"Your Kid is Fat! (And Ugly Too!)

[actaeon277]

If it's convenient then why not feel that way. I understand you totally.
There's NO responsibility to try to fix something that another person has broken. IF they want to poison themselves on McDonalds or other greasy almost food places then let them. Throw out the POS politicians feeding them cheese and whine and pissing rainbows for them.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

 

[Alpo]

Can you still fit in them?

Hah! No way. I had a 29" waist at the time and weighed about 145 (at 6' - 2"). At my current age, I've lost an inch in height but made up the difference in my waist. But I always wanted to be built like a linebacker.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I remember it. The Presidents challenge or some such. Lot's of events and they were all scored. 6 of us out of 800 boys made the top award. We got a pair of gold gym trunks for the effort.

Presidential Physical Fitness Test... started under Eisenhower.

https://www.beachbodyondemand.com/blog/did-you-pass-the-presidents-physical-fitness-test

 

[BugI02]

I remember it. The Presidents challenge or some such. Lot's of events and they were all scored. 6 of us out of 800 boys made the top award. We got a pair of gold gym trunks for the effort.

So are you saying you're Dutch?

[video=youtube;nxa9ttnsmdA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxa9ttnsmdA[/video]

 

[Alpo]

A little longer and a little more subdued. You probably wouldn't have made fun of any of the 6 in person back then. Not unless yer body came with a spare parts package.

 

[KMaC]

We had 2 30' ropes in the gym. It was a requirement to climb them.

I remember having to climb the rope to the gym rafters. Class had to spot the climber. A big guy slipped about half way up and everyone scattered except one guy. Big guy was ok, smaller "catcher" was not, broken arm. Nope, you couldn't do that today.

 

[PUalum04]

Overeating is what's making people fat. It's all about caloric intake. Don't consume more than you'll burn. If you consume 3,000 calories of baked chicken breasts and broccoli in a 24 hour period but only burn 2,000 calories in that same period, guess what? Your going to gain weight. It ain't about what you're eating, it's about how much...

 

[Hohn]

Overeating is what's making people fat. It's all about caloric intake. Don't consume more than you'll burn. If you consume 3,000 calories of baked chicken breasts and broccoli in a 24 hour period but only burn 2,000 calories in that same period, guess what? Your going to gain weight. It ain't about what you're eating, it's about how much...

Nope.

The assumption that calories in=calories out has been refuted.

Why? Because for many people, when they eat fewer calories, their body will crash their metabolism in proportion. They don't lose weight just by eating fewer calories.

Doubt me? Drop down to eating just 1200cal/day of pure sugar water and see how much weight you lose.

And if you eat 3000 calories of baked chicken and broccoli in 24 hours, guess what? You're going to have a ton of energy because your body will crank up the metabolism in response to the abundance of non-carb calories.

Let's say you burn 1200 calories. Where did they come from? What you ate? NOPE. They came from glycogen (if aerobic). Where did that come from? Your body made it. From fat. Or protein. Or carbs-- all things you ate. OR it came from breaking down muscle in your body (like when you're starving).

Now, what determines what was used to make that glycogen? Hormones. Leptin. Insulin. Ghrelin.


The linkage between calories you eat and calories you burn is MUCH weaker than people want to admit-- the relationship isn't mathetmatical at all. It's hormonal. And two people with identical diet and identical activity levels can have very different outcomes in terms of weight loss or gain because their hormones are so different.

A fat person has hormones that are out of whack-- they don't get satisfied as easily when they eat (i.e. leptin doesn't work as well) and at the same time, their body is predisposed to store food as fat (higher insulin levels). Insulin blocks leptin sensitivity in the brain. They are both drowning in calories and thinking they are hungry all the time. Why doesn't their body know they have PLENTY of calories? Their hormones are messed up.

They've proven this a couple ways. First, a person who had hypothalamus damage from a car wreck gained a bunch of weight with no change in diet or activity above when she was thin. Why? Hormones.

They've also shown that eating your calories as fat vs protein vs carb has a very different result in terms of metabolism and fat gain/loss for the same activity level (step, exercise, what have you).

The thing is, what we "burn" isn't a question of activity level, it's more a question of hormones than activity. And people whose hormones are functioning well will burn more when NOT working out.

We all know people that can eat anything seemingly and never gain weight. Why?

Hormones.


The good news is that we can "fix" our hormones by not feeding our bodies so much crap in many cases. Cut out the fructose and amp up the fiber. In a few weeks, your hormones will respond differently.

An extended fast of a few days is a GREAT way to let your hormones start to reset. And I would strongly encourage anyone considering a major change of diet to start on a clean reference and not eat anything at all for 3 days at least before starting on it.

My experience has been that starting this way you will gain VERY clear feedback on the effect of that new diet on your body.

 

[foszoe]

If you are like most of the population, taking in fewer calories than what you burn will result in weight loss. You might find an exception or two, but I would like to see the study.

If your metabolism slows, then you are burning fewer calories. So you may have to take in fewer calories. Most fat people aren't fat because their hormones are out of whack. Their hormones are out of whack because they are fat. Eat normal meals, eat less than what you burn and you will lose weight.

The rate may change,but you will lose weight. I can try all sorts of wacky diets to push the boundaries, sure. Then I wouldn't or shouldn't be surprised when hormones get out of balance. But the key question will be is it the hormones changing the metabolic rate or the metabolic rate that is changing the hormones. Either way, it is the burn rate that is changing.

Nope.

The assumption that calories in=calories out has been refuted.

Why? Because for many people, when they eat fewer calories, their body will crash their metabolism in proportion. They don't lose weight just by eating fewer calories.

Doubt me? Drop down to eating just 1200cal/day of pure sugar water and see how much weight you lose.

And if you eat 3000 calories of baked chicken and broccoli in 24 hours, guess what? You're going to have a ton of energy because your body will crank up the metabolism in response to the abundance of non-carb calories.

Let's say you burn 1200 calories. Where did they come from? What you ate? NOPE. They came from glycogen (if aerobic). Where did that come from? Your body made it. From fat. Or protein. Or carbs-- all things you ate. OR it came from breaking down muscle in your body (like when you're starving).

Now, what determines what was used to make that glycogen? Hormones. Leptin. Insulin. Ghrelin.


The linkage between calories you eat and calories you burn is MUCH weaker than people want to admit-- the relationship isn't mathetmatical at all. It's hormonal. And two people with identical diet and identical activity levels can have very different outcomes in terms of weight loss or gain because their hormones are so different.

A fat person has hormones that are out of whack-- they don't get satisfied as easily when they eat (i.e. leptin doesn't work as well) and at the same time, their body is predisposed to store food as fat (higher insulin levels). Insulin blocks leptin sensitivity in the brain. They are both drowning in calories and thinking they are hungry all the time. Why doesn't their body know they have PLENTY of calories? Their hormones are messed up.

They've proven this a couple ways. First, a person who had hypothalamus damage from a car wreck gained a bunch of weight with no change in diet or activity above when she was thin. Why? Hormones.

They've also shown that eating your calories as fat vs protein vs carb has a very different result in terms of metabolism and fat gain/loss for the same activity level (step, exercise, what have you).

The thing is, what we "burn" isn't a question of activity level, it's more a question of hormones than activity. And people whose hormones are functioning well will burn more when NOT working out.

We all know people that can eat anything seemingly and never gain weight. Why?

Hormones.


The good news is that we can "fix" our hormones by not feeding our bodies so much crap in many cases. Cut out the fructose and amp up the fiber. In a few weeks, your hormones will respond differently.

An extended fast of a few days is a GREAT way to let your hormones start to reset. And I would strongly encourage anyone considering a major change of diet to start on a clean reference and not eat anything at all for 3 days at least before starting on it.

My experience has been that starting this way you will gain VERY clear feedback on the effect of that new diet on your body.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you are like most of the population, taking in fewer calories than what you burn will result in weight loss. You might find an exception or two, but I would like to see the study.

True to a point. I'll see if I can find the study for you when I have time, but with weight loss your body will put up with the decreased calories for about 6 months. It started with observations of the metabolic rates for contestants on the show "Biggest Loser" and was then studied in a much more controlled environment. Then your metabolism starts to rebel and becomes "hyper-efficient" as well as secreting more hormones that make you hungry. Using volunteers and an incredibly controlled environment (stuck in a room for 3 days that constantly monitored oxygen levels of your breathing, your food input, and your "output") six months apart. One group lost weight, one stayed constant, so at the end the weights were roughly the same. The people who were 200 lbs and stayed there burned more calories and were more satisifed with the "input" of food then the people who'd lost 30+ lbs to get down to 200 lbs. The losers' metabolism to support life functions required a lot less calories, plus they were hungrier.

So, in theory, for long term weight loss it's probably better to plateau every 4-5 months and stay there for awhile, then start losing again.

 

[Hohn]

If you are like most of the population, taking in fewer calories than what you burn will result in weight loss. You might find an exception or two, but I would like to see the study.

If your metabolism slows, then you are burning fewer calories. So you may have to take in fewer calories. Most fat people aren't fat because their hormones are out of whack. Their hormones are out of whack because they are fat. Eat normal meals, eat less than what you burn and you will lose weight.

The rate may change,but you will lose weight. I can try all sorts of wacky diets to push the boundaries, sure. Then I wouldn't or shouldn't be surprised when hormones get out of balance. But the key question will be is it the hormones changing the metabolic rate or the metabolic rate that is changing the hormones. Either way, it is the burn rate that is changing.

Also true! People are fat because their hormones are out of whack AND their hormones are out of whack because they are fat. It's not an either/or thing. It's BOTH.


There's a feedback loop here, that's the whole point. And because of that feedback loop-- and its sensitivity to dietary inputs and heredity (genetic predisposition towards a given hormone level), you simply can NOT say that it's a simple matter of eating fewer calories.

The feedback can be somewhat reversed. But it requires us to be willing to be uncomfortable sometimes-- being hungrier than we'd prefer, or eating things we don't want (and avoiding several things we DO want).


My personal weakness is pastry. I don't like super-sweet things like brownies. But give me some pie or donuts or Danish? I'm a total sucker for that.


Well, I used to be. Back when my hormones were more used to eating some of it regularly. I can't eat that stuff now, because the sugar in it will make me ill. As a result, I no longer want it. Because I can't enjoy eating it knowing I will feel awful for the rest of the day with a stomach ache and no energy.

Now I like the idea of pastry more than actual pastry.

 

[HoughMade]

Overeating is what's making people fat. It's all about caloric intake. Don't consume more than you'll burn. If you consume 3,000 calories of baked chicken breasts and broccoli in a 24 hour period but only burn 2,000 calories in that same period, guess what? Your going to gain weight. It ain't about what you're eating, it's about how much...

Kinda true, kinda not. Others have covered it abovem but in addition to all the metabolism rate and hormonal issues, the body does not process and use 100% of what goes in. The calories in-calories expended analysis ignores this. I don't want to get graphic, but obviously the body does not fully process and the use everything that goes in and what is left over is not completely devoid of calories.

Now, if a person consistently takes in more than is used for all body needs (and eliminated), they will gain weight. The converse is not necessarily true. Dropping the calorie supply below this number will not necessarily result in continued weight loss.

I am 6'3". At one point in 2004, I weighed 288 lbs. In under 2 years using a low to no carb diet, I dropped to 192. I have no idea how many calories I was consuming or expending. I crept back up to the 250s over the course of 10 years, but have settled into the 230s. The 190s did not feel good. Not at all. Now, I eat low carb (no sugar, no grains) except for on very special occasions. I do this now, not because of weight, directly, but because 2+ years ago I was found to have an HgA1C of 8.5. I changed back to no sugar-no grain and I am in the 5s with no medication. All of these things are connected. Blood sugar, metabolism, weight, etc.

I believe I have turned the corner on "Metabolic Syndrome" and in a good place....but it has not been and will never be easy. I eat cake and ice cream on the birthdays of immediate family members only. None of the following on a regular basis: corn, bread, potatoes, rice or anything made from them. I eat fair food of my choosing on one day during our local fair. I eat Thanksgiving food on Thanksgiving and Christmas food on Christmas, I'll use a hamburger bun or hot dof bun on Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day. Frankly, I enjoy the "special" food more than I used to. No candy- ever.

So, it's not as easy as: calories in and calories out, but it is pretty simple, just not easy.

 

[foszoe]

Nothing is set in stone of course. Calories aren't calories. Thermogenic effect or something? The body processes calories differently so like the ratio that makes it into the body is like 75-80% for protein, 90+% for carbs and 95%+ for fats. So eating 2000 calories of protein could arguably be "less" calories than 2000 calories of fat but if you are eating a balanced diet, those things will usually take care of themselves.

Barring any physical ailments, find your TDEE, eat 85% of it in a balanced diet and you will lose weight.

 

[PUalum04]

Studies, hormones, glands and all other quackeries aside, I can tell you this. Between 2000 and 2004, I gained 50-60 pounds during my career at Purdue University. I maintained a weight of 225-235 from 2004-2015. In the spring of 2016 I made a change in my lifestyle. It happened during dinner one evening. I was getting up from the dinner table to fill my plate for the second time when it occurred to me that I was already full and that the only reason I was going back for seconds was because it tasted good and I wanted it. Instead of going back for seconds, I put my plate in the dishwasher and proceeded to clean up the dinner mess.

Over the next 18 months, I continued this process of skipping second helpings. I also chose to forgo late night snacks, passing on free donuts at work, ordering the small sized single classic meal at Wendy's, switched to unsweet tea or the occasional diet soda and on and on. I could continue to explain what I have done but I think you get the point. I safely and gradually reduced my caloric intake and the result has been well worth it. I am now at 175 pounds and have been that way since December of 2017. No fad diets, no magic weight loss pills, no trips to the gym, no consultation with my Physician, no starvation or fasting. Just good old fashioned will power, responsibility and a reasonable diet. Everyone asks me how I did it and the look on their face when I tell them that I stopped eating so damn much is priceless. I am not sure I can provide a better example of how reducing caloric intake will result in weight loss. Nonetheless, I am sure one of the resident INGO doctors or weight loss professionals will come along and give me the real reason it worked for me.

 

[ATOMonkey]

There's also an economic side to obesity. When did credit cards become popular, and when did people start to get fatter? It's an interesting bit of data.

I skimmed the posts, but another issue is insulin response. Since everything is so sweet, it puts people into a food coma every time they eat. Even artificial sweeteners have been shown to trigger an insulin response.

Also why Type II diabetes is up so much.