full length mirror. I thought that my reflection looked thinner than it did in my bedroom mirror that morning. I think that stores like that sometimes have mirrors that are slightly distorted so people think they look thinner in clothes when they try them on, which makes them more likely to buy them. The store lighting may have something to do with it as well.

Clothing - vanity sizing. Clothing sizes have changed over the years so that the same number on the label fits a larger sized person. This is done because people get depressed when they discover they wear a larger size than they thought and don't buy anything. For example, I currently wear a UK size 8 or 10. (I am female, for those who didn't know and were confused by my screen name.) That is supposed to be equivalent to a US 4 or 6. Once I wanted to buy a vintage dress (from the 1950s or thereabouts) and could not get a Size 12 to fit over my chest. I also hear women in the US claim to wear a size 0,1 or 2, and then state measurements that are about the same as mine, so maybe the US/UK conversion has changed since I last knew about it.

I also wore a US size 4 or 6 about 25 years ago, when I was borderline underweight and much thinner than I am now.

If you are going to measure, the best thing to use is a tape measure. However, even that doesn't mean much, because it doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. There can be two people with the same measurements, but one has a much higher body fat percentage than the other.

In addition, you can be thin and have a high body fat percentage, with lots of body fat around your organs, which is the most dangerous. This would not be visible in a mirror.

Thin and untoned is not as healthy as larger and toned.

I am in my late 40s now and I actually don't want to be too thin, as it increases my risk of osteoporosis, which runs in my family. I am working on strength and muscle development. If this means that the number on the scale will be higher, so be it.

Someone who is dieting to to the point where they look "fragile" is probably not very healthy.

Some excellent points, Alec. A few years ago, I lost a lot of weight due to stress and unhealthy working conditions. I found myself slightly below my idealized number for body weight.

Not only did I look like I had just walked out of a concentration camp, I also felt fragile and physically lacking in fortitude, where usually I have the strength of most men my size from a life of following physical pursuits. I am now recovered, 19 lbs heavier and wrestling 78 lb metal fence panels about with relative ease once again. The gate panel, at over 100 lbs was rather a challenge but I managed that one too, lol... I could stand to tone up a bit more and possibly shed 5 lbs but I sure don't ever want to get in the state I was a while back.

The clothing size thing is also noted. I have always worn a size 12 and now I fit into a 10 and sometimes even an 8? Ridiculous strategy. If you dames be fat broads, then get your lips sutured. Don't be confusing the size and fit for the rest of us...

Originally Posted by One beer

I now do the 5 and 2 diet; You eat normally for 5 days and choose any 2 days in the week, not consecutive ones, and eat only 600 calories for men, 500 for women on those two days.

Sounds good but whenever I go into a bookshop the shelves are heaving under the weight of cookery books which are apparently there to educate us into eating healthily. Then I go home and switch on the TV and am usually inundated by cookery programs fronted by guys (nearly always men) who are clearly overweight themselves and in some cases even admit to being 'morbidly obese'. They have certainly made a lot of money out of it all, and that's why they continue.

We're never going to be skinny but we have shed a lot of weight and now we're not sticking to to a strict 1500 calories a day or whatever week after week forever. That wouldn't be healthy.

'That wouldn't be healthy'. What?
We don't need these people. This is nonsense. One of their recipes contains 480 calories per 'portion' (roast beef and gravy). Mmmm....now I have a good sense of smell and taste, but I'm not tempted. Once a week maybe, but the last big meal I ate was in July.
The best advice I can give is try to forget about food. If you don't feel hungry then why eat? I am safe in knowledge that if I feel hungry I'm not going to starve. That luxury was not available to many in the past. If I have a low food day I seem to feel better for it the next day.

Mirror works for me. Much better than the sort of "toy" weighing scales the shops sell us. And how do you allow for monthly and daily variations in your weight which are nothing to do with your diet?

When I said clothing, I didn't mean go out and buy a new size 8 dress, Alec, store's sizes are notoriously variable. I meant when the jeans you normally wear start to become loser than normal, or you find you need to do your belt up one more notch; then you have lost some body size.

ox, I don't get you. Just buy a calorie counting book and work out how much 600 calories are. Then only eat this food on your fast days*. If a normal adult male requires 2500 calories per day, after a month, you will have not eaten 15,200 calories that you otherwise would have. This will make a difference.

Obviously, don't watch cooking programs, or anything to do with food!

The great thing about the 5 & 2 is that one is not dieting every day - it's not even most days. So you completely avoid that horrible feeling of doom when you're on a diet - that you can't eat a curry or have a few beers, because on the 5 & 2 you can do these things. On your normal eating days you can eat normally. If a fast day goes wrong - a friend you haven't seen for a year drops round and takes you out for lunch for example, simply do the fast day tomorrow or whenever. Just try to do two fast days every week.


OB


* Here's a 600 calorie day I follow:

2 eggs poached or boiled on a single piece of normal toast, (i.e not sugar bread or anything). No butter, oils or anything else.

A piece of salmon, 10 small tomatoes and a good handful of french beans. Cooked how you like, (I grill the salmon, boil the beans and leave the tomatos raw), but not with oils or dressings, or anything else.

A good handful of raspberries, no cream or dressing or anything else.

Tea or coffee with milk a few times throughout the day.

Nothing else, except plain still or fizzy water (with no flavourings).


You will feel hungry, but the feeling goes after an hour. You may need to distract yourself. Get out and about. Go for a long walk or bike ride. Go to a museum.

The next day you can eat a normal breakfast - Don't do two fast days consecutively.

Why not try this and tell us how you get on?

OB

I wear a 00...I have at the highest worn 25 years ago a size 3.....

however on top..I have to buy a size larger...and then have the rest altered.

I had my own clothing business.

Size 3 is now a one....9 is now a 7....then again each manufacturer's sizing varies...shoes too, by the way

Many people do not see themselves accurately in a mirror, for various psychological reasons. Someone with anorexia who is dangerously underweight can look in a mirror and see nothing but fat.

Another issue with mirrors is posture. I can "gain" almost 10 pounds just by slouching. Look at before and after weight loss photos. In the before photo, the model will usually be slouching with their stomach stuck out. In the after photo, they will be standing straight, shoulders back.

I know about shoes. Now I suddenly wear a children's shoe size in some brands. My feet haven't shrunk.

Another thing with clothing is that waists have been enlarged. I always have to wear jeans with a belt now because my hip size is now about two sizes larger than my waist size. It's assumed that women don't have waists anymore.

It seems to me that in America, people tend to either be obese or want to be exceptionally thin. There is no middle ground. People on American TV tend to be much thinner than their UK counterparts. Being super-thin is treated as the ideal.

I can see why people give up and just stop exercising and eat the junk food they enjoy. You need realistic goals. It's one thing to lose a few pounds to be a healthier weight, another to lose weight to the point where you are weak, unhealthy and malnourished. Some people are naturally thin; others force themselves to be thin. You can often tell, because they look drained and tired, not healthy. Personally, I have found that when I drop below a certain weight, I catch colds all the time. I need a certain amount of body fat for my immune system to work properly.

I need a certain amount of body fat for my immune system to work properly.

What on earth????

Sounds like you are kidding yourself.

A tiny percentage of fat, maybe but the main thing is; You need a healthy diet and exercise regime. Also, take mineral and vitamin supplements - i.e. give your body the best possible chance to repair and maintain itself.

Fasting, as mentioned, will also increase your body's repair and immune system functioning, to your benefit.

OB

I wouldn't say drastically reduced how much you eat is key...actually you're body stores more fat when it feels it's being deprived. Instead of eating very little..eat a normal 2,000ish calorie diet but eat clean! No fatty food that have no nutrient value (snack food), no sweets, and more veggies and fresh protein. Try to cook your own food. Boxed meals and premade stuff tends to have too much sodium and added chemicals that are bad for you. Bake things in the oven rather than fry them, don't load condiments on (try not to even use mayo!) Working out in combination is extremely effective. Find what works for you and make sure you increase the intensity over time. Also, try not to worry about BMI. For me, I see that as being more of a tool for say body builders but for regular people you just want to make sure you're at a healthy weight, can exercise, and if you are toned, then great!

Let me repeat once more to those who failed to understand the first time.

In terms of weight loss, there is a big difference between short and long term weight loss.

Anyone can lose weight short term. Food discipline for one month, whether fasting, low cal diets or whatever will do it.
However, long term (5 years plus) is another matter. The majority of people who try to lose weight will end up worse than before, long term. For the vast bulk of people, it is a very bad idea to set out to lose weight.

The yo yo diet is common and very damaging to human health. Losing weight and putting it back on and losing it again etc., is not a good idea. The person who simply remains the same level of overweight will be much more healthy.

The smart move is to set out to gain health, not lose weight. This is done by moderate and regular exercise, and a balanced diet. You will not lose weight, but you will wind up healthier and better looking, and fitter. Unless you are morbidly obese, the extra weight will not harm you, as long as you use moderate exercise and balanced diet. If you are , in fact, morbidly obese, then surgery is by far, very much by far, your best option.

All of those people who give advise about losing weight are, in fact, harming those they give the advise to.

Lot of sense in that Skeptic.

In particular your comment about gaining health is a good one. That should be a universal slogan.

My feeling is that folk should not let themselves get fat in the first place, and if they are fat, they should do something about it. A lot of stored fat is a bad thing. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to comment on your "cure" for the morbidly obese though. I think that most people who let themselves get morbidly obese are lazy and/or unintelligent. A few have psychological issues where something terrible has happened in their life, and eating food is strongly associated with feeling better about that situation. Those folk need to see psychologists, before seeing dietitians.

But the rest of them need to sort themselves out. Otherwise the human race will end up eating crap until it comes out of their ears and riding around on mobility scooters. Was it the film Wal-E where the humans are orbiting the earth in a spaceship - each one in a mobility scooter equipped with a television? That's how we might become if we are not careful.

I don't agree with talking about 'losing weight' which is why I talk about using a mirror to assess one's body fat instead.




OB

Originally Posted by One beer

Lot of sense in that Skeptic.

In particular your comment about gaining health is a good one. That should be a universal slogan.

My feeling is that folk should not let themselves get fat in the first place, and if they are fat, they should do something about it. A lot of stored fat is a bad thing. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to comment on your "cure" for the morbidly obese though. I think that most people who let themselves get morbidly obese are lazy and/or unintelligent. A few have psychological issues where something terrible has happened in their life, and eating food is strongly associated with feeling better about that situation. Those folk need to see psychologists, before seeing dietitians.

But the rest of them need to sort themselves out. Otherwise the human race will end up eating crap until it comes out of their ears and riding around on mobility scooters. Was it the film Wal-E where the humans are orbiting the earth in a spaceship - each one in a mobility scooter equipped with a television? That's how we might become if we are not careful.

I don't agree with talking about 'losing weight' which is why I talk about using a mirror to assess one's body fat instead.






OB

I agree.

I don't agree with it either. Eating healthier, and excercising means you will become healthier, in general, barring some unforseen health issue or accident.

I am a pragmatist.
I look at the data and make my decisions based on the hard data, and with a clear cut goal in mind.

The data shows that attempts to lose weight, with the exception of surgery, are nearly always futile in the long run, and damaging to health overall. Much better to focus on good health, forgetting weight control, and achieve something positive.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Babe

Diet and exercise do play a role in weight control, but not one that can be readily controlled by personal effort. There are people with naturally low appetites who stay trim, and there are people who enjoy exercise, and do not gain appetite as a result. However, most people are not like that. Most people who try to lose weight through diet and exercise simply fail in the long term. Sure, they can lose weight short term, but they almost always put it all back on, and rather often a bit more, in the long term.

One research study I read divided people who wanted to lose weight into two groups. One had no weight loss program. The other group was encouraged to lose weight through diet. Five years later, only 5% of those who lost weight still weighed less than when they started, while 60% had put back so much weight that they were heavier than the non diet group. All of which means that most people, most of the time, are harmed by efforts to lose weight.

The modern view of weight gain/loss has the realization that many other factors are involved, and the old idea of calories in = calories out is a fallacy. You cannot control weight in that simplistic manner, since our bodies respond to such efforts, generally in such a way as to stymie our efforts.

However, I will still tell anyone who is prepared to listen that a good balanced diet and moderate regular exercise is important. But it is not important for controlling weight. It is important for increasing health.

I agree with you. If you are obese it's mostly caused by your lifestyle and when you do things to improve your health you are making lifestyle changes. Those changes may involve changing your exercise and dietary habits. If the changes you've made start improving your health, you'd be a fool not to make those changes a permanent part of your lifestyle. Once you start caring about your personal health and not just taking it for granted, then as you age and your body changes you should only need to make minor tweaks to your lifestyle from time to time. If you don't want to put in the work required to achieve a healthy lifestyle you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by skeptic

Babe

Diet and exercise do play a role in weight control, but not one that can be readily controlled by personal effort. There are people with naturally low appetites who stay trim, and there are people who enjoy exercise, and do not gain appetite as a result. However, most people are not like that. Most people who try to lose weight through diet and exercise simply fail in the long term. Sure, they can lose weight short term, but they almost always put it all back on, and rather often a bit more, in the long term.

One research study I read divided people who wanted to lose weight into two groups. One had no weight loss program. The other group was encouraged to lose weight through diet. Five years later, only 5% of those who lost weight still weighed less than when they started, while 60% had put back so much weight that they were heavier than the non diet group. All of which means that most people, most of the time, are harmed by efforts to lose weight.

The modern view of weight gain/loss has the realization that many other factors are involved, and the old idea of calories in = calories out is a fallacy. You cannot control weight in that simplistic manner, since our bodies respond to such efforts, generally in such a way as to stymie our efforts.

However, I will still tell anyone who is prepared to listen that a good balanced diet and moderate regular exercise is important. But it is not important for controlling weight. It is important for increasing health.

I agree with you. If you are obese it's mostly caused by your lifestyle and when you do things to improve your health you are making lifestyle changes. Those changes may involve changing your exercise and dietary habits. If the changes you've made start improving your health, you'd be a fool not to make those changes a permanent part of your lifestyle. Once you start caring about your personal health and not just taking it for granted, then as you age and your body changes you should only need to make minor tweaks to your lifestyle from time to time. If you don't want to put in the work required to achieve a healthy lifestyle you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Bingo!

The problem is people coming to this acknowledgment!!!!!! Some just can't get there!

Originally Posted by skeptic

Let me repeat once more to those who failed to understand the first time.

In terms of weight loss, there is a big difference between short and long term weight loss.

Anyone can lose weight short term. Food discipline for one month, whether fasting, low cal diets or whatever will do it.
However, long term (5 years plus) is another matter. The majority of people who try to lose weight will end up worse than before, long term. For the vast bulk of people, it is a very bad idea to set out to lose weight.

The yo yo diet is common and very damaging to human health. Losing weight and putting it back on and losing it again etc., is not a good idea. The person who simply remains the same level of overweight will be much more healthy.

The smart move is to set out to gain health, not lose weight. This is done by moderate and regular exercise, and a balanced diet. You will not lose weight, but you will wind up healthier and better looking, and fitter. Unless you are morbidly obese, the extra weight will not harm you, as long as you use moderate exercise and balanced diet. If you are , in fact, morbidly obese, then surgery is by far, very much by far, your best option.

All of those people who give advise about losing weight are, in fact, harming those they give the advise to.

I am not entirely in agreement with you as I think you paint with too broad of strokes (for example, many people who gain weight as they age can indeed return to their former weight by returning to their former activity levels) but in general, yes, the goal should be fitness and a healthy diet, rather than weight loss.

At 25 I weighed 155, working in a warehouse, riding my bike 5 miles to work every day, and I was solid muscle. Working a less strenuous job, I averaged a fairly muscular 135-140 for most of my adult life. At 42, I am again 155, but I am much more sedentary, coming out of years of working at home (low muscle-building, lower metabolism) followed by a surgery that put me on light duty for months, so now I am packing a lot of fat. Gradually working up to my former exercise level, and curtailing unnecessary empty calories like sugar and alcohol while refocusing my diet back to the foods I grew up with (lean meat, fish, New World fruits and vegetables) should see me back at a fairly muscular 135-140 within the next year, and for as long as I maintain that lifestyle... which shouldn't be hard unless I have an injury or other unexpected health problems.

Losing unwanted fat and increasing muscle strength/bulk is not a futile goal, if it is done gradually as part of a lifestyle shift, and especially if the goal is to return to a fitness level and waistline that one maintained for years in the past.

In retrospect, it strikes me as somewhat funny that my ex-husband thought the foods I grew up with are "weird", and I had to learn to cook European-style for him, but he still battles his weight and health, and my "weird" hillbilly/native diet always kept me pretty happy, healthy and fit. My one weakness is spaghetti... I love the stuff!

Eat sensibly, exercise.

I am naturally slender. Some are not genetically made that way and carry a bit more on their frame.

As long as it is healthy, find.

Diets really don't work long term, and food intake is different for each of us NOT as in pigging out but as in sustaining a good weight.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

I agree with you. If you are obese it's mostly caused by your lifestyle and when you do things to improve your health you are making lifestyle changes. Those changes may involve changing your exercise and dietary habits. If the changes you've made start improving your health, you'd be a fool not to make those changes a permanent part of your lifestyle. Once you start caring about your personal health and not just taking it for granted, then as you age and your body changes you should only need to make minor tweaks to your lifestyle from time to time. If you don't want to put in the work required to achieve a healthy lifestyle you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Bingo!

The problem is people coming to this acknowledgment!!!!!! Some just can't get there!

Yeah! That's easy enough to say, but if you are experiencing hunger pain, just not eating is just as hard as not smoking to a smoker. So you need to work on an over all strategy to achieve your goals. From a man's point of view a nagging wife or girlfriend might help. Oops! I don't have one of those.

I've heard some companies are experimenting with offering incentive bonuses to employees to lose excess pounds and that it is showing some good results at least in the short term.

Media debate recently (plus others in the past) suggested that people these days do not sleep enough and even this puts weight on. I don't know why this should be unless more people than ever are fiddling around with gadgets at midnight instead of falling asleep. No doubt they need to snack at the same time in order to maintain brain function. It was also suggested that no diet ever devised has been shown to work in the long term. That has to be true otherwise we would all be adopting it. And exercise is like sleep as most forms of exercise and all sleep prevent you from eating while engaged.
Another thing I don't understand is why I am concerned about this as I'm not overweight. Except that I would much rather see healthy and happy humans around me, engaging in open-air healthy activity like walking, jogging or cycling than endlessly burning up the road on 4 wheels and the planet with it. I am starting to feel sad every time I pass the McShit and see schoolkids hurrying inside after lessons. Not something that really bothered me until recently, then I noticed it and now I always will.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

I agree with you. If you are obese it's mostly caused by your lifestyle and when you do things to improve your health you are making lifestyle changes. Those changes may involve changing your exercise and dietary habits. If the changes you've made start improving your health, you'd be a fool not to make those changes a permanent part of your lifestyle. Once you start caring about your personal health and not just taking it for granted, then as you age and your body changes you should only need to make minor tweaks to your lifestyle from time to time. If you don't want to put in the work required to achieve a healthy lifestyle you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Bingo!

The problem is people coming to this acknowledgment!!!!!! Some just can't get there!

Yeah! That's easy enough to say, but if you are experiencing hunger pain, just not eating is just as hard as not smoking to a smoker. So you need to work on an over all strategy to achieve your goals. From a man's point of view a nagging wife or girlfriend might help. Oops! I don't have one of those.

I've heard some companies are experimenting with offering incentive bonuses to employees to lose excess pounds and that it is showing some good results at least in the short term.

*handing you a carrot and some celery*

Originally Posted by ox

Media debate recently (plus others in the past) suggested that people these days do not sleep enough and even this puts weight on. I don't know why this should be unless more people than ever are fiddling around with gadgets at midnight instead of falling asleep. No doubt they need to snack at the same time in order to maintain brain function. It was also suggested that no diet ever devised has been shown to work in the long term. That has to be true otherwise we would all be adopting it. And exercise is like sleep as most forms of exercise and all sleep prevent you from eating while engaged.
Another thing I don't understand is why I am concerned about this as I'm not overweight. Except that I would much rather see healthy and happy humans around me, engaging in open-air healthy activity like walking, jogging or cycling than endlessly burning up the road on 4 wheels and the planet with it. I am starting to feel sad every time I pass the McShit and see schoolkids hurrying inside after lessons. Not something that really bothered me until recently, then I noticed it and now I always will.

Where I live, sometimes you need to get to those 4 WD's to get to your destination.

Originally Posted by babe

*handing you a carrot and some celery*

I'm still hungry.

It is, of course, very easy for people who are not morbidly obese to pontificate about how all they need to do is cut down on what they eat. In one sense it is correct, since a morbidly obese person who is deprived of food will shed weight very rapidly. However, research shows that, in reality, such people struggle like hell to lose weight. Since we have this ethic about liberty, and we frown on people being locked up to deprive them of food, the truth is that morbidly obese people tend to stay morbidly obese, un less they get surgery.

Stomach bypass surgery is interesting, because it does not just stop people eating too much. It also reduces appetite drastically. There are clearly hormone changes following such surgery, which affect appetite. Such surgery has a very high success rate in getting very overweight or obese people to lose a lot of weight, and lose it long term. Surgeons are a bit reluctant to use such surgery, though, unless there are clear health dangers in leaving them obese, since the surgery itself carries risks and people can die on the operating table.

My own feeling is that if you are very overweight, and can financially afford the surgery, the risk is worth taking.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is, of course, very easy for people who are not morbidly obese to pontificate about how all they need to do is cut down on what they eat. In one sense it is correct, since a morbidly obese person who is deprived of food will shed weight very rapidly. However, research shows that, in reality, such people struggle like hell to lose weight. Since we have this ethic about liberty, and we frown on people being locked up to deprive them of food, the truth is that morbidly obese people tend to stay morbidly obese, un less they get surgery.

Stomach bypass surgery is interesting, because it does not just stop people eating too much. It also reduces appetite drastically. There are clearly hormone changes following such surgery, which affect appetite. Such surgery has a very high success rate in getting very overweight or obese people to lose a lot of weight, and lose it long term. Surgeons are a bit reluctant to use such surgery, though, unless there are clear health dangers in leaving them obese, since the surgery itself carries risks and people can die on the operating table.

My own feeling is that if you are very overweight, and can financially afford the surgery, the risk is worth taking.

They don't actually use staples much anymore. The new method is to use a ring that fits around the stomach and restricts the amount of food it can hold at any given time. It's a safer procedure than stapling but causes a similar result. I know someone that had it done and it worked like a champ without any noticeable complications or problems. He was very happy with the result.

Time for a humor break.

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.


OB

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

*handing you a carrot and some celery*

I'm still hungry.

have a radish

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is, of course, very easy for people who are not morbidly obese to pontificate about how all they need to do is cut down on what they eat. In one sense it is correct, since a morbidly obese person who is deprived of food will shed weight very rapidly. However, research shows that, in reality, such people struggle like hell to lose weight. Since we have this ethic about liberty, and we frown on people being locked up to deprive them of food, the truth is that morbidly obese people tend to stay morbidly obese, un less they get surgery.

Stomach bypass surgery is interesting, because it does not just stop people eating too much. It also reduces appetite drastically. There are clearly hormone changes following such surgery, which affect appetite. Such surgery has a very high success rate in getting very overweight or obese people to lose a lot of weight, and lose it long term. Surgeons are a bit reluctant to use such surgery, though, unless there are clear health dangers in leaving them obese, since the surgery itself carries risks and people can die on the operating table.

My own feeling is that if you are very overweight, and can financially afford the surgery, the risk is worth taking.

Niece had it

Originally Posted by One beer

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.




OB

It is not all that easy.

There are steps to be taken and evaluations.

You can't walk in and say, I want weight loss surgery."

Originally Posted by One beer

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.


OB

A better way sounds good. People don't usually have that surgery unless they've tried everything else and nothing has worked for them. I don't know about you but surgery of any kind is always my last choice.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by One beer

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.


OB

A better way sounds good. People don't usually have that surgery unless they've tried everything else and nothing has worked for them. I don't know about you but surgery of any kind is always my last choice.

Counting...15...sometimes you don't have choices

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by One beer

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.


OB

A better way sounds good. People don't usually have that surgery unless they've tried everything else and nothing has worked for them. I don't know about you but surgery of any kind is always my last choice.

Counting...15...sometimes you don't have choices

True, but with stomach surgery, you usually do have a choice.

Here's a thought:

Is it possible that the stomach cannot decrease in size once it has been over stretched for a period of time? In other words, if a person has been overeating for a long period of time, do they find it almost impossible to reduce their appetite, because their stomach won't shrink back to the size it was before and so they would feel hungry if they only ate the amount they ate before they became obese?

If this is the case, then this could be why only stomach stapling or band restriction will work to reduce obese people's body size.


OB

Originally Posted by One beer

Here's a thought:

Is it possible that the stomach cannot decrease in size once it has been over stretched for a period of time? In other words, if a person has been overeating for a long period of time, do they find it almost impossible to reduce their appetite, because their stomach won't shrink back to the size it was before and so they would feel hungry if they only ate the amount they ate before they became obese?

If this is the case, then this could be why only stomach stapling or band restriction will work to reduce obese people's body size.

That seems like a plausible idea. But then how do you explain those people that can eat like 60 or more hot dogs in less than 10 minutes? I actually start feeling full after about eating 3 hot dogs. So those guys are able to stretch there stomachs to a very large size. I once watched a hot dog eating contest and the top eaters were all quite thin.

The stomach surgery thing is simple.

Nothing else works. Surgery works. It is a no brainer.

Take into account the risk and the $$$ and decide accordingly, if you have a big obesity problem.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by One beer

That's interesting, because stomach surgery for obesity seems to me to be the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a stomach or kidney drain tap and saying "carry on drinking to excess, and when you're done, have someone drain it all out of your stomach/kidneys again, so you don't actually get very drunk".

That is surely treating the symptom, not the cause?

There needs to be some better way of stopping obese people eating so much in the first place.


OB

A better way sounds good. People don't usually have that surgery unless they've tried everything else and nothing has worked for them. I don't know about you but surgery of any kind is always my last choice.

Counting...15...sometimes you don't have choices

True, but with stomach surgery, you usually do have a choice.

Absolutely. Niece had the band. She is doing really well!!

To be honest i found only one proper way to reduce weight - you need to exercise.

Originally Posted by One beer

Here's a thought:

Is it possible that the stomach cannot decrease in size once it has been over stretched for a period of time? In other words, if a person has been overeating for a long period of time, do they find it almost impossible to reduce their appetite, because their stomach won't shrink back to the size it was before and so they would feel hungry if they only ate the amount they ate before they became obese?

If this is the case, then this could be why only stomach stapling or band restriction will work to reduce obese people's body size.


OB

Sorry to hear about your niece, Babe. What do you mean by "counting...15..."?

My niece, who had the band done is doing well! *S*...

If you meant my niece and nephew. Thanks.

I have one eye surgery to go......I have a ultrasound when I get back for BC. (follow up).....I have had 5 eye surgeries alone......the sixth won't be the last if I am to maintain my sight unless this new research works. Damn I'd be a happy camper!

Originally Posted by Hymenophyllum

To be honest i found only one proper way to reduce weight - you need to exercise.

Losing weight is a different experience for different people. Also, a lot depends on when you gained your excess pounds. I've read that if your parents started you out as a cute fat baby, your chance of becoming a fat adult is close to 100%. When you are growing fat cells at a very young age they increase in numbers more than they normally would and they stay that way. If you lose weight, you still have a greater number of fat cells and will gain the weight back very easily. On the other hand if you are an adult that gains a few extra pounds, it's much easier to lose the weight and keep it off.

You have to be willing to modify your lifestyle by changing your diet and start a daily regular exercise program. The daily exercise may not burn all the calories you need to burn, but it can actually increase your metabolism, which will burn calories at a higher rate even when you are not exercising.

It's the fat kids that grow up fat that need the stomach bands as skeptic has stated. Almost nothing else will work with them.

Originally Posted by bad robot

Originally Posted by hymenophyllum

to be honest i found only one proper way to reduce weight - you need to exercise.

losing weight is a different experience for different people. Also, a lot depends on when you gained your excess pounds. I've read that if your parents started you out as a cute fat baby, your chance of becoming a fat adult is close to 100%. When you are growing fat cells at a very young age they increase in numbers more than they normally would and they stay that way. If you lose weight, you still have a greater number of fat cells and will gain the weight back very easily. On the other hand if you are an adult that gains a few extra pounds, it's much easier to lose the weight and keep it off.

You have to be willing to modify your lifestyle by changing your diet and start a daily regular exercise program. The daily exercise may not burn all the calories you need to burn, but it can actually increase your metabolism, which will burn calories at a higher rate even when you are not exercising.

It's the fat kids that grow up fat that need the stomach bands as skeptic has stated. Almost nothing else will work with them.

applause!!!

Here's what I found relating to weight gain or weight loss. It seems it depends on chemicals in the brain a lot. People on antipsychotics usually gain weight for example. See the following:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/b...y_and_hormones

"The hormones leptin, insulin, sex hormones and growth hormone influence our appetite, metabolism and body fat distribution. People who are obese have levels of these hormones that encourage abnormal metabolism and the accumulation of body fat."

www.watag.org.au/wapdc/docs/gdb 13-3 oct05.pdf

"Effects on serotonergic,dopaminergic,adrenergic, histaminergic, glutaminergic and
anticholinergic receptors are all thought to promote weight gain. The balance between
oestrogen and testosterone is also implicated. Insulin sensitivity that can lead to insulin
resistance is associated with physiological changes maintaining obesity. Leptin and
neuropeptides are also involved in weight gain"

Orlistat? "However the need for a fat restricted diet, to prevent unpleasant side effects,
may limit its use."

Metformin? But, there is a risk of lactic acidosis with metformin

Reboxetine?

Oestrogen?

Sibutramine?

The extent of weight gain apparently varies by drug, which may be because of the drugs’ *differing degrees of action on the serotonergic, dopaminergic, cholinergic, histaminergic, and other neurotransmitter systems.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=173781

There is presently no "wonder" drug that causes weight loss, I don't think.

I guess there is still more research to be done.

Hope you found my investigations into this issue interesting and please comment your thoughts, I think this discussion based on chemicals in the body is more useful than just talking about a need for exercise which doesn't explain why some people are thin due to genetic reasons and others gain weight.

Is there investigation into genes that can promote weight loss? Then, we could have therapy to change our genes?

Also see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atypical_antipsychotic

the section where it says "Binding Profile (Antagonistic unless otherwise specified; binding to cloned human receptors unless otherwise specified)"

Different binding will affect the amount of weight gain caused by an antipsychotic drug. For example "5-HT(1B)" etc.

If we can understand how/why this causes weight gain, we may be able to understand how to achieve weight loss.

Skeptic you crack me up in here, but I agree with most of what you said. Most of the advise we hear and read has a pretty low success rate. Some of the problem is people presuming everyone is the same...sorry we don't use calories the same way, or have the same digestive efficiency as other people. Another example is statements such as: "2) Eat slowly, and STOP when you start to feel full." I scratched my head at that one...what the heck is "feeling full;" I could eat an entire 12" thick crust pizza in less than 15" minutes or over two hours and NEVER get that feeling. I suspect that particular signal works really well for thin people and might be completely absent for obese ones.

For myself, I used to use that overexercise strategy when I was younger. The Army life encourages spending hours a day working out and I could handle increasing my running to 6+ miles just about every day, with a long run of 10+ miles every couple weekends. The pounds would melt away. Those days are now gone though from overuse injuries suffered patrolling with too much gear on my back while in Iraq. For ME, (would likely fail for others), I'm a visual eater. Leave something high calorie dense on the counter and I'll destroy it in no time, while if it's in the cabinet it will last six months even if up front. It makes for interesting arrangements of food in the house...the vegetables and fruits stay out or in plain view on a shelf in the frig. The crisper draw is were onions, totoes and less impulse foods get kept.

While I detest hard rules such as limits to high calorie drinks such as New York City has put into place. I wouldn't in the least be opposed to some advertising limitations on the worst of foods particularly those targeting children. Certainly foods are posing as much of a problem in the US as tobacco products to health for many of the same reasons.

Lynx

None of the views I pose are mine. They are all the result of good research.

I think you are correct in saying that there is a big individual response associated. As I said earlier, research shows that 1 in 20 people who set out to lose weight are still under their initial weight 5 years later. This is defined as 'success'. However, I think that 5% success rate is not much to celebrate, when the other 95% have ended up worse than if they did not start. Worse because losing weight and putting it on again, plus extra, is very bad for human health.

However, I do think there is likely to be at least one break through in weight control some time soon (next decade?) due to the intensive research under way. I suspect it will be a drug, which will be expensive, in order to make yet another drug company mega-rich.

Originally Posted by ox

Media debate recently (plus others in the past) suggested that people these days do not sleep enough and even this puts weight on. I don't know why this should be unless more people than ever are fiddling around with gadgets at midnight instead of falling asleep. No doubt they need to snack at the same time in order to maintain brain function. It was also suggested that no diet ever devised has been shown to work in the long term. That has to be true otherwise we would all be adopting it. And exercise is like sleep as most forms of exercise and all sleep prevent you from eating while engaged.
Another thing I don't understand is why I am concerned about this as I'm not overweight. Except that I would much rather see healthy and happy humans around me, engaging in open-air healthy activity like walking, jogging or cycling than endlessly burning up the road on 4 wheels and the planet with it. I am starting to feel sad every time I pass the McShit and see schoolkids hurrying inside after lessons. Not something that really bothered me until recently, then I noticed it and now I always will.

As far as I've read regarding insufficient sleep and weight gain, it has to do mainly with elevated cortisol levels, which are apparently also relevant to weight gain in the poor. I think Sapolsky also has done some research with this.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Hymenophyllum

To be honest i found only one proper way to reduce weight - you need to exercise.

Losing weight is a different experience for different people. Also, a lot depends on when you gained your excess pounds. I've read that if your parents started you out as a cute fat baby, your chance of becoming a fat adult is close to 100%. When you are growing fat cells at a very young age they increase in numbers more than they normally would and they stay that way. If you lose weight, you still have a greater number of fat cells and will gain the weight back very easily. On the other hand if you are an adult that gains a few extra pounds, it's much easier to lose the weight and keep it off.

You have to be willing to modify your lifestyle by changing your diet and start a daily regular exercise program. The daily exercise may not burn all the calories you need to burn, but it can actually increase your metabolism, which will burn calories at a higher rate even when you are not exercising.

It's the fat kids that grow up fat that need the stomach bands as skeptic has stated. Almost nothing else will work with them.

Curiously, I have three children (two biological, one foster) who are quite thin, and one (biological) who is overweight. She is plump, not very fat. Her father is plump, as well, and he is also my (thin, athletic) son's father. My three biokids have all been raised on the same basic whole-foods diet, and my thin foster has been raised on typical American crap food. Anecdotal, for sure, but interesting, to me. I suspect genetics has a large play in obesity; I have always been thin and muscular outside of specific health issues that limited my natural inclination to activity, and both my youngest daughter and my son seem to have inherited that inclination toward high physical activity, while my oldest seems to have inherited an inclination toward lower activity and higher body fat, despite my provided whole-food healthy diet and example of high activity.

Originally Posted by Nisslbody

Curiously, I have three children (two biological, one foster) who are quite thin, and one (biological) who is overweight. She is plump, not very fat. Her father is plump, as well, and he is also my (thin, athletic) son's father. My three biokids have all been raised on the same basic whole-foods diet, and my thin foster has been raised on typical American crap food. Anecdotal, for sure, but interesting, to me. I suspect genetics has a large play in obesity; I have always been thin and muscular outside of specific health issues that limited my natural inclination to activity, and both my youngest daughter and my son seem to have inherited that inclination toward high physical activity, while my oldest seems to have inherited an inclination toward lower activity and higher body fat, despite my provided whole-food healthy diet and example of high activity.

I never had any kids of my own and I've often wondered how i would handle having an over weight kid. But the problem I was talking about is an over weight baby. It seems to me that would almost have to be the parents fault as the only food the baby gets comes from the parents.

I have fought with weight since I was 21, mainly because at that time I had a major back surgery and it reduced my activity, and by my 4th back surgery the pain seemed (for me) to increase my appetite. Recently I have lost 100 pounds and I did not go on a diet. I simply reduced portions and ate slower.

To be fair, I love to grow most anything, so I eat a lot of vegetables, I use real butter, and I love meat but I am more temperate with it. I believe that moderation is the key in most all things including eating. The main problem I see is not that people are eating terrible food (although I try to stay away from processed and such myself, and I do a lot of cooking not fast-food eating and frozen food microwaving), but that portions are ridiculous. I can't think of an eating establishment that doesn't serve you too much hardly. I can eat burgers all week and lose weight, I just may only need half a burger. I also strive to be active. So many things are sedentary now. However, I cut nothing out of my diet, cut down on portions and up on activity and have a great time. Sure every now and then I end up eating out and splurging a bit, but those are the exceptions.

Originally Posted by dbhokie

I have fought with weight since I was 21, mainly because at that time I had a major back surgery and it reduced my activity, and by my 4th back surgery the pain seemed (for me) to increase my appetite. Recently I have lost 100 pounds and I did not go on a diet. I simply reduced portions and ate slower...I can eat burgers all week and lose weight, I just may only need half a burger.

Well done indeed!
I think it's a good idea to always leave some food on your plate instead of eating every last morsel. That might seem like a bad habit but it's really quite a useful one as you are finding some self-control over food. Another trick I use is to look at the clock in the evening and see how long it is to midnight and remind myself that in say 3-4 hours time it will be a new day and I'll be hungry again. That puts me off snacking before I go to bed.

Well...when I'm cutting to make fighting weight, (that's the macho way of saying "dieting") I stop drinking Cokes...one of my favorite things..and switch to iced tea...and I eat several small meals throughout the day, sometimes just a few bites, rather than one big meal. Seems to keep my metabolism high and in fat burning mode, rather than fat storing mode.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Nisslbody

Curiously, I have three children (two biological, one foster) who are quite thin, and one (biological) who is overweight. She is plump, not very fat. Her father is plump, as well, and he is also my (thin, athletic) son's father. My three biokids have all been raised on the same basic whole-foods diet, and my thin foster has been raised on typical American crap food. Anecdotal, for sure, but interesting, to me. I suspect genetics has a large play in obesity; I have always been thin and muscular outside of specific health issues that limited my natural inclination to activity, and both my youngest daughter and my son seem to have inherited that inclination toward high physical activity, while my oldest seems to have inherited an inclination toward lower activity and higher body fat, despite my provided whole-food healthy diet and example of high activity.

I never had any kids of my own and I've often wondered how i would handle having an over weight kid. But the problem I was talking about is an over weight baby. It seems to me that would almost have to be the parents fault as the only food the baby gets comes from the parents.

Nursed my.....they were long and lean....sis nursed her child, little roundy! Don't know. Then again. Healthy food in both households were stressed, and none of them came out overweight.

I agree portions don't need to be so huge. Moderation is a definite, and walking is a great form of exercise. Good on you dbhokie!