Re: Obese Don't Want to Lose Weight

[Guest guest]

Those people are sceptical because of the failure of advice to solve their problems. Preventing obesity is one thing, fixing it something else. There are a awful lot of diet books in the library and books like Ornish or DASH are just a few.

One of my Walford's books I got at a library clearance for 0.50$.

If there was some kind of agreement amongst the "experts" as to the correct diet, it might help, but recognize even the diabetes associations don't agree.

Kinda like when Jack Kennedy said you ask 100 economists and you get 100 diff answers.

I think most diets fail because the patient can't stay with it long enough.

Regards.

[ ] "Obese Don't Want to Lose Weight"

Hi folks:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4589010.stmRodney.

[Guest guest]

Those people are sceptical because of the failure of advice to solve their problems. Preventing obesity is one thing, fixing it something else. There are a awful lot of diet books in the library and books like Ornish or DASH are just a few.

One of my Walford's books I got at a library clearance for 0.50$.

If there was some kind of agreement amongst the "experts" as to the correct diet, it might help, but recognize even the diabetes associations don't agree.

Kinda like when Jack Kennedy said you ask 100 economists and you get 100 diff answers.

I think most diets fail because the patient can't stay with it long enough.

Regards.

[ ] "Obese Don't Want to Lose Weight"

Hi folks:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4589010.stmRodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well sorry, I just don't believe it (your reference to a biological

set point). But should some reputable scientists do the appropriate

study and come up with empirical evidence to the contrary I will

certainly accept it. If anyone knows of such a study PLEASE post it.

It seems to me that there is a major industry working 24 hours a day

dreaming up excuses for not losing weight.

A few such excuses are things like: " It's genetic, some people

cannot lose weight because of their genes. " Please will someone

explain to me why it is that three times as many people are obese now

compared with thirty years ago when their parents were the same age?

So if they do not have their parents' genes, who in hell's genes do

these nuts think they have????

Or, " It makes no difference, I hardly eat anything at all and I still

cannot lose weight " . These people HAVE been studied, and the studies

show that these people underestimate their caloric intake (by

convenienly forgetting to list half of what they had eaten) by (I

think it was) 50% - Jeff posted the study here about a year ago.

Or: " When I cut my intake by 100 calories a day, my metabolic rate

drops 200 calories so I still put on weight " .

Or: " My weight set point is 350 pounds so nothing I do can bring it

down from there. "

Etc., etc., .............................

So let me say this. I will begin to pay attention to these excuses

when someone does a metabolic ward study with a group of people, say

50 of them, with a BMI of 30, heading in the direction of (but before

getting to) a BMI of 40.

The study would first entail a month of ad lib, to establish their

habitual caloric intake and their weight fluctuations over that

month. Then their intakes would be cut by 300 calories a day below

their previous 'stable weight caloric intake' level, as calculated

from the data collected during the previous month. Then they would

determine HOW MANY of the fifty, over the ensuing three months, DO

NOT LOSE WEIGHT.

I predict the number failing to lose weight will be zero. But if

more than 10% of them fail to lose weight then that will be a very

interesting finding, indicating the need for further research to

explain why.

Simply put, I believe that reducing caloric intake to sensible levels

(gradually, to 1200 to 2000 a day eventually) will return **anyone**

to a sensible weight. And if this is not correct then it will be

very important information.

But if I am right, then finally there will be no more excuses for

these people. They will have to give up their denial and face up to

the fact that they are going to have to restrain themselves from the

relentless unrestrained consumption of (usually) thoroughly unhealthy

foods. In other words for most people, maintaining a stable, healthy

weight requires experiencing a degree of hunger.

It is, of course, all a function of basic physics. If what those

concocting the excuses are saying is correct then they need to

explain how the laws of physics need to be modified to be able to

incorporate the experiences of obese people who (claim to be able to)

get along just fine eating 'next to nothing', while gaining weight

and carrying a heavy load around with them all day. I just do not

believe it. I will be happy to be persuaded otherwise, but only by

serious (metabolic ward) evidence.

These people need, imo, to exert (more? some?) self-restraint.

Almost all of us here know that it requires a fair amount of mental

effort to refrain from eating as much as we would like to, of

whatever our immediate whim considers might be the most tasty.

I would have no difficulty at all consuming 1000 calories a day more

than I currently do. And my current intake is still too high. I can

say this because I have been on 'all inclusive' vacations in Mexico

where in seven days I have put on four pounds of ('permanent', i.e. I

am not taking about hydration levels or weight of intestinal

contents) weight, eating very tasty food.

The first step in fixing a problem is understanding it. IMO giving

people all kinds of excuses like: 'your set point will prevent you

from losing weight', is not likely to be helpful. All it does is

deflect them from facing up to the only reality as regards excess

weight - hunger and restraint.

Rodney.

> There's not just the cultural thing, but there seems to be

some

> kind of biological setpoint for people's weight: the hormonal

circuitry

> which centers around leptin. I've found it comfortable to be

around

> 177, but always end up in trouble when I try to get below 175.

I'm

> just hoping that my sins of the last year won't move my setpoint

> permanently up...

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well sorry, I just don't believe it (your reference to a biological

set point). But should some reputable scientists do the appropriate

study and come up with empirical evidence to the contrary I will

certainly accept it. If anyone knows of such a study PLEASE post it.

It seems to me that there is a major industry working 24 hours a day

dreaming up excuses for not losing weight.

A few such excuses are things like: " It's genetic, some people

cannot lose weight because of their genes. " Please will someone

explain to me why it is that three times as many people are obese now

compared with thirty years ago when their parents were the same age?

So if they do not have their parents' genes, who in hell's genes do

these nuts think they have????

Or, " It makes no difference, I hardly eat anything at all and I still

cannot lose weight " . These people HAVE been studied, and the studies

show that these people underestimate their caloric intake (by

convenienly forgetting to list half of what they had eaten) by (I

think it was) 50% - Jeff posted the study here about a year ago.

Or: " When I cut my intake by 100 calories a day, my metabolic rate

drops 200 calories so I still put on weight " .

Or: " My weight set point is 350 pounds so nothing I do can bring it

down from there. "

Etc., etc., .............................

So let me say this. I will begin to pay attention to these excuses

when someone does a metabolic ward study with a group of people, say

50 of them, with a BMI of 30, heading in the direction of (but before

getting to) a BMI of 40.

The study would first entail a month of ad lib, to establish their

habitual caloric intake and their weight fluctuations over that

month. Then their intakes would be cut by 300 calories a day below

their previous 'stable weight caloric intake' level, as calculated

from the data collected during the previous month. Then they would

determine HOW MANY of the fifty, over the ensuing three months, DO

NOT LOSE WEIGHT.

I predict the number failing to lose weight will be zero. But if

more than 10% of them fail to lose weight then that will be a very

interesting finding, indicating the need for further research to

explain why.

Simply put, I believe that reducing caloric intake to sensible levels

(gradually, to 1200 to 2000 a day eventually) will return **anyone**

to a sensible weight. And if this is not correct then it will be

very important information.

But if I am right, then finally there will be no more excuses for

these people. They will have to give up their denial and face up to

the fact that they are going to have to restrain themselves from the

relentless unrestrained consumption of (usually) thoroughly unhealthy

foods. In other words for most people, maintaining a stable, healthy

weight requires experiencing a degree of hunger.

It is, of course, all a function of basic physics. If what those

concocting the excuses are saying is correct then they need to

explain how the laws of physics need to be modified to be able to

incorporate the experiences of obese people who (claim to be able to)

get along just fine eating 'next to nothing', while gaining weight

and carrying a heavy load around with them all day. I just do not

believe it. I will be happy to be persuaded otherwise, but only by

serious (metabolic ward) evidence.

These people need, imo, to exert (more? some?) self-restraint.

Almost all of us here know that it requires a fair amount of mental

effort to refrain from eating as much as we would like to, of

whatever our immediate whim considers might be the most tasty.

I would have no difficulty at all consuming 1000 calories a day more

than I currently do. And my current intake is still too high. I can

say this because I have been on 'all inclusive' vacations in Mexico

where in seven days I have put on four pounds of ('permanent', i.e. I

am not taking about hydration levels or weight of intestinal

contents) weight, eating very tasty food.

The first step in fixing a problem is understanding it. IMO giving

people all kinds of excuses like: 'your set point will prevent you

from losing weight', is not likely to be helpful. All it does is

deflect them from facing up to the only reality as regards excess

weight - hunger and restraint.

Rodney.

> There's not just the cultural thing, but there seems to be

some

> kind of biological setpoint for people's weight: the hormonal

circuitry

> which centers around leptin. I've found it comfortable to be

around

> 177, but always end up in trouble when I try to get below 175.

I'm

> just hoping that my sins of the last year won't move my setpoint

> permanently up...

>