15
   

The Fat Trap

 
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 04:50 am
@rosborne979,
Take me with you! Smile

I do tend (although not always) to be heavier in the winter. There's probably some tipping more in the direction of carb-heavier choices as it gets darker and colder. I still eat salads, lean protein, etc., but it's possible that the %s are sliding a bit, I dunno. I analyze a lot about what I eat but not quite as granularly as that.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  4  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 06:51 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

I'll send you a low-fat, sugar-free muffin, how about that?


Maybe not the best thing for Jes if it has wheat flour. Carbs are my personal enemy in the weight department. I know I have some insulin resistance (diabetes runs in my family) and Jes probably has the same problem, only worse. IR makes your body super carb sensitive. I looked back at some of Jes' daily food entries. I definitely eat more than Jes but the calories are coming from protein, even serious fat like pork bacon, but never starch. I can't remember the last time I ate white rice, a potato or regular pasta. I do not eat any low fat dairy which triggers IR. Full fat all the way, but grass fed cows. When I get serious about health and weight I pretty much follow this advice:

http://www.heartlandnaturopathic.com/irdiet.htm
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  4  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 07:27 am
I always chomp at the bit to jump in these conversations, but I know that my experiences and research goes so far against the 'common knowledge" that it is often disregarded or seen as an insult. Too often people will quote common media to try to prove things wrong.. and its like pointing to the cone shaped dunce hat for rain coverage..

But I will sum it up easily.

Our biggest problem with our diets comes down to two things.

1) trusting our TV and food labels.

Just because it says " healthy choice" , or we are told " Low fat is best" ..." Sugar free " .. does not make it so. In fact, it is the dead opposite.

2) Industrial chemicals in our foods are contributing to our major...life threatening...most popular diseases in our country. Lets start with sugar ' alternatives" like sweet and low, Aspartame, HFCS, Sorbital.... blah blah.. the list is long. Then lets follow up with or seasonings... or flavor enhancers and then top it off will fillers. Even your 'healthy ...low carb' loaf of bread is adding chemicals to your diet that are stopping your natural ability to digest, process and use your food.
Think about it.
If our metabolisms naturally stopped working at some point in our lives, as a species.. we would not have evolved as much as we have. A metabolism that STOPS goes against any survival abilities ANY animal would have. No animal on the planet besides water dwelling animals or animals that live in extreme cold, HAVE obesity issues that will incumber movement or health. None. Obesity is NOT natural .. and when an entire species.. specifically a part of that species all located in ONE area has the issue? There is something in common with all of them that is making it unnatural. Here it is the food source.

But dont trust me.

Grab something from your kitchen and do a little google search on one of the ingredients. Make it a through search.. Usually in about 3-5 links you will find a part of the studies that show weight gain, nerve damage.. etc.

Best way to avoid this, fresh fruits and veggies, not in cans... not in meal mixes.. just BUY them individually..
try to do the same with animal protein, which IS a necessity.. but not in every meal like your TV tells you..

Dont put the whole blame on fast food.. even though it is a large portion of the pie. Fast food includes most restaurant foods.. not just McDonalds drive through..
Green Witch
 
  5  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 08:24 am
@shewolfnm,
Yeah, but Jes isn't eating processed food and she still can't drop and maintain the weight she wants. Look at what she is eating. By all definition she is eating a healthy diet without additives, but her body is fighting her every step of the way. I think it's true for a lot of overweight people who find their bodies don't listen to the experts. I also think at some point, especially for many women over 45, no matter what we do we put on some pounds. It's made worse if a person was overweight earlier in life. I'm not saying processed foods aren't part of the problem, but I am saying that it is not the only reason people cannot lose weight. The real puzzle here is what do you do when you do everything right and you still can't lose weight?

Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 08:52 am
Now, I'm not 'overweight', although I could lose 10 lbs, but this is more about your overall health...

My mother sent me this article - what do you think of it?

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/26/triticum-fever-by-dr-william-davis-author-of-wheat-belly.html#more-126282
~~~~~

Triticum Fever, by Dr. William Davis, author of Wheat Belly
By William Davis at 2:10 pm Wednesday, Oct 26
Quick: Name a common food, consumed every day by most people, that:

• Increases overall calorie consumption by 400 calories per day
• Affects the human brain in much the same way as morphine
• Has a greater impact on blood sugar levels than a candy bar
• Is consumed at the rate of 133 pounds per person per year
• Has been associated with increased Type 1 Diabetes
• Increases both insulin resistance and leptin resistance, conditions that lead to obesity
• Is the only common food with its own mortality rate

If you guessed sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, you're on the right track, but, no, that's not the correct answer.

The true culprit: Triticum aestivum, or modern wheat.

Note that I said "modern" wheat, because I would argue that what we are being sold today in the form of whole grain bread, raisin bagels, blueberry muffins, pizza, ciabatta, bruschetta, and so on is not the same grain our grandparents grew up on. It's not even close.

Modern wheat is the altered offspring of thousands of genetic manipulations, crude and sometimes bizarre techniques that pre-date the age of genetic modification. The result: a high-yield, 2-foot tall "semi-dwarf" plant that no more resembles the wheat consumed by our ancestors than a chimpanzee (which shares 99% of the same genes that we do) resembles a human. I trust that you can tell the difference that 1% makes.

The obvious outward differences are accompanied by biochemical differences. The gluten proteins in modern wheat, for instance, differ from the gluten proteins found in wheat as recently as 1960. This likely explains why the incidence of celiac disease, the devastating intestinal condition caused by gluten, has quadrupled in the past 40 years. Furthermore, a whole range of inflammatory diseases, from rheumatoid arthritis to inflammatory bowel disease, are also on the rise. Humans haven't changed -- but the wheat we consume has changed considerably.

Wheat Bellies

You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks beer to excess. That distinctive look is often attributed to alcohol consumption when in fact it's just as likely to be caused by the pretzels -- not just the beer -- you're downing after work. A wheat belly is a protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in wheat products like crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta. Dimpled or smooth, hairy or hairless, tense or flaccid, wheat bellies come in as many shapes, colors, and sizes as there are humans. But millions of Americans have a wheat belly, and the underlying metabolic reasons for having one are all the same. Wheat contains a type of sugar called amylopectin A that raises blood sugar in an extravagant fashion. Eating just two slices of whole wheat bread, can raise blood sugar more than two tablespoons of pure sugar. This leads to the accumulation of visceral fat on the body, the deep fat encircling organs that is a hotbed of inflammatory activity. Inflammation, in turn, leads to hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and other conditions.

Wheat-consuming people are fatter than those who don't eat wheat. Why? Among the changes introduced into this plant is a re-engineered form of the gliadin protein unique to wheat. Gliadin has been increased in quantity and changed in structure, such that it serves as a powerful appetite stimulant. When you eat wheat, you want more wheat and in fact want more of everything else -- to the tune of 400 more calories per day. That's the equivalent of 41.7 pounds per year, an overwhelming potential weight gain that accumulates inexorably despite people's efforts to exercise longer and curtail other foods -- all the while blaming themselves for their lack of discipline and watching the scale climb higher and higher, and their bellies growing bigger and bigger.

All of which leads me to conclude that over-enthusiastic wheat consumption is not only one cause of obesity in this country, it is the leading cause of the obesity and diabetes crisis in the United States. It's a big part of the reason that reality shows like the Biggest Loser are never at a loss for contestants. It explains why modern athletes, like baseball players and golfers, are fatter than ever. Blame wheat when you are being crushed in your 2 x 2 airline seat by the 280-pound man occupying the seat next to yours.

Sure, sugary soft drinks and sedentary lifestyles add to the problem. But for the great majority of health conscious people who don't indulge in these obvious poor choices, the principal trigger for weight gain is wheat.

And wheat consumption is about more than just weight. There are also components of modern wheat that lead to diabetes, heart disease, neurologic impairment -- including dementia and incontinence -- and myriad skin conditions that range from acne to gangrene -- all buried in that innocent-looking bagel you had for breakfast.

Despite the potential downside of a diet so laden with wheat products, we continually bombarded with messages to eat more of this grain. The Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA, for instance, through their Dietary Guidelines for Americans, advocate a diet dominated by grains (the widest part of the Food Pyramid, the largest portion of the Food Plate). The American Dietetic Association, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, along with the Grain Foods Foundation, the Whole Grains Council, and assorted other agriculture and food industry trade groups all agree: Everyone should eat more healthy whole grains. This includes our children, who are being told to do such things as replace fast food with grains. These agencies were originally sidetracked by the "cut your fat and cholesterol" movement, which led to a wholesale embrace of all things carbohydrate, but especially "healthy whole grains." Unwittingly, they were advising increased consumption of this two-foot tall creation of the geneticists, high-yield semi-dwarf wheat.

This message to eat more "healthy whole grains" has, I believe, crippled Americans, triggering a helpless cycle of satiety and hunger, stimulating appetite by 400 calories per day and substantially contributing to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. And, oh yes, adding to the double-digit-per-year revenue growth of the diabetes drug industry, not to mention increased revenues for drugs for hypertension, cholesterol, and arthritis.

It is therefore my contention that eliminating all wheat from the diet is a good idea not just for people with gluten sensitivity; it's a smart decision for everybody. I have experience in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for heart disease prevention and reversal, with several thousand people who have done just that and the results are nothing short of astounding. Weight loss of 30, 50, even 70 pounds or more within the first six months; reversal of diabetes and pre-diabetic conditions; relief from edema, sinus congestion, and asthma; disappearance of acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome symptoms; increased energy, happier mood, better sleep. People feel better, look better, eat fewer calories, feel less hungry, are able to discontinue use of many medications -- just by eliminating one food from their diet -- ironically a food that they've been told to eat more of.

It is imperative that we break our reliance on wheat. It will require nothing less than an overthrow of conventional nutritional dogma. There will be battles fought to preserve the status quo; the wheat industry and its supporters will scream, yell, and claw to maintain their position, much as the tobacco industry and its lobbyists fought to maintain their hold on consumers.

If the health benefits of a wheat-free diet sound hard to believe, why not conduct your own little experiment and see for yourself: simply eliminate all things made of wheat for four weeks -- no bread, bagels, pizza, pretzels, rolls, donuts, breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, pasta, noodles, or processed foods containing wheat (and do be careful to read labels, as food manufacturers love to slip a little wheat gliadin into your food every chance they get to stimulate your appetite). That's a lot to cut out, true, but there's still plenty of real, nutrient-dense foods like vegetables, fruit, nuts, cheese and dairy products, meat, fish, soy foods, legumes, oils like olive oil, avocados, even dark chocolate that you can eat in their place. If after that 4-week period you discover new mental clarity, better sleep, relief from joint pain, happier intestines, and a looser waistband, you will have your answer.
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 09:34 am
@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:

Yeah, but Jes isn't eating processed food




Actually... she is. And the items in her diet are ones that are very high on the chemical content list.. The exact chemicals that cause issue with metabolism, obesity and diabetes..

jes.. darling.. i love ya.. so please remove any idea that this post is ABOUT you.. because it isnt.
But I am going to pick apart the things you list to eat because it helps me to make my point and physically SHOW what it is that causes problems in many many many people...

----------------------


fiber one bars that right off the top have 8 ingredients that are contributing factors to the problems listed above.
Here is a link / photo of their ingredients list -

http://www.fiberone.com/products/bars/

And i will start from the top with just the red flag ingredients..
( mind you.. when you consume high insulin spiking ingredients like liquiors.. you absorb next to no fiber from the product.. so remember...it cancels itSELF out of your diet pretty simply)

- chocolate liquor -
( links, resources - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_liquor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine, This is a PDF- http://www.jbc.org/content/162/2/309.full.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uric_acid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purine_metabolism)

The chocolate liquor which is HIGH on the list ( means it is in high abundance in the product for those who dont understand exactly what a list means..) contains theobromine . theobromine is a vasodialtor, heart stimulant and according to the link above is also a diuretic. A diuretic is used ONLY when the body can not naturally excrete its own liquids, or the pressure behind your heart is so great that the blood needs to be thinned out so that it is not on over load. When you depleat your body of its natural liquid, it goes into starvation mode.. Starvation mode (using the term lightly ) .... = weight gain.
Not to mention , the depletion of uric acid that occurs when using a diuretic can be dangerous too. THAT process TOO... affects.. Guess what.. weight loss. Since theobromine is so prevelent in her diet, being almost a DAILY intake.. she might as well be taking a prescription drug and by passing food all together.
Right off the bat, ingredient number 2 is making her swim up hill against nature. .

Now lets tackle the other part of the liquor ingredient list.. Natural Flavor.
We all know this one is a lie. Real NATURAL flavors are listed.. like salt, pepper, basil etc. Those are always listed by name ... because.. well, they are what they say they are. But natural flavor is NOT natural. It is in fact a HUGE list of chemicals, animal ingredients.. you name it

the definition of “natural flavor” under the Code of Federal Regulations is: “the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional” (21CFR101.22).

Anyone remember the olestra craze? and how quickly it was pulled from the market and why? Guess what.. you are still eating it. ^

Next ingredient , canola oil.
Canola oil is horrible for the body. It depletes you of vitamin E for one.. It is known that ingestion of oils containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) of the n-3 and n -6 series results in a high degree of unsaturation in membrane phospholipids, which in turn may increase lipid peroxidation, cholesterol oxidation, free radical accumulation and membrane damage. All very bad attributes. But.. its really high on the list.. In fact, most of the bar is made of Canola oil..



Does this make sense yet?

I have not even gone down the whole list of ingredients and 2 things are causing issues that are directly related to weight loss.

THIS is what we are being told to eat, and being told is GOOD for our bodies. THIS is why we should not eat from popular packages and brands. THIS is where the struggle comes from.

By basic definition, description and ideas.. Jes's diet should be absolutely wonderful. She should be super woman. She eats extra fibers ( fiber one bars) Has Tahihi soup , east dehydrated veggies, uses only tablespoons of sauces and dressings..etc.

I absolutely agree.. that sounds perfect..
The problem........... are the chemicals in all of that. It really IS that simple, and that fucked up.

This is why I refer to the FDA as - ******* dumb asses.
These tests are public knowledge. It took me 4 minutes to type this post, find the links to follow the path of destruction in the human body and only ONE popular brand to prove it. Yet the FDA allows all of this.

No.
The common, popular 'healthy' diet is anything BUT.. and I will stand by that statment for ever.





0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 10:05 pm
Very interesting shewolf and you're right, the abundance of chemicals in food can create havoc with your metabolism.
When I am in Europe, I do eat tons of food, I don't exercise except walking to everything, and upon returning I usually have the same weight as before I left. Would I eat the same amounts here, I gained 10 lb. for sure and I always contribute it to the different food there - more natural without all the added chemicals.

Also I think in order to lose weight, one has to consider their basal metabolic rate (BMR) and take your height, weight, and age in consideration with it. From there you get probably a BMR of 1400 - 1600 calories/day. Add burnt calories from exercise (1.5 x BMR for moderate
exercise 3 -5 times a week) and you have about 2000 to 2200 calories to maintain weight. Weight loss will be achieved by reducing the calorie intake by 500/day x 7 (3500 calories = 1 lb.) arriving at 1500 to 1700 calories,
which would result in a 1 lb. weight loss. For a slow metabolism it would
be better to stick to 1200 - 1500 calories/day to lose weight.

BMR is calculated here (for women)
BMR Women: = 655 + (4.35 X weight in pounds) + (4.7 X height in inches) – (4.7 X age)
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 10:09 pm
@Mame,
I have noticed too, the older I get the more I am sensitive to wheat. I have started to eat gluten free products and try to cut out wheat as much as possible and I feel less bloated and just overall better without wheat. Rye and spelt are a great alternative and so tasty and very filling which is good.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:54 am
What kills me is - maybe the bars aren't so hot, but vigilance is happening a good 90% of the time - far, far more than it is for most people. And I am eating nearly the same things that I was when I was losing. Yes, I was taking alli then, but alli isn't responsible for all of the loss. Even their own ads don't claim that - they say an extra pound for every 2 or 3 you lose on your own.

So without alli, but with the same foods, I should still lose, but less, yes? Or at least maintain? Don't tell me that it's all muscle I've put on. It isn't.

Except, no, that's not what is happening.

I recognize that you did not want me to take things personally, shewolf. But I do not want this to turn into - let's look at what jes is eating - so much as, yanno, dieting sucks.

As for obesity being new - it's not, not in my family. My mother had uncles who were easily 400 lbs. The last of them died in about 1980. How did they get fat? Pickles, brisket, whatever kosher delicacies their wives made for them, or a deli did. This is before high fructose corn syrup and the like. They were huge.

At 346, I was in the midrange of my family in terms of size. At about 216 or so, I am one of the skinniest.

There is, I imagine, a hereditary piece of this as well.

This is not a simple system with quick and easy answers.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 05:52 am
@jespah,
jespah wrote:
Given all of that, I should be losing weight like a house on fire. I am not.

That is remarkable. My first diet book had a rule of thumb that works for most people I know: For each kilogram of body fat you wish to maintain, eat 30 calories a day. By this rule, your diet should sustain you at a weight of 125 lb.

If you don't mind my asking, have you measured your body fat percentage? Maybe you have lost too much of your weight in muscle rather than fat. It would surprise me given your exercise regime, but it's a common problem among people who've lost a lot of weight, according to reputable articles I've read elsewhere. It is also consistent with the New York Times article you cite.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 06:41 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

jespah wrote:
Given all of that, I should be losing weight like a house on fire. I am not.

That is remarkable. My first diet book had a rule of thumb that works for most people I know: For each kilogram of body fat you wish to maintain, eat 30 calories a day. By this rule, your diet should sustain you at a weight of 125 lb.

Theory is good, experiment is better: since the Soviet collapse we've obtained minutely detailed records on the gulag camps, so we know:
Quote:
The basic daily food ration (the "payka") ranged from 400 to 800 grams of bread, which accounted for more than half the prisoner's daily calories (1200-1300).


People lived for decades on these rations - and most of them had to break stones in quarries or other hard labor. The Imperial Japanese Army allowed its own prisoners fewer calories than the Soviets (they got about 1,000 per day) but its camps were in Burma, not in Siberia, so the climate would probably explain the difference. No fat people ever came out of these camps, but the ones who died there didn't die of starvation.

Finally: minimum daily caloric intake consistent with a healthy diet for men is 1,500 calories/day as per the National Institute of Health; for women it's about 1,300. Your maintenance diet calculation of 30 calories/kg/day probably referred to men only - that would go some way to explaining the discrepancy - and didn't apply to women who want to lose weight. For them, 1,800 calories / day is simply far too high.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:26 am
@Thomas,
A big point of the article too is that there isn't some general standard about this much exercise = this many calories burned. That's a myth, and a dispiriting one for people trying to lose weight.

Someone who has lost a lot of weight can do an exercise that would burn 200 calories if they had always been normal weight, but for this person who has lost a lot of weight, only 150 calories are actually burned. (Or, someone who has lost a lot of weight can think that this many calories eaten = this much fat, when in fact it's more for them than someone who has never been overweight.)

Quote from the article:

Quote:
Janice Bridge has used years of her exercise and diet data to calculate her own personal fuel efficiency. She knows that her body burns about three calories a minute during gardening, about four calories a minute on the recumbent bike and during water aerobics and about five a minute when she zips around town on her regular bike.

“Practically anyone will tell you someone biking is going to burn 11 calories a minute,” she says. “That’s not my body. I know it because of the statistics I’ve kept.”


I didn't see it related to losing too much muscle compared to fat. It seems to be more a metabolic thing.

And there is infinite variation there, too -- there are so many variables for each person that there just aren't any magic bullets. There are things that help, and things that harm, but pretty much nothing that is actually "this worked for me so it will definitely work for you."

Length of being overweight seems to be another important factor. As in, if you were overweight for five years, it seems to be much easier to get it off (and keep it off) than if you were overweight for 25 years. They don't know the exact cut-off yet. (Though, in keeping with the variability of everything else, the cut-off is probably different for different people instead of being an absolute.)

One of the biggest lessons I took from the article (and what it represents, which is a gathering of recent research on obesity, much of which I'd already seen) is that it's very important to keep from gaining weight in the first place.

I saw a quote recently that it's a parent's responsibility to see a child to adulthood at a healthy body weight -- I agree with that.

If kids start out overweight, it's that much harder to get things right.

For whatever combination of reasons, once a body is fat, it "wants" to maintain that weight. (More so if the weight has been there for a long time.)

Honestly, re: the couple profiled in the article, I kind of wish they'd just stick to the exercise (assuming they enjoy it) and step back from the obsessive attention to food, and go ahead and let their weight go up a bit. Lots of studies show that you CAN be both fit and fat (not morbidly obese, but overweight), and mental health is important, too.
Green Witch
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:34 am
Obesity is not new . This woman is @ 15,000 years old and there are many more like her:

http://arthistoryresources.net/willendorf/images/willendorfa.jpg

Obesity definitely runs in families, as does being thin (see Linkat's thread about her daughter). I think all the so called diet rules are really generalities. People like Jes who do not lose weight on sensible plan have a different biological makeup. There are a lot of people like this because this was a great survival gene considering the instability of food supplies in the past. The people who could live the longest without eating survived. The problem is what do we do when a desirable human trait becomes a negative? I actually believe the problem will be solved by the drug companies before evolution gets a chance to kick in. Maybe like a polio or measles shot we will vaccinate our children for obesity. Until then many of us will either be fat or live on lettuce and water.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:34 am
@sozobe,
Another (long) quote:

Quote:
The research shows that the changes that occur after weight loss translate to a huge caloric disadvantage of about 250 to 400 calories. For instance, one woman who entered the Columbia studies at 230 pounds was eating about 3,000 calories to maintain that weight. Once she dropped to 190 pounds, losing 17 percent of her body weight, metabolic studies determined that she needed about 2,300 daily calories to maintain the new lower weight. That may sound like plenty, but the typical 30-year-old 190-pound woman can consume about 2,600 calories to maintain her weight — 300 more calories than the woman who dieted to get there.

Scientists are still learning why a weight-reduced body behaves so differently from a similar-size body that has not dieted. Muscle biopsies taken before, during and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, their muscle fibers undergo a transformation, making them more like highly efficient “slow twitch” muscle fibers. A result is that after losing weight, your muscles burn 20 to 25 percent fewer calories during everyday activity and moderate aerobic exercise than those of a person who is naturally at the same weight. That means a dieter who thinks she is burning 200 calories during a brisk half-hour walk is probably using closer to 150 to 160 calories.

Another way that the body seems to fight weight loss is by altering the way the brain responds to food. Rosenbaum and his colleague Joy Hirsch, a neuroscientist also at Columbia, used functional magnetic resonance imaging to track the brain patterns of people before and after weight loss while they looked at objects like grapes, Gummi Bears, chocolate, broccoli, cellphones and yo-yos. After weight loss, when the dieter looked at food, the scans showed a bigger response in the parts of the brain associated with reward and a lower response in the areas associated with control. This suggests that the body, in order to get back to its pre-diet weight, induces cravings by making the person feel more excited about food and giving him or her less willpower to resist a high-calorie treat.

“After you’ve lost weight, your brain has a greater emotional response to food,” Rosenbaum says. “You want it more, but the areas of the brain involved in restraint are less active.” Combine that with a body that is now burning fewer calories than expected, he says, “and you’ve created the perfect storm for weight regain.” How long this state lasts isn’t known, but preliminary research at Columbia suggests that for as many as six years after weight loss, the body continues to defend the old, higher weight by burning off far fewer calories than would be expected. The problem could persist indefinitely. (The same phenomenon occurs when a thin person tries to drop about 10 percent of his or her body weight — the body defends the higher weight.) This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to lose weight and keep it off; it just means it’s really, really difficult.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:44 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
A big point of the article too is that there isn't some general standard about this much exercise = this many calories burned. That's a myth, and a dispiriting one for people trying to lose weight.

I am sceptical of this claim. The mechanical energy of your body moving weights around---including itself---is a measurable fact of physics. So is the chemical energy released by burning a given amount of fat or sugar. What varies between individuals is the efficiency of their furnace, so to speak. But I doubt there is much variation in the same person's furnace-efficiency at different points in time.

sozobe, quoting the New York Times, wrote:
Practically anyone will tell you someone biking is going to burn 11 calories a minute,” she says. “That’s not my body. I know it because of the statistics I’ve kept.”

I hope this "anyone" doesn't include any physicists. Physicists know, or at least ought to know, that a biker's air resistence increases with speed in a nonlinear fashion, and that it's nonsense to say "this many miles equal that many calories". Same with swimming.

sozobe wrote:
One of the biggest lessons I took from the article (and what it represents, which is a gathering of recent research on obesity, much of which I'd already seen) is that it's very important to keep from gaining weight in the first place.

Now you're telling me---thanks! Smile
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:46 am
@Thomas,
Read on re: slow-twitch muscles + efficiency.

And the whole article really, if you haven't. Very good.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:50 am
@sozobe,
I have read it.

Maybe I'm more of a sour-puss than I ought to be. But journalists, very much including New-York-Times journalists, are rarely dispensers of scientific discoveries. Usually they're dispensers of conventional wisdom, including conventional wisdom about putative myths. Hence my lukewarm reaction.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 07:54 am
@Thomas,
I understand what you mean there, but this does seem to be based on actual scientific studies.

And it passes my own bullshit test, in terms of fitting well with things I've observed amongst people I know who have had a difficult time losing weight, plus my own experiences. (I was overweight for a relatively short time, and was able to lose most of the excess pretty easily. Another 15 would be awesome, but I'm much more fit than I was before I lost the 25 pounds that I've lost and kept off. )
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 08:05 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
But journalists, very much including New-York-Times journalists, are rarely dispensers of scientific discoveries. Usually they're dispensers of conventional wisdom, including conventional wisdom about putative myths. Hence my lukewarm reaction.


so why not go to the half-dozen or more studies they've referenced and look at the research results? most of the journals and studies are available online
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 08:07 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
But I doubt there is much variation in the same person's furnace-efficiency at different points in time.


take a look at the referenced studies - the anecdotal stories in the NYT piece are just there to move readers from one study to the next - ignore the anecdotes - followup on the science - it's there for the reading if you're interested
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Fat Trap
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 10:31:43