[Closed] This Obesity Thing

IT IS NOT THAT **** SIMPLE!

Yes it is complex but that bit is not complex and is true
we could debate some of the other niche stuff about high sugar v high fat or whatever but the energy in v out is true

It's because I was riding all day every day and expending more than I was consuming, simple as that!

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/why-i-didnt-get-fat-from-eating-too-much_b_3428524.html ]Sam Feltham ate 5000 calories a day and didn't gain weight.[/url]
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/weight-loss-advice-5000-calorie-carb-challenge_b_3931307.html ]Sam Feltham ate 5000 calories a day and did gain weight.[/url]

Simple!

I did hardly any exercise over December/Christmas/New Year and ate 25000 extra calories in mincepies. I gained 200 grams. Simple, eh?

[url= http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5550/11951798653_a2c3b7ebcb.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5550/11951798653_a2c3b7ebcb.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/36927256@N00/11951798653/ ]Untitled[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/36927256@N00/ ]monkey****er[/url], on Flickr

I cant stop eating, I eat all the time, I am a eating addict.

today I ate
1 slice of toast, with a banana and honey on it
scrambled egg and beans
2 x scotch eggs (homemade).
1 x tub of hummus
1 x small steak with a monster of a salad
1 x pear

no wonder I am fat and obese.

We are confusing two issue over eating and under eating
Though I started sceptical there is some interesting stuff on what foods lead to weight gain- i dont care enough to read it all but I there is some merit to it from what little i have read.
As far as I am aware there is no research that shows eating less than you use does not lead to weight loss

SO i can use more energy than I consume then on a regular basis without loosing weight?

Been taking straw man tips from deviant and MrSmith? 😛

Sam Feltham ate 5000 calories a day and did gain weight.

Am I missing something. Where does it say in that link he gained weight? Isn't it just announcing the 21 day carb rich experiment, and he will report back later.

...although it seems there was never a follow up article?

...as well as the fact the guy actually did gain weight in the first link as well.

SO i can use more energy than I consume then on a regular basis without loosing weight?

There are loads of variables. I can almost not be bothered to type it all out, but I will in the vain hope that someone will eventually appreciate the complexity.

How much energy you 'use up' depends on a huge number of things. There are several energy stores in your body, and loads of hormones that regulate weight and appetite. What your body uses for fuel depends on some of the hormones and what you are actually doing. And HOW you are doing it. And what you did the few days before hand.

If you don't eat enough, your body won't want to exercise as hard, and it won't recover as well. So by eating less, you might actually be ruining your chances of losing weight. But you might not. When you do your cycling, are you over or under your lactate threshold? Do you know where your threshold is? How much fat are you 'burning'? How are your muscle glycogen stores? In the following two days, how much energy is your body going to use repairing itself? Is it going to burn fat to do this? When you eat a cake, how much energy is actually going into your muscle tissues? How much fat is being stored? What effect will that cake have on how your body uses energy on your ride later that day? Does the cake actually increase your rate of recovery? If you recover better, will you be able to ride harder the next day, thereby using up more energy? How much carbs, protein and fat should you eat to allow your body to recover but not store any fat? If you are under-fuelled, are you actually riding less hard? Even if your average speeds are the same, are you using the same energy source all the time? If you sprint up hills and ride slower on flats, are you using up the same amount of energy as if you spin at a more constant effort? Is the overall training stress on your body the same, or more, for the same average speed? Will 5 minutes spent sprinting overall use more energy than an hour spent spinning? And what kind of energy, including two days recovery?

When doing a long regular commute, I reached a weight loss plateau. I started eating Twixes and I lost another 2kg in two weeks. Someone else on a recent thread also reported that they ate more and lost weight.

Basically, you don't really know how much energy you use up when riding, and you don't know what your body is doing with the food you are putting in your mouth.

What happened to all the mince pies miketually ate?

Blimey grimslop; nicely said 😀

(Although as you probably know, that's just a small element to the whole near-immeasurably and certainly not type-able in a forum, complex physical 'mass' thing, but still, it's that challenge of conventional misnomers I'd hope to see more of in this thread, rather than something that is frequently reading like it's being discussed by 14 year olds in an MSN 'news' article!)

We are a strange bunch.

Do people think there would be all this outrage if it wasnt presented to us with the nhs taxpayers money angle?

We seem to not be able to care about our fellow man until we're told their negative actions are taking money out of our own pockets.

Been taking straw man tips from deviant and MrSmith?

Molly it is complex I dont deny it however there is no way, in the long run, that any living thing can consume less than it uses and do anything other than lose weight.
It violates a number of laws of physics to claim otherwise and I doubt you wish to question them.

What happened to all the mince pies miketually ate

FWIW I agree with the points re overeating and STW has changed my /view/ educated me on this. It is indeed more complex than my original message of move more eat less.

This subject was done by page three ish.

Am I missing something. Where does it say in that link he gained weight? Isn't it just announcing the 21 day carb rich experiment, and he will report back later.

I linked the wrong article.

In the carb experiment he gained weight exactly according to the predicted energy in vs out model. In the high fat low carb experiment, he gained some weight but not nearly as much as the in/out theory would state, and as his waist measurement fell it'll have been muscle, not fat.

I am discussing under eating not over eating
DO you really wish to argue that if I say put you on a diet of 500 calories you would not lose weight?

No. You probably will. But why are you even making that point? It's not advisable, because you will feel like shit, and eventually give up.

Eat Less Move More - the only way to stay / get in shape..
END OF DISCUSSION..
IT IS THAT SIMPLE..

if you choose to not move much and like eating food YOU are the reason YOU are FAT..

the difference between mankind and the animal kingdom is meant to include presence of cognitive thought process so unless you are actually an animal you should be capable of accepting that endlessly putting food in your mouth is the reason you are fat.

not the price of food, or the weather, or your genes
just your ignorance that you could be in control of your health but choose not to care for yourself.

Eat Less Move More - the only way to stay / get in shape..
END OF DISCUSSION..

I think some wrote that on the first page....

You've got some reading to do laddo.

Eat Less Move More - the only way to stay / get in shape..
END OF DISCUSSION..
IT IS THAT SIMPLE..

Take your fingers out of your ears. We aren't making this stuff up you know.

Of course, if you are 30 stone and stuff your face all day then yes, ELMM will help. IF you can keep it up. But then, saying ELMM to someone like that is like telling a junkie to stop using. Simple to say, hard to do. Addiction ****s up your brain.

If you are active, eat normally and are still in the 60%, then ELMM is probably not going to work.

Do you really think 60% of the country are feeble minded idiots, and YOU are one of the great and noble with all the answers? Really? Cos that's very ****ing conceited.

then ELMM is probably not going to work.

I' be considered obese, bmi around 35. Why is that? Well its not difficult. From a 32" waist add 18 years of bevvying, eating what I want and smoking. Its not particularly rocket science. I had a good time getting fat, it's quite fun you know. No government conspiracies, mental health issues or any of that malarky.

Now I've got that all out my system. It'll take about a year to get rid of it. Which I'm quite into doing this year. Again not rocket science.

i am starting to think that prolonged unhealthy eating habits rewire the brains chemistry somehow, causing the problem to get increasingly worst, unless dealt with, which may in itself be very hard for some.
Probably many factors why the cycle started firstly .. but then all too often it gets worst..and many ( not all) do not seem to be too concerned.

I think it's also important to understand that ill feeling towards those that are active can also occur which doesn't really help matters.

Do you really think 60% of the country are feeble minded idiots

I wouldn't call them idiots. But when its in comparison to the powerful and instinctual drivers that make us eat. Relatively speaking "feeble minded" is about right. I'd put the percentage higher than 60%. And I'm in it.

One thing that we should also be aware of, and not the most obvious, is internal fat and organ health.

Being slim doesn't mean we're healthier than someone who is fat. Skinny people eating nothing but chocolate and cake are likely to have problems with their livers and organ linings all around the body, plus fat under the muscles.

I'm guilty of eating a lot of crap and it's very hard to make a change. There are STILL Christmas chocolates in the house and I eat something sweet/crap every single day, which is a habit I'd like to break. More veg, lean meat, non greasy plates and less sugar are something everyone needs to think about, not just fatter people.

All the chunky chimps in my workplace (forces) are that way due to: sedentary jobs, eating crap and not exercising. It's infuriating for me as they are the ones who are signed off sick due to dodgy knees, bad backs etc (stress from the excess weight). I get a bee in my bonnet about such folk, as those who do take care of themselves get to pick up their extra duties. So from a personal point of view that's why fatties do my nut in 🙂

because you will feel like shit, and eventually give up.

So it's all about will power then....

monkeychild - Member
All the chunky chimps in my workplace (forces) are that way due to: sedentary jobs, eating crap and not exercising. It's infuriating for me as they are the ones who are signed off sick due to dodgy knees, bad backs etc (stress from the excess weight). I get a bee in my bonnet about such folk, as those who do take care of themselves get to pick up their extra duties. So from a personal point of view that's why fatties do my nut in

It's the fact these folk (there are a lot by the way). Do eat junk (one lad doesn't consume any fruit or veg during his day) they get larger then whe. It comes fitness test time they get injured due to not doing any exercise (won't even take the stairs!!) and the fact their body is a lot heavier. They get signed off and the downward spiral continues. It gets 'kin annoying if you're in my shoes as it does have an effect on others. Lazy attitude and a lack of personal pride in your appearance is what the problem is here (there are numerous folk who have to get specially tailored larger uniforms FFS). I'll never forget my old man saying he would slap me if I got a gut lol (he'd have trouble now RIP Dad). Anyway that's my personal experience, obviously there are many other factors in civvy street.

Errr that's random lol, but it takes allsorts I guess.

I'm a bit fat at the minute (BMI is around 27).

This is because over Xmas I did hardly any exercise and ate loads of food. Therefore its not a great mystery to me that I put on weight.

I'm now losing the weight by eating less, I feel hungry some of the time but this is okay. I'm doing more exercise too but this is mainly for fitness, any weight loss through exercise is a bonus.

Its honestly not that complicated.

At a societal level the reasons behind most of the population eating more than they use is more difficult to crack but at an individual level its really not complicated. It can be difficult, it can be boring, it can be unpleasant but its not complicated.

So you maintain that of they ate less and moved more so they had a calorie imbalance it would not work?

No. It might work - it could well work, depending on the person, but it might not work very well. I'm saying that 'calorie imbalance' CAN (and is often) be difficult to manage effectively and make work for you. Of course, it often does, and for those who are grossly over-consuming it is an obvious first step.

However, if someone has an eating disorder (i.e. they can't STOP over-eating) then telling them to simply eat less is no different to telling a depressed person to cheer up.

But it depends what you mean by 'work' anyway. Will it help a 25 stone slob to lose weight? Yes. Will it get an active overweight person down to a BMI of 25 or under from say 28? Maybe - who knows.

^ he speaks sense (richmtb)

Plus, maintaining that weight loss is simple and easy can be very damaging. If you have tried to do this simple thing and failed, and are being called a fatty slob by skinny people, it's massively damaging.

(note that this isn't personal, I don't get called fat cos I'm not - at least until I get on the start line of an XC race, then I'm huge)

Its honestly not that complicated FOR ME.

FTFY

Its honestly not that complicated

I have just eaten a slab of lemon roulade...... 😳

pondo, how big?, if you don't mind me asking.

5' 10" and 17 and a half stone, as of last Monday. I'm not an enormous great blimp of a bloke, a la Butterbean or John Candy, but I reckon I could lose 5 stone and still be quite a long way from scrawny.

6''3'' and 19stone now. I lost 5 stone on a certain diet. back on it now to shift a stone again.
it is easy.

Just had a doughnut for breakfast, now I truly feel like I'm qualified to take part in this thread

Part of the reason that "Eat Less Move More" doesn't work a lot of the time is that the way people approach it is unsustainable. Currently, where I go to the gym, it is rammed in January, you can't get into the classes, there are queues for the machines and lane swimming is more like lane queuing in the water. Come February, it starts to empty out as people drop off their new health regimes - they have a bender at the end of the January Dryathlon, they succumb to a couple of takeouts....life gets in the way, and they can't be bothered any more. But many of them will have thrown themselves into it, going to the gym every day and eating 1200 calories a day or whatever it is My Fitness Pal tells you to eat to lose weight, and then when they're not half starving themselves and punishing themselves in the gym, the weight goes straight back on, quicker and more stubborn than before.

Of course you will lose weight if you slash your calorie intake and start running around like a loon, but is it sustainable? For most people, probably not.

Yeah, but that's not a problem with the fndamental concept, it's a problem with the execution.

I've just been [url= https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuKOuAY2FWIzdEMteU54Ymp1UXNrTkpnVEFITTJJb2c&usp=sharing ]playing with some numbers[/url] and it's interesting how little mass you need to gain to be overweight or obese, according to BMI. At a smidge under 5'11", if I weighed just over 12 1/2 stone I'd be overweight. If I weighed 15 stone, I'd be obese.

I wonder how many people my height are over 12.5 stone; I'd guess most men?

BMI is just a guide though

Doesn't universally work

I thought we'd established ages ago (and maybe even agreed upon on singletrack world if such a thing is believable) that BMI is a broken measurement system as it doesn't take muscle mass into account?

bmi is boolax isn't it? Shirley.

Using 25% body fat as a definition of obesity, I'd be obese at 11 stone 11 assuming I didn't also gain any muscle mass. That's less than a stone over what I weigh now, and I'm a skinny bugger.

That's only 23.4 BMI, so I'd be obese by fat% while being fine using BMI.

Bottom of page 8....

BMI has some "interesting" calculations in it to make it work that may be a bit suss...plus it was developed for measuring populations rather than individuals, and in the ninties the bands were shifted. As Mike has pointed out suddenly normal weight folk were slightly overweight. Who might have benefitted from that sort of change do we think....

bmi is boolax isn't it? Shirley

Its a guide.

If you were above 30 then its a "guide" that you might need to look at your weight.

Chris Hoy's BMI was around 30 but he's not typical of the general population.

So you maintain that of they ate less and moved more so they had a calorie imbalance it would not work?
No. It might work - it could well work, depending on the person,

but that's not a problem with the fndamental concept, it's a problem with the execution

Molly I agree wiht your broad point that it may be easier for some than others but the ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less than you use unless you wish to break the laws of the universe

Of course, BMI is not a perfect measurement, but always laugh at the speed with which it is rejected out-of-hand. How many couch potatoes come out with the lines about pro rugby players or cyclists. Hmm, take people at the extremes of sporting body shapes and extrapolate.....

For the most part, BMI is a pretty good indicator and IMO is rejected largely because of the uncomfortable but true reflection it gives most of us.

Ditto diet and weight. Yes it is correct to highlight external factors (and many are listed above) but they are all at the margin. The key factor above all other remains individual choices. It really is that simple. What goes in and how much (quality and quantity) v what goes out has worked thru history but sadly doesn't sell the latest best selling fad book.

Recently been clearing out family photos. The size, or lack of size, of most people in the 1950s-70s is startling. It's like comparing an old whickers world shot of people on the beach with current ones.

Molly you are a physicist

I am too. Physicists might need to consult biologists when it comes to digestion, because we're not spheres in a vacuum.

If you eat 1000 calories of refined sugar, pretty much all of them are available to your body.

If you eat 1000 calories of almonds, you don't digest them until very near the end of your gut, once some bacteria get in on the act. These bacteria will presumably also use some of the energy.

If you eat 1000 calories of coal, it'll probably pass right through you.

Shit floats because fat passes through you; it's partly why there's a problem with fatbergs in sewers.

Can the ELMM 'it's simple' advocates please answer the point of why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

Good post by molly a couple of pages back.

Also good post by lmp on the ELMM.

Sadly, the belief most people have is that you "do" a diet for a bit, then you're fixed and can go back to "normal".

Hence why 99% of January gym joiners have failed before they start.

If they really wanted to change their health prospects, they wouldn't be pissing about waiting until Jan 1st to do it.

Dieting and deprivation doesn't work. A balanced and healthy lifestyle is what is required to be a healthy weight and in a healthy condition. Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

IIRC, 'simple' low fat calorie-deficit diets result in a loss of lean mass as well as fat, so aren't particularly great.

BMI measures how thick or thin you are. End. As a measure of health outcomes for individuals it's pretty pointless

Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

It isn't though, just another excuse. If you really want to be healthy you'll make the effort or sacrifice other things. I'm just repeating myself now so I can't even be bothered with this thread any more 😆

I am now nibbling on a chorizo.... 8)

Eat Less, Move More is overly simplified but as a rule if you burn more calories than you take in you will lose FAT, but you need to make it sustainable it needs to be a lifestyle change rather than a fad.

You also have to realise it will be hard work.

Physicists might need to consult biologists when it comes to digestion, because we're not spheres in a vacuum.

why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

Why dont you explain why its wrong?
What do you want to hear - no you can eat however you like and live as you please and still lose weight. its a myth that you need to eat less than you use to lose weight so have another pie
Is that somehow kinder and wiser?
Some bright folk on here denying the obvious

Yes as molly and mike above note other factors impact on this but there is no other way to lose weight than to use more calories than you consume. No amount of emotional appeals and gentle ad homs from Grum will change this basic fact.
It may be harsh, it may be simplistic but it is also true

Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, lead author and associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine, said:

"We typically consider obesity an epidemic grounded in unhealthy diet and exercise, yet increasingly studies suggest it's more complicated. Microbes in our intestines may play critical roles in how we absorb calories, and exposure to antibiotics, especially early in life, may kill off healthy bacteria that influence how we absorb nutrients into our bodies, and would otherwise keep us lean."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249289.php

But still, what's the point in all this stupid research - it's just taking away personal responsibility. 🙄

Obviously it's completely impossible to have a nuanced view where people should take personal responsibility AND we look at other underlying factors. That seems to be too much for some people's tabloid newspaper view of the world.

Why dont you explain why its wrong?

Straw man yet again. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying its crude and unhelpful. You haven't answered the question BTW. And where are the ad homs?

Chris Hoy's BMI was around 30 but he's not typical of the general population.

Hang on. You're saying that we are not all built like an outlier like Sir Chris, and that BMI may actually be a good rule of thumb for 90% of the population?

Madness.

I am now nibbling on a chorizo....

*insert [s]chorizo[/s] joke here*

littlemisspanda - Member
Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

Having spent most if my professional life in the second/third worlds, I would respectfully dispute that notion. In relative terms (and as folk like gee etc have noted above in absolute terms) we have pretty much everything that we need (and don't need) and in varieties that are mind boggling. We then have to make the right choices but rarely do.

On the simple stuff Grum, there was that quit smoking book in the 1990s that was the big bit. My colleagues used it successfully. The first step was to decide that you were a non-smoker. From that point, everything else followed.

Grum you have shown how things can affect this[ I am not denying this] and how it may be more difficult for some than other BUT you have not shown that you can lose weight by getting more calories [ energy] than you use and no research ever will.

I wonder how many people my height are over 12.5 stone; I'd guess most men?

I suspect that you are correct, or at least certainly for men middle age and above. That's why the 60% of the uk are overweight or obese is a little misleading as the terms overweight and obese are a long way apart and fat is a subjective term as far as I can see

But even though BMI isn't accurate and I ride a lot, whenever my weight pushes me into the overweight category it's a flag to me that it's time to look at what I'm eating/drinking before it's too late as it's way harder to lose it than avoid putting it on in the first place

Grum you have shown how things can affect this[ I am not denying this] and how it may be more difficult for some than other BUT you have not shown that you can lose weight by getting more calories [ energy] than you use and no research ever will.

Lucky I've never claimed this then. Why keep saying it as if I have? 😕

I'm saying its crude and unhelpful.

I remember why i dont bother with these threads

Again, why is it any more useful than saying depressed people need to cheer up?

That's also true, is it not?

They need to stop thinking sad thoughts, and think happy ones instead - simple eh?

I remember why i dont bother with these threads

Ooh was that a flounce? 🙂

good point by miketually about us not being little isolated systems of energy exchange.

not forgetting; a massive amount of energy is expended by your body keeping it at a lovely warm 37 degrees C.

If its 35 degrees outside, its not difficult to see that isn't going to take much energy to achieve, when compared to freezing or subzero midwinter conditions.

Indeed but again the rule os the amount of calories you get has to be less than you use to loose weight - I accept other factors can affect this but the rule remains as it is a fundamental rule of nature regarding energy - unless you wish to claim we can somehow destroy energy by eating too many calories

If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, why are we advised to get certain percentages from different macronutrients? Surely eating 2500 calories of refined sugar a day is the same as eating 2500 calories of butter every day? Or 2500 calories of petrol. Or wood.

I ate at least 30% more calories in December than usual, while doing less exercise than usual. I didn't gain weight.

Can the ELMM 'it's simple' advocates please answer the point of why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

I don't think it's particularly helpful, any more than telling an acoholic or a smoker to stop drinking or smoking, but (within the scope of Miketually's interesting observation on the digestable qualities of calories consumed in different forms), I don't understand how it can be argued that it's inaccurate. If you consume 2000 calories of sugar every day, and burn only 1500, all other things being equal you'll put weight on, surely? At the opposite end, if you consume 1500 calories of sugar and bang out 2000 calories through your active lifestyle, you'll lose weight, no?

Everything else is detail - that's not to say that detail isn't important, but it is just detail. I'm sorry if it seems unhelpful or stating it won't help people lose weight in a/some/most cases, but I'm not selling it as a dietry plan.

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

leffeboy - Member
But even though BMI isn't accurate and I ride a lot, whenever my weight pushes me into the overweight category it's a flag to me that it's time to look at what I'm eating/drinking before it's too late

+1

Everything else is detail - that's not to say that detail isn't important, but it is just detail.

Feedback loops.

If you're running at a calorie deficit, your body will do everything it can to hang on to those calories.

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

yes bring it down to the simplest form i.e. 'this needs to change, it will not happen unless i do X'
so eat less (better) do more. anything else is a small part of the main issue. i could have one sugar instead of 2 but if i'm eating a cheese stuffed crust pizza every night i have ignored the biggest factor that will instigate change.

it's interesting that most of the anecdotal 15-20 stone people in this thread who have lost or are losing weight seem to realise how they got there and exactly how to get where they feel they need to be weight wise.
you can gloss over it with theory and science but it's hard to ignore the fact that for many people if they have the desire to lose it they can. but i'm just basing that on people i know who lost weight through eating less/exercising more and the real life examples in this thread. i haven't done a peer reviewed medical study of at least 1000 people over 5 years or anything like that though.
and i am not a qualified health professional

[b]Feed[/b]back, being the operative word!! 😉

So you do tell depressed people to cheer up MrSmith - not a massive surprise.

you can gloss over it with theory and science

You can prove anything with facts.

If you're running at a calorie deficit, your body will do everything it can to hang on to those calories.

...but eventually it will have to give in to the inevitable and let go of them, right?

it's interesting that most of the anecdotal 15-20 stone people in this thread who have lost or are losing weight seem to realise how they got there and exactly how to get where they feel they need to be weight wise.

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.

I'm not even arguing that eat less move more is a bad principle - what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

Personally I've found it far easier to lose weight by eating a low GI diet and not calorie counting. The amount of exercise I do seems to have little to do with it. But obviously I'm overcomplicating it. 🙄

...but eventually it will have to give in to the inevitable and let go of them, right?

From where will it let go? What happens when they eat again?

what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

First, I would check the details of their regime, mike? How many times do you see folk coming out of a gym with a latte in their hands or drinking unnecessary sports (sugar) drinks????