You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don’t have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day.
Exactly. If 2 people ate exactly the same and did exactly the same amount of exercise yet only one gained weight it simply means the person who gained weight cannot eat as much as the person who didn't.
We are not all the same and our thresholds are different. Makes it harder to resist urges for the person who puts the weight on.
This doesn't cover the ridiculously thin but eat like a horse people. I know a family where the mother, father and all 3 children look like sticks. They can eat as much as they like but never put on weight and even though they are now in their 40's they are still like sticks.
alright, i’m not hungry. I just like eating pom-bears.
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
Virtual high five 🖐
I’m a monster. I stole my four year old child’s last bag of Pom Bears yesterday. Those things are so tasty and my brain seems to think they are calorie free, just like those pink wafer biscuits and prawn crackers.
this is a good read if you are interested in the science of calories
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/what-does-a-calorie-measure/427089/
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
there arent pom bears in the cupboard any more...
the problem is, it comes across as 'wah, its not fair, its not my fault...'
in my experience, of myself and pretty much everyone in life that i have lived with, worked with, cycled with, surfed with. if you are overweight, its because of choices you have made.
I chose to eat the pom bears and I'll run 10k later but that'll put me pretty much back where I started. not sure where the two slices of nutella on toast will end up though...
Those who are skinny and claim they eat loads - i'd be willing to bet good money they are all vastly overestimating how much they're eating.
In the same way overweight people underestimate how much they eat ('I've been dieting and not lost any weight!'), those who are skinny do the same in reverse.
I used to be the same - I was 6 foot and 9.5 stone. Clinically underweight. I always thought 'I can eat and eat and never gain weight', but in reality I was eating nowhere near enough calories to gain any meaningful weight.
I learnt about nutrition and the science behind building muscle and to this day am absolutely amazed how much I have to eat to gain muscle mass. I'm now 13.8 stone which is perhaps on the portly size but it is bulking season so what do you expect. Last time I went on a cut I lost half a stone in a matter of weeks - it's easily done, you just stop eating - or in my case, go back to old eating habits from before I started to gain weight.
The flip side to this is those who are genuinely overweight must have to eat so much food to maintain their fat reserves it genuinely boggles my mind. Genetics or not, you need to get the energy from somewhere in the first place.
As someone who in the past, who could literally eat & drink anything & everything I wanted & be 80kg I don’t believe for one second my genes have ‘changed
your epigenetics can/will change though.
if you are overweight, its because of choices you have made.
Such as choosing to take steroids to treat a brain tumour?
My father gained a shit load of weight after being diagnosed coeliac.
He had been eating loads and it was passing straight through his body.
Once he modified his diet to suit coeliac and his body was able to process food again- and didn't cut the food to reflect his new found ability to process it
So yes I'd agree that people process foods in different ways....
But he just modified his diet to suit and all was good
Such as choosing to take steroids to treat a brain tumour?
Yeah, that's exactly why obesity rates are increasing.
Yeah, that’s exactly why obesity rates are increasing.
Well you learn something every day.
Those who are skinny and claim they eat loads – i’d be willing to bet good money they are all vastly overestimating how much they’re eating.
No. I lived with one such bloke - my dad - for quite a while. He would do stuff like eat a big plate of curry and rice for breakfast left over from the previous night. And then eat normal large meals the rest of the day.
The flip side to this is those who are genuinely overweight must have to eat so much food to maintain their fat reserves it genuinely boggles my mind.
So, let's imagine you're really confused about how this happens, but you really wanted to know. So maybe you'd study medicine. But the answers aren't there, because you really wanted to know. So you become a researcher, and you spend 15 years researching obesity and understanding it, and reach a pretty high level within your field and you'd be recognised for your achievements. So you complete a big study and come to some interesting conclusions, and the national press think it's interesting enough to cover. Then some bloke on the internet who's thin skims it for ten seconds and goes 'nah, doesn't sound right to me'.
Seriously. Get a grip. You aren't an expert, you don't understand this subject as well as the scientists do.
Last time I went on a cut I lost half a stone in a matter of weeks – it’s easily done
No - YOU FOUND IT EASY. People with much more knowledge than you have discovered that not everyone's body behaves the same way.
How do you think fat disappears? How do you think the body metabolises it? What happens when you don't eat enough? How does that transfer into lipolysis? How does lipolysis work? What controls how effective it is and how much fatty acids are released in response to those stimuli? If not enough fatty acids are released what happens? How does BMR change and energy available for activity?
Seriously. Get a grip. You aren’t an expert
And neither are you.
Seriously. Get a grip. You aren’t an expert, you don’t understand this subject as well as the scientists do.
Have you read the original publication. You see basing it on the extremes is fine and saying they have different alleles is all well and good but most of us will be in the middle for these traits and thats where public policy should be focussed. The study also just makes correlations, thin people have different alleles, it could be these alleles make you morally superior so you eat less.
TL;DR... I’ve read most of the first page, it’s doubtless moved on however, has anyone asked “if obesity is linked to an individuals chemical predisposition, why are there more fat people now than in previous decades, centuries, millennia?” Yet?
Apologies if it has already been asked and answered to a negotiated consensus of agreement 😉
If the authorities weren’t so tied into feeding the masses with cake, because unprocessed foods require a bit more time, effort and most importantly, money, then the GP’s would be handing out amphetamine like statins. 😉
trail_rat
Member
My father gained a shit load of weight after being diagnosed coeliac.He had been eating loads and it was passing straight through his body.
Once he modified his diet to suit coeliac and his body was able to process food again- and didn’t cut the food to reflect his new found ability to process it
So yes I’d agree that people process foods in different ways….
But he just modified his diet to suit and all was good
What if the issue was the lack of a gene that provided some level of self control, or statiety, or body dysmorphia, or on the other side isn't an endorphin junkie predisposed to exercise? It may well be a zero sum calculation, but that doesn't mean skinny people are somehow experts at it, they perhaps just enjoy exercise more, or don't enjoy chocolate in quite the same way.
What if he was just lucky that he wasn't 'blessed' with genes that resulted in a low appetite ended up malnourished rather than just normal-ish?
TL;DR… I’ve read most of the first page, it’s doubtless moved on however, has anyone asked “if obesity is linked to an individuals chemical predisposition, why are there more fat people now than in previous decades, centuries, millennia?” Yet?
Apologies if it has already been asked and answered to a negotiated consensus of agreement 😉
If the authorities weren’t so tied into feeding the masses with cake, because unprocessed foods require a bit more time, effort and most importantly, money, then the GP’s would be handing out amphetamine like statins. 😉
Evolution.
We evolved in such a way that being fat was a really good thing, it meant you didn't die in February 5 months after the apples had all gone.
Now that we have apples 365 days of the year the lack of people with skinny genes means most people are now fat.
Now there are exceptions, but refusing to acknowledge that there's probably a genetic contribution to your metabolism, is like blaming gingers for getting sunburnt easily. Which is a fortunate comparison "
Scots rank second in world for obesity" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/sep/26/health.medicineandhealth
It would be really interesting to see how the opinions on this thread correlate to the BMI and daily cake-eating habits of those posting them.
is like blaming gingers for getting sunburnt easily.
It really isnt, all the study does is show that those at the extremes of society in terms of BMI have different genetic make ups, no causal mechanisms have been suggested, no one has said what these genes do and how the skinny alleles are different from the fat ones. It would be surprising if the small subset of people selected had the same genetic make up.
PS Evolution doesnt explain why obesity has spiked in the last 40-50 years
It's not simple, but sometimes public health messages need to be simple.
PS Evolution doesnt explain why obesity has spiked in the last 40-50 years
It does when you consider what's happened to food availability for the majority since WW2.
<1850 subsistence farming, irish potato famine
<1910 living in slum conditions
<1920 war
<1940 the 1930's
<1950 war
<1960 rationing
1970< access to almost unlimited calories irrespective of income.
Give evolution a few tens of thousand years and a combination of death and infertility will kill off the fat genes.
1850 subsistence farming, irish potato famine
<1910 living in slum conditions
<1920 war
<1940 the 1930’s
<1950 war
<1960 rationing
1970< access to almost unlimited calories irrespective of income.
I think you just made my point, there has been no change in genetic make up since 1970
And lo and behold people got fat?
I'm sure some people managed to get fat the moment rationing was abolished, but for most* it's a longer term thing. Especially if you were born in 1970, spent 30 years getting fat, had kids and passed your bad habits onto them. People in their 60's now are the first generation to have had access to this many calories their entire lives. But share their genetic makeup with people who regularly starved to death only a few generations before.
@thisisnotaspoon yep, with you for much of that as I guess in evolutionary terms, we’re still trying to get used to not hunter gather? 😉
I’m not disputing the affect a chemical imbalance has on an individual, my thoughts are that it’s a mix of all the elements from biological to behavioural, environmental, sociological... complex.
If it were true, if you ate even slightly more than you exercised you’d get gradually fatter all the time and as old people most of us would be gigantic immobile blobs. This is clearly not happening.
Have you not noticed how people gradually get fatter through their lifetime ?
The easiest way for people to be surprised at your age and underestimate it is to be slim.
Simple law of physics. Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight and vice versa.
Simple law of physics. Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight and vice versa
But do you accept that some may be genetically designed more efficiently at burning their calories?
see a time where they are telling doctors and other professionals that they can’t tell people that they are fat
NO that's not the way it's going. Fat shaming refers to those that look at the person before them and does no in depth study in to that persons lifestyle, general and mental health before letting rip with the judgemental stuff on size and weight. (Alpin I'm looking at you). It's not as simple as some of us like to think and that's what the abusing fat-shamers is aimed at.
Edited for some dodgy punctuation.
Those who are skinny and claim they eat loads – i’d be willing to bet good money they are all vastly overestimating how much they’re eating.
As one of those people who has been skinny all their life I definitely used to eat lots when I was younger but as I have got older I have ballooned from 64kg 28in waist to up to 70kg with a 29in waist. And will put the weight on if I don’t eat well, that said I can lose it fairly quickly. I’ll never be obese but you just end up being a skinny guy with a pot belly which isn’t a good look.
I do think a lot of people who put weight on easily do look for excuses as to them being overweight when they could easily do things to help lose the weight, there are now many more obese and overweight people, that’s not genetectics, that’s people stuffing their faces with crap and blaming it on everything but themselves.
Simple law of physics. Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight and vice versa.
It's almost as though the entire point of the discussion has passed you by.
No the point is that everyone eats enough to weigh what they do. The tragedy is that it appears that genes determine some degree of energy efficiency, satiety and possibly other factors. Hence it may be the genetics of gut hormones for example signalling that one has eaten enough or not. It may be a preponderance to convert and lay down white adipose tissue. We just don’t know.
It is interesting that people who have gastric bypass surgery see dramatic changes, normally via increased satiety and changes in gut hormones. Obviously this is not genetic, it is physiological. The operation has impressive effects on type 2 diabetes right from the beginning.
Ginger, 69kg and 179cm. Always been thin and don’t really put on weight. When training, I eat 10 days of food a week.
Has anyone actually read the paper referenced? The reason genes influence whether someone is fat or not relates to their ability to control their appetite; turn down food; and judge how much they're eating.
The "speed" of their metabolism plays an almost insignificant part. Basically, if you're fat you have a primeval urge to eat Snickers bars.
I gave a problem with the reporting of these types of studies - overstated opinions from a study that doesn't seem to suggest cause (I don't have access to academic databases any more otherwise I would pull a copy of the paper and read it myself -edit btw this is not at all my field, but by looking at the published research the authors tend to be clear about the conclusions and limits of their research in understandable terms)
The questions I would ask would be (and for future research)
Did the original research suggest it was genetic variation affecting metabolism that wss making the difference.
Perhaps it's genetics affecting appetite or other feeding triggers - hormone production I guess?
Or maybe genetics causes a psychological predisposition?
Or maybe it is metabolic
Or a combination of the above.
Did they properly adjust for all variables - was the sample size big enough.
Also - as pointed - out the study looked at very thin (by modern standards) and very obese people. So it may be a concentration of generic factors it each grouping that produces an effect that pushes people to ends of the distribution - or conversely - a range of genetic factors exist on an spectrum that have an increasing and decreasing impact on weight across that spectrum. Maybe it's only the extreme cases where the genetic factors are strong enough to overcome environmental/societal factors. Etc etc
So it's interesting but probably doesn't tell us much without further research.
Feeling hungry isn't a sign that you need to eat something now it's a sign that you need to go for a long walk (hunting and gathering) and eat something after.
I was told recently by my sister, who has two black labradors, that the breed doesn’t have the internal communication link to tell them when they are full, hence Labs in particular being 4-legged stomachs. IIRC she said it was a missing gene that prevents this signal. Where she got this snippet from I have no idea and as yet, I haven’t bothered corroborate her claim.
Both her dogs’ food intake is rigorously controlled, neither of them are overweight.
QED 😁
Where this kind of research could eventually be useful, in conjunction with the work of many, many others, is to differentiate between the large numbers of groups of people who are having difficulty addressing their obesity, and isolate genetic/physiological factors which may or may not be involved.
So you might end up with a group for whom there is a psychological component in over-eating - depression/anxiety/body image issues, a group for whom there is an appetite regulation issue, perhaps hormonal, perhaps a group for whom basic metabolic rate is a problem. There are many others for whom there are obvious physical factors - underlying illness and disability - make exercise more problematic.
You may then be able to target specific groups with combinations of interventions tailored to them, on top of the generic 'eat less, move more' messages which can still help most people who are overweight.
The core problem is that this kind of thing is expensive, and until politicians realise that the future cost of type II diabetes, bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease is far higher, the investment will never be made.
And neither are you.
No, that's why I am saying listen to the people who are.
I’m very famukiar with her work. We sponsored some of it a few years back in an experimental medicine setting. Some nice studies looking at caloric input with meals that looked and tasted the same but had very different calorie content, for example, with an intervention of a hormone. Grehlin has been an interesting gut hormone target for years. You might like to look at Prader-Willi syndrome as an extreme example of a linkage between genetics and obesity (and other development factors).
The linkage for labradors and food is not anecdotal. There is something going on.
@TiRed - hey cheers for the link to that article, I’ll forward it on to my sis. 🙏
I'm fat, but not inactive, I have this strange link that when i do exercise I tend to eat more! Which is fine cause I love eating! 😆 Basically my weight is a consequence of 20 years of abusing my body. Trying to slowly change mind, cut out sugar, eat more veg, I'm at that age where it's kind more important to eat better I guess, just from a longevity point of view.
It's all very simple for 99% of people out there I reckon, find out your BMR, if you don't move, eat less than that, you lose weight. If you do move, eat less than your BMR + moving calories and you'll lose weight.
There will be medical outliers, but that's exactly what they'll be imo, outliers, ie it's not relevant to the vast majority.
I'd personally believe that if people are counting calories honestly and stay within their personal range, they'll lose weight, if they don't they are lying to themselves.
I suspect a large part of the problem is that losing weight is a long term process, particularly if you are vastly over weight. ie myself, if I was to get down to say 12stone again, it'd probably take a year solid of watching what I eat.
To lose a bit of weight is easy, a stone or so is a dawdle, to stick to it over the long term is what is hard. Which is really the difference between a diet and a lifestyle change I reckon.
Has anyone actually read the paper referenced? The reason genes influence whether someone is fat or not relates to their ability to control their appetite; turn down food; and judge how much they’re eating.
I havent and would like too if anyone has access maybe they could pm me about emailing it over. As far as I could see reading the beeb it just showed that the genetics of skinny people was different but they didnt know what these alleles did different from "normal" people and fatties.
It’s all very simple for 99% of people out there I reckon
Ok but the experts are saying it's not simple.
If it's not simple, why are so many people fat and unhappy about it? Is it because they are feeble minded or inferior somehow? Cos that is the suggestion if it is in fact simple and they fail.
I'm more than happy to share my amazing skinny genes with anyone here on the forum; lube will be provided...
Ok but the experts are saying it’s not simple.
If it’s not simple, why are so many people fat and unhappy about it? Is it because they are feeble minded or inferior somehow? Cos that is the suggestion if it is in fact simple and they fail.
The experts in this study say its not that simple for a small minority in society, for most it is. Why are so many fat people unhappy, I have no idea but losing weight is not easy, especially if you have got too big to exercise.
Ye cannae change the laws of physics captain.
molgrips
Subscriber
It’s all very simple for 99% of people out there I reckonOk but the experts are saying it’s not simple.
If it’s not simple, why are so many people fat and unhappy about it? Is it because they are feeble minded or inferior somehow? Cos that is the suggestion if it is in fact simple and they fail.
Am I genetically unique cause I'm fat and it doesn't affect my mood in the slightest?
I'd also question how much validity we are meant to take from one study? I'd suspect alot more research/verification is required in the area.
But lets take it as read, say someone does have genes that affect their mood or whatever, the simple maths still stand up though, so they can battle through it. It doesn't really make them immune to the eat less than you exert theory, might make things a bit tougher, but that theory still stands.
Personally i'd say the unhappiness comes more from societal norms and what people think they are expected to achieve/look like and that leads to their unhappiness/depression. Personally I don't give two hoots about that kinda stuff.
edit:
In saying that though, i would think there are genetic variations in people though, i think that is obvious, but I don't think they need to define a personal completely. I doubt they'd lead to extremes like a 25 stone person though, maybe a 2/3 stone difference is more in the realms of reality at either side of under/over weight.
It doesn’t really make them immune to the eat less than you exert theory
No-one's saying that.
The reason genes influence whether someone is fat or not relates to their ability to control their appetite; turn down food; and judge how much they’re eating.
Perhaps "nurture" has an impact (along with/rather than genes?). You know, growing up with parents who stuff their faces.
Feeling hungry isn’t a sign that you need to eat something now it’s a sign that you need to go for a long walk (hunting and gathering) and eat something after.
That's an interesting point. I quite like the anticipation of a meal brought on by growing hunger but i know people who can't stand feeling hungry so have to snack.
molgrips
Subscriber
It doesn’t really make them immune to the eat less than you exert theoryNo-one’s saying that.
So what point are you making then? It might be a bit more difficult for some people, agreed. Anything else?
I think it's fairly obvious to state that genetic makeup has a part to play in how easy it to lose weight.
But...
I did practically no exercise in 2017 and spent pretty much all my time in the pub. I put on 12 kg.
In 2018 I gave up drinking (ok I had a few on occasion), and started exercising again...low and behold I lost all that weight and am back to what I weighed before I became, by my own admission 'a bit of a slob'
Moral of story..some folks need to exercise more and eat less than others...but let's not pretend lifestyle choice doesn't play a massive part in obesity.
But no one is saying that. Not really sure what the argument is about. Most obesity is caused by over eating and under exercising but a scientific study shows there is a genetic component that can affect some people making it harder or easier for them to lose weight compared to others. Hardly controversial and no one is saying that means people can give up trying.
No the point is that everyone eats enough to weigh what they do. The tragedy is that it appears that genes determine some degree of energy efficiency, satiety and possibly other factors. Hence it may be the genetics of gut hormones for example signalling that one has eaten enough or not. It may be a preponderance to convert and lay down white adipose tissue. We just don’t know.
Thank you TiRed. In my case Endocrinologist demonstrated a total lack of intellectual curiosity and presumably preferred to make lazy assumptions, like most on here. I was very hypothyroid, meds were not working so it was left to me to figure this out so I did eventually. Lyme disease and confirmed by combination of testing and clinical diagnosis. What I can't figure out though is how although those with autoimmune conditions do seem to have a susceptibility, as evidenced by my Lyme group.
For those interested the paper was published in the open source Plos Genetics here.
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007603
Happy reading.
Thanks for that. Its all just correlations though with no mechanistic theories. Also:
it is worth noting these conclusions cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to the general population.
As is usual its been very heavily misreported.
The argument is against people who think and state that losing weight is easy and if you struggle it's because you're feeble and useless.
And extrapolated to the general population. Some of her earlier work on MCR4 mutations was more impressive.
so its calories in = calories out
and if you are the genetic equivalent of a labrador you are more likely to struggle to restrict calories in
if you are the genetic equivalent of a bulldog you are likely to struggle to increase the calories out
and either way YMMV
As usual, the results have been somewhat overplayed in the media. The main effort in this study is to attempt to come up with a decent-sized cohort of ostensibly healthy skinny folk living in developed countries who will be useful in future in working out which genes influence these characteristics.
While it's obvious that extreme obesity and skinniness are at least partly heritable, this study in no way attempts to look at the bulk of the overweight population, as it were.
Quite interesting, they appear at least to have made a decent stab at excluding undiagnosed eating disorders. The bad news is they also excluded people who exercised more than three times a week, so no XC racing snakes allowed!
so its calories in = calories out
But once again, 'out' is not defined in your equation.
But once again, ‘out’ is not defined in your equation.
Does it matter ? You adjust in till your chosen tracking methods move in the direction you wish. .
Your body is not creating energy from the air to store as fat.
Regardless of what this study says, calories don't magic in out of thin air.
You can strawman or ad hominem my post all you want, but that is the unavoidable truth.
Of course people lose weight at different rates, or gain weight faster than the other. I don't think anyone needed a study to understand that.
I don’t think anyone needed a study to understand that.
Hush that talk! Are you trying to singlehandedly bring down academia?
Of course people lose weight at different rates, or gain weight faster than the other. I don’t think anyone needed a study to understand that.
Yeah, just use your spider sense or common sense or whatever, no need to ever look a bit deeper into the actual reasons behind what sometimes can seem obvious.
so its calories in = calories out
But once again, ‘out’ is not defined in your equation.
Out is defined, its equal to in. Its a very simple equation.
You adjust in till your chosen tracking methods move in the direction you wish. .
It does matter because of what happens to people when they try and fail to lose weight.
Got on the scales for the first time in a while this morning. I’m blaming my genes... 😉
It does matter because of what happens to people when they try and fail to lose weight.
Why? What is it that makes you think eating less calories and exercising more is not the best advice for the vast majority of people. Yes its all made harder by socio economics, education, lifestyle, genes and maybe illness but the basic advice is true.
Yeah, just use your spider sense or common sense or whatever, no need to ever look a bit deeper into the actual reasons behind what sometimes can seem obvious.
Not terribly sure what argument you're trying to make here.
Got on the scales for the first time in a while this morning. I’m blaming my genes…
Yep, same for me. I’m going to open a bottle of wine and those liquer soaked cherries (covered in dark chocolate) while I read the study. 😂
Or the scales. Definitely not the Pom bears...
I bought Michael Mosley's new book "The Fast 800", so far I've dropped 9 pounds in 6 days. It takes a bit of willpower to get going but seeing a weight loss on the scales every day is enough motivation for me to keep going.
Hahaha did you see the video of Gemma Collins falling over? lol🤣
Why? What is it that makes you think eating less calories and exercising more is not the best advice for the vast majority of people. Yes its all made harder by socio economics, education, lifestyle, genes and maybe illness but the basic advice is true.
You totally misunderstand my point - I've never at any point said 'don't move more and eat what you want' have I? That's bloody ridiculous.
Of course eat less and move more is good advice for basically everyone. But the point is that some people, perhaps quite a few, will only lose a little weight, and some not at all. So the question is, why? Why, when we try to do what we know is right, do we not achieve results?
If people keep saying how simple it is, and yet we can't do it, this makes many people feel pretty shitty about themselves, like they have failures because they can't manage a simple task. Worse still, it makes other people think they are also failures because hey, it's easy for me look at my lovely body, you must be pathetic. I shouldn't have to point out how absolutely shitty that can be and how damaging it is for people who suffer.
The article demonstrates that if you try, and you fail, you may not be quite as useless as the self righteous would suggest - it might actually be naturally easier for some than others. That doesn't mean you should stop trying, although doubtless some will; but it means that you should expect things to be more difficult and perhaps accept that you can only expect to improve things a little.
Once again - eat healthily, not too much and do exercise, for a whole raft of reasons that are nothing to do with weight - but don't beat yourself up if you don't lose weight, and don't assume that if someone's fat they are weak willed and lying to you or themselves about their diet. Make sense?
I think this covers it:
Of course eat less and move more is good advice for basically everyone. But the point is that some people, perhaps quite a few, will only lose a little weight, and some not at all. So the question is, why? Why, when we try to do what we know is right, do we not achieve results?
I still can't work out your point, or even if you are arguing with yourself on this.
I think it's fair to say, that for the vast majority of people, it's not easy to lose weight.
But (and maybe it's the way my mind works) if i'm not getting the results I want, I would explore what I needed to do further. It's VERY well publicised that the majority of people underestimate (and outright lie to themselves) about the volume of food they eat (even when on a so called diet) and totally overestimate the amount of exercise they do (and subsequently 'eat back' those calories).
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
You are right I dont understand your point, if people are in calorie deficit they will lose weight, its a very simple equation. Getting to that situation maybe harder for some than others and genetics seem to be correlated with thinness but as the article states its hard to extrapolate to the general population.
I still can’t work out your point, or even if you are arguing with yourself on this.
I think arguing with himself.
He's said "losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless." and then used this study to counter the hypothesis he's putting forward. I can't find anyone else saying "losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.", so just him arguing with himself.
My story: Last Feb I was obese. Very active, but obese. My doc told me in feb I was obese and my blood pressure was as high as it could go without needing treatment.
Six months later I'd lost 3 stone by running and cycling more and eating *far* less. 1 year on I've kept it off. I feel great, I've got more energy than ever. I can keep up with my kids, which means we can share more fun - that's a life changer. I've knocked 7 minutes off my 5km time. My blood pressure is 'ideal'. I sleep better.
I'm grateful he told me straight. I wish I'd be fat shamed years before. In our culture of obese people who fear anorexia a lot of us don't even realize we're fat and nobody ever tells us. I genuinely thought as an active person I was 'technically' obese because of muscle.
I'd urge anyone to embrace the calories in, calories out frame of mind. There's no substitute.
if people are in calorie deficit they will lose weight, its a very simple equation.
But it's not, because your body has loads of feedback loops to preserve fat, and oxidation of fat needs certain conditions. In some people the feedback loops are stronger than others. So for some, if you do lots of exercise and don't eat much you end up weak and your exercise intensity reduces, and your BMR falls, and you end up feeling like utter shite before you lose much actual weight.
You are focusing on the simple equation, which may be true in theory, but in practice it's surrounded by so many complex variables and conditions that calling it 'simple' is extremely unhelpful.
I think the amount and rate of fat loss that is practically achievable varies a lot from person to person. Out of three people I cycle with on a semi regular basis, one never gains weight, one does very slowly but loses easily, one gains it really quickly and loses more slowly. My weight hardly moves - 2kg is a huge swing either way for me and requires a massive amount of riding and moderate dieting over 6 months to shift. I can't diet hard and still ride to the degree I'm used to.
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
Sure, that may be true, but by assuming that all fatties are simply in denial and if you just bucked your ideas up you'd be thin you are creating a highly damaging culture surrounding the issue.
He’s said “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.”
Ah no, I think you' better go back and read around that quote a bit more - that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Ah no, I think you’ better go back and read around that quote a bit more – that’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying.
You're saying both. You're saying “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.” and then countering your own statement.
If you're claiming someone other than you is saying something like “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.” then feel free to quote them with a link so we can check.
....but as far as I can see it's just you.
But it’s not, because your body has loads of feedback loops to preserve fat,
Well it is simple, you cannot change the laws of physics. You cant lose weight without being in calorie deficit and if you are you will lose weight (assuming you dont gain muscle). It is a very simple thing. It maybe be harder for some than others but the basic point stands.
you shouldn't really mix the facts and the feelings, that's going on a lot in here
measure food by the gram/calorie, measure work by mass/distance/time.... whats the measure of 'suffering' or tolerance to it?
You’re saying “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.”
Can you link to that quote please?
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
Yep. I want to lose 3-4kg during Jan - Mar (got a few uphill segments to beat!) and I know how many calories I need to take in and I know how many I take out during exercise. I use a diet tracker app to record everything and need to net 1700 calories a day and even sticking to 1700 calories is difficult for me so I must have been eating loads before.