| ladybugnessa
|
|
|
if you are born fat you are going to be fat if you don't PERMANENTLY change what you do
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fK%2fKolata%2c%20Gina&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |
|
Tue May 08, 2007 8:27 pm |
|
| LegalBeagle
|
|
|
| Wow, interesting. I want to read the book now! Thanks for sharing this. Very thought-provoking read! |
|
Wed May 09, 2007 1:06 pm |
|
| Searay
|
|
|
WOW! That article is an eye opener - and a bit depressing for those trying to lose weight. I wouldn't imagine the "diet industry" would want anyone believing it was actually all true.
It makes sense to me though - about a set point weight. I totally agree from a personal perspective. I would like to factor in the aging process though - as far as that set point. I think it goes a bit higher with each passing decade.
Thanks for posting that link. RJ |
|
Wed May 09, 2007 8:13 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
This is a very interesting article. I have a lot more to say, but no time right now.
I'm considering getting a calorimetry reading done, and I'm curious to see how my metabolism measures up to what it should be given my body makeup. Based on the article, it's predicted to be low. That wouldn't surprise me. |
|
Fri May 11, 2007 4:57 pm |
|
| oldpjams
|
|
|
I'm sorry.
I'm no doctor; I'm no scientist.
My response to that article is "no sh*t."
Or, "Really, what did you expect?"
To wit:
Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight.
Yes, and what were their bodies going through? Their bodies were thinking "Damn food is scarce, I better slow everthing down and save what I can." But these were obese people, and their bodies were able to give up 100lbs without upsetting nature too much.
But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.
Umm. Told you so.
The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged.
So you denied people food and then they binged? Huh.
The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: “It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals.”
Yeah, you starved people to get them thin and the result wasn't a healthy human being -- physically or mentally. They didn't make a lifestyle change, and they didn't exercise free will on a day to day basis. They were lab rats.
Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life’s work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.
For the first part, yes, you starved 50 people and 50 people exhibited symptoms of starvation. As for the rest, yes, staying thin is a continued effort. You can't go back to eating crap and sitting on the couch. The unfortunate additional challenge for these poor folks is that the scientists ruined their metabolism and did not help them get healthy.
On nature vs nurture:
In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.
[deleted for brevity]"80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”
[deleted for brevity]
The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.
The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.
The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.
Again, is this news or am I the odd one for assuming this was common sense? My parents are not obese. They are solidly medium-build type people. Normal BMI. I found it relatively easy to get from overweight to a bodytype similar to what runs in my family. Getting truly thin? Serious sweat. My wife's parents are obese. She's a rail. She eats very carefully and exercises. When she slacks off she gains. No reprieve. No exceptions.
That's life.
But wait.
The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.
I'm sorry, what? I was 30-40lbs above what seems to be a normal weight for my height and build for a decade. I've now been 15-20lbs under that weight for nearly 5 years. You don't think you can change your metabolism (read: calories burned)? Go do something aerobic for 2-3 hours. Your body will find the calories somewhere. You body won't stop using calories because you're 20lbs under your normal/geneticly predetermined normal weight.
“Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”
This is where I get to use my all-time favorite diet and exercise related word.
velleity
Can I will myself to stop breathing? No. Refuse to drink? Probably not. Can I starve myself? Again, no probably not. You bet your fat ass (no not yours, you look great) that I can cut calories by eating wisely (less calorie dense foods?) and exercising more.
This is just another series of excuses for most of the population.
Disclaimer: I know that some suffer with medical challenges to losing weight. |
|
Fri May 11, 2007 7:24 pm |
|
| msmarieh
|
|
|
I found that a very interesting article. One thought kept coming to me though. A 600 calorie a day diet (in my opinion) IS starving! No wonder they experienced starvation mentality.
I wonder how their results would have varied with a healthier diet and exercise program - how much would that have "reset" the body's metabolism?
Marie |
|
Fri May 11, 2007 7:31 pm |
|
| A-Rod
|
|
|
*applause*
while i don't think the research was sufficient to support those conclusions, let's pretend that you are genetically predisposed to be whatever weight your parents were. keyword: predisposed. that's a tendency, not a guarantee.
so the ultimate answer to all the conclusions there is, "yeah, so what?" this doesn't change the fact that you have to eat right and exercise to be at a healthy weight. said predisposition may make it more difficult to get to and stay at that healthy weight, but i repeat, "yeah, so what?"
nessa, i know you said exactly this in one sentence, so it's a knock on the research, not you posting it. i agree with jams 100% that this is indeed another excuse for fat people to not work hard to get healthy - if they have something to blame it on other than their own bad habits, it's easier not to take responsibility.
that all said, i do think metabolism and body type are genetically linked. i'm short and stocky and gain weight and muscle easily. so, too, are my parents. my boyfriend, on the other hand, is slender no matter what he eats, and doesn't exercise. same exact body type for his parents. i think there's something to this to a certain extent, but i repeat: "so what?" |
|
Fri May 11, 2007 7:31 pm |
|
| Aninha
|
|
|
I agree with every word oldpjams said.
Like the other day, the most important Brazilian magazine announced that scientits found out that diets don't work: 95% of those who lose weight regain everything back when they return to their old eating habits.
NO KIDDING!! :roll:
And they had to spend years doing research to come to this conclusion?? D'oh!! |
|
Sat May 12, 2007 1:46 am |
|