The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 It is far more complicated than calories in and calories out. Although this is a fundamental element to whether or not people gain weight it is not the end of the story. Especially when people are likely lying about their calories in. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritDragon Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Especially when people are likely lying about their calories in. :) I read years ago about a doctor in the 1920's who took patients into his clinic and put them on a controlled diet with as many calories as they said they were eating... everyone lost weight. The Folk Prophet and Sunday21 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 As a health and fitness professional I get to delve into research on obesity fairly often as well as work with people struggling with weight on a near daily basis. I can assure you that for most portion control alone does not work. It is far more complicated than calories in and calories out. Although this is a fundamental element to whether or not people gain weight it is not the end of the story. Incidentally, I disagree with this even though I understand what you're trying to say. It is, actually, as simple as calories in vs. calories out. But calories in is not simple, and calories out is ridiculously complicated. But it is still that simple. I've also never been one for accepting a psychological component in a physical equation. If you work out you might want to eat pizza more is not a legitimate algorithm in my book. The fact that some struggle harder to discipline themselves than others is reality. But it still comes down to discipline in the end. omegaseamaster75 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritDragon Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Incidentally, I disagree with this even though I understand what you're trying to say. It is, actually, as simple as calories in vs. calories out. But calories in is not simple, and calories out is ridiculously complicated. But it is still that simple. I've also never been one for accepting a psychological component in a physical equation. If you work out you might want to eat pizza more is not a legitimate algorithm in my book. The fact that some struggle harder to discipline themselves than others is reality. But it still comes down to discipline in the end. I know better than to argue with you, I'd sooner see through a brick wall. So I'll agree to disagree, while stating my observation that there is more that goes into it all than you or I understand. There is certainly a trend towards the caloric energy balance equation working, but there are many researchers out there with interesting anomalies they claim disprove this idea. I also understand what you are saying about the technicalities of calories in and out not being simple, which I can agree with. I also won't discount the idea that all of the other research may eventually come back to calories in vs calories out, but with unaccounted for ins and outs. There is a physical hunger response to activity to varying degrees that is a physical event, and it makes sense that the body would increase hunger in response to increased workloads to avoid withering away. Writing those who struggle with weight off as undisciplined is a common thought process that is deserved for some, but not for others. It is easy to see some one as undisciplined because they continue to eat past their caloric needs, when they should just stop eating. Perhaps for you it is a matter of passing up some pie and ice cream when you know you've already had enough/too much to eat. For some it doesn't work this way because of messed up satiety signals, there are people who can stuff their face all day and still feel like it's fast Sunday because the filled up message is not getting delivered. This is however almost universally a consequence of choosing the wrong foods. Sadly for some this is still not a self-control issue as much as it is a lack of education issue compounded by the diet industry which continues to confuse people with all manner of fads to appease certain food preferences with empty promises and a food industry set on addicting us all to there wares. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Calorie in - Calorie out balance does not indicate HEALTH. Sure, you may lose/gain weight. That doesn't mean you are HEALTHY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 I know better than to argue with you, I'd sooner see through a brick wall. Why does a differing viewpoint have to come across as arguing? I find my feelings hurt a bit. there is more that goes into it all than you or I understand. There is certainly a trend towards the caloric energy balance equation working, but there are many researchers out there with interesting anomalies they claim disprove this idea. I also understand what you are saying about the technicalities of calories in and out not being simple, which I can agree with. I also won't discount the idea that all of the other research may eventually come back to calories in vs calories out, but with unaccounted for ins and outs. I'm saying that I believe the anomalies still fit within the 'calorie out' model. Whatever reason behind why someone doesn't burn calories as efficiently, it's still about calories out. The solution may differ vastly, but it's still a matter of how the body burns calories relative to the way the body stores calories per consumption. Writing those who struggle with weight off as undisciplined is a common thought process that is deserved for some, but not for others. It is easy to see some one as undisciplined because they continue to eat past their caloric needs, when they should just stop eating. Perhaps for you it is a matter of passing up some pie and ice cream when you know you've already had enough/too much to eat. For some it doesn't work this way because of messed up satiety signals, there are people who can stuff their face all day and still feel like it's fast Sunday because the filled up message is not getting delivered. This is however almost universally a consequence of choosing the wrong foods. Sadly for some this is still not a self-control issue as much as it is a lack of education issue compounded by the diet industry which continues to confuse people with all manner of fads to appease certain food preferences with empty promises and a food industry set on addicting us all to there wares. The point I'm trying to make is that using psychological (or even satiety signals that may be physiological) issues to decry calories in vs. calories out is poor logic. Like the reports you see that claim artificial sweetners will make you fat because they might make you crave sweets more. It's bad logic. Cravings do not add calories. Eating does. That is my only point. Not that everyone who struggles with weight loss is a lazy slob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Calorie in - Calorie out balance does not indicate HEALTH. Sure, you may lose/gain weight. That doesn't mean you are HEALTHY. Perhaps. I'd call this a half truth, as obesity is unhealthy, and maintaining a healthy weight is part of being healthy. I understand your point, of course. Eating nothing but Twinkies with strict calorie control (even if you were successful at weight loss, which is questionable because eating foods that your body processes correctly for health is a big part of metabolism, muscle growth, etc.) would be a bad idea. But the OP is, after all, about weight-loss, not health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Perhaps. I'd call this a half truth, as obesity is unhealthy, and maintaining a healthy weight is part of being healthy. I understand your point, of course. Eating nothing but Twinkies with strict calorie control (even if you were successful at weight loss, which is questionable because eating foods that your body processes correctly for health is a big part of metabolism, muscle growth, etc.) would be a bad idea. But the OP is, after all, about weight-loss, not health. If you're going to lose weight and do it in an unhealthy manner, it is better to not have gone through the process at all. You are introducing more problems to your already problematic health and even death is a big possibility - induced by the nutrition deprivation of the weight-loss process, and not the obesity. Simply Calorie in - Calorie out is a terrible weight-loss advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 If you're going to lose weight and do it in an unhealthy manner, it is better to not have gone through the process at all. You are introducing more problems to your already problematic health and even death is a big possibility - induced by the nutrition deprivation of the weight-loss process, and not the obesity. Simply Calorie in - Calorie out is a terrible weight-loss advice. It's not advise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 It's not advise. It was given as an advice... complete with supporting evidence of there being no obese people in the concentration camps. A double-whammer, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 No. Eat less and exercise more was given as advise. Calories in vs. calories out is not advise, and is significantly more complex than eat less and exercise more. Regardless, eat less and exercise more is hardly "terrible" advise. That's a bit extreme. It may be incomplete advise. It is not "terrible". I'm stepping out of this ridiculous discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 No. Eat less and exercise more was given as advise. Calories in vs. calories out is not advise, and is significantly more complex than eat less and exercise more. Regardless, eat less and exercise more is hardly "terrible" advise. That's a bit extreme. It may be incomplete advise. It is not "terrible". I'm stepping out of this ridiculous discussion. It's not a ridiculous discussion to point out in a "Difficulty with weight" thread that an advice is terrible. Eat less and exercise more is also terrible advice for somebody having difficulty with weight management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 It was given as an advice... complete with supporting evidence of there being no obese people in the concentration camps. A double-whammer, in my opinion.Why does everyone take everything so literally? The OP is about weight loss if you reduce your calorie intake regardless of what it is that you are putting into your body you will likely lose weight you can break down any weight control program, diet and caloric intake program/exercise program, they will throw a bunch of fancy studies at you and tell you what are good calories and what are bad calories. Go vegan, go paleo, don't eat meat, no gluten, no processed foods, do atkins high protien etc etc underneath it all you are eating less and exercising more and guess what.....you lose weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Why does everyone take everything so literally? The OP is about weight loss if you reduce your calorie intake regardless of what it is that you are putting into your body you will likely lose weight you can break down any weight control program, diet and caloric intake program/exercise program, they will throw a bunch of fancy studies at you and tell you what are good calories and what are bad calories. Go vegan, go paleo, don't eat meat, no gluten, no processed foods, do atkins high protien etc etc underneath it all you are eating less and exercising more and guess what.....you lose weight And round and round the mulberry bush we go. You can be 6-feet, 240 lbs and be more healthy than when you drop to 180lbs in an unhealthy manner because you think all you need to do is eat less and exercise more. You don't want to lose weight that way. Heck, you can be 6-feet, 180lbs all your adult life and be unhealthy! LESS WEIGHT does not equal HEALTHY! EAT RIGHT rather than EAT LESS. Right does not just mean the proper caloric intake for your body. It's also the PROPER NUTRIENTS that your body needs! Everything in balance. And what is right for one person is not always right for somebody else. Think Holistically folks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The OP needs to chime in, as I think we have gotten off track. I reread post and see no relation to health only to weight loss. Living a holistic lifestyle is not for everyone it is way to live your life. It is clear you have an agenda relating weight loss to health, and holistic living. It's not for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 And what is right for one person is not always right for somebody else. Think Holistically folks! This seems a bit contradictory. You say what is right for one isn't right for another..but you push holistic. I have to agree with Omega that this is not for everyone either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 This seems a bit contradictory. You say what is right for one isn't right for another..but you push holistic. I have to agree with Omega that this is not for everyone either. I guess you don't understand what Holistic means? It means, considering the entire body AS A WHOLE (hence, Holistic - whole-listic). That's physical, psychological, physiological, spiritual... everything. They all combine for optimum health. When you have a headache - taking a Tylenol would stop the pain, but it didn't fix the problem of WHY you had the headache in the first place. Holistic approach is understanding your body so that when you have a headache, you don't just take Tylenol - you address whatever caused the headache in the first place. On weight-loss - approaching it Holistically means, you don't just eat less. You understand what is causing your body to go out of balance and address THAT - it's not just eating less. It's taking in the nutrients that your body needs to balance itself out. Holistic is not a "diet". It's a way of thinking. Holistic is not only for everybody - it's for everything. It applies to my job as a programmer - looking at a system holistically, so that you don't have a Unix System and a Microsoft System and an SAP System and a Java System and a Peoplesoft System... you have... say, an Accounting System. So that, when an accountant reports a problem, he has to figure out who to call, so he calls the SAP Support People who throws the problem over the wall to the Peoplesoft People who throws it back to the SAP People... no. The accountant reports a problem to the Accounting System Support People and they all work together among all those systems to determine the best solution to the problem. That's the problem with "fad diets". More protein, zero-carbs, no fats... it's just as silly as doing 100 abs crunches to lose your gut. Holistic approach is understanding why you have a gut - running 2 miles might be more effective than 100 abs crunches when you have a thick layer of fat on top of your 6-pack. It's the same as going on a no carbs diet and the like. Throwing the whole body out of balance so you go on a seesaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 I know what holistic is so please don't portray me to be ignorant of this. I don't need to consider my entire body all of the time. That's for some but not for me. Again not for everyone. I don't feel like I need to know the whys all of the time as to why I happen to have a headache on that particular day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 I know what holistic is so please don't portray me to be ignorant of this. I don't need to consider my entire body all of the time. That's for some but not for me. Again not for everyone. I don't feel like I need to know the whys all of the time as to why I happen to have a headache on that particular day. I hate to be contrary, but this comment shows you don't understand what holistic means. It doesn't deal with a headache on a particular day. Maybe I'm not making sense to you because Holistic in the US has become like the word Organic. It has become a "commercial" word. I'm not using the word in its "commercial" usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 I hate to be contrary, but this comment shows you don't understand what holistic means.Actually my response was directly in response to something you said which was: When you have a headache - taking a Tylenol would stop the pain, but it didn't fix the problem of WHY you had the headache in the first place. Holistic approach is understanding your body so that when you have a headache, you don't just take Tylenol - you address whatever caused the headache in the first place. Again, when I have a headache I don't feel I need to address whatever caused the headache to begin with. I usually know what caused the headache and many times it's things I can't control. So I can take a Tylenol and it will be relieved. So think whatever you want about my understanding. As most times, you are always right. And this debating my understanding of the subject is giving me a headache. I guess I need to avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Actually my response was directly in response to something you said which was: Again, when I have a headache I don't feel I need to address whatever caused the headache to begin with. I usually know what caused the headache and many times it's things I can't control. So I can take a Tylenol and it will be relieved. So think whatever you want about my understanding. As most times, you are always right. But that's NOT what I'm saying! Holistic is not one headache on a particular day. Holistic is taking your entire body into consideration. If you know that what's causing your headache is something you can't do anything about then you can't do anything about it! Take a darned Tylenol and be done with it! If you know what's causing your obesity is something you can't do anything about then you can't do anything about it! All you can do is manage the consequences! But if what's causing your headache is a burr on your foot and you didn't bother trying to understand what's going on and you just pop a Tylenol, your headache is coming back when that Tylenol fades until you fix that burr on your foot. Same as weight-loss... if you reduce your calories and what's causing your obesity is a thyroid problem, you're not going to be the happy thin person you think you're going to be. Or if you reduce your calories by eating nothing but one donut a day or eating nothing but zuchinnis, you're going to end up dead. Think Holistic - take your entire body - physical, psychological, spiritual, etc. - when trying to solve a health problem. There's no point on being right or wrong when we can't even understand each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The only thing to understand is that you have an agenda, and every other point of view is wrong... mdfxdb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritDragon Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Why does a differing viewpoint have to come across as arguing? I find my feelings hurt a bit. As usual it was not my intention to hurt feelings. Perhaps i should have used the word debate instead of argue? Whatever you want to call it, defending one opinion vs another is a form of argument. I don't mean it as a yelling match or such. My apologies once again for not choosing my words carefully enough. I suppose the main idea I was conveying is that I doubt my post will change your mind, but here goes anyway :) I'm saying that I believe the anomalies still fit within the 'calorie out' model. Whatever reason behind why someone doesn't burn calories as efficiently, it's still about calories out. The solution may differ vastly, but it's still a matter of how the body burns calories relative to the way the body stores calories per consumption. I don't disagree with you here, it is just that other possibilities haven't been entirely ruled out either. Truly though you make a really good point of what is likely the case. The point I'm trying to make is that using psychological (or even satiety signals that may be physiological) issues to decry calories in vs. calories out is poor logic. Like the reports you see that claim artificial sweetners will make you fat because they might make you crave sweets more. It's bad logic. Cravings do not add calories. Eating does. That is my only point. Not that everyone who struggles with weight loss is a lazy slob. The problem with this is that every one has a breaking point. Will-power alone can only go so far. Many people who struggle with weight do so not because of a low breaking point, but because of increased pressure against the breaking point. Honestly think on how ready you are to eat after fasting for an extended period of time, sure a day or even a few more is okay to feel that hungry, but imagine feeling that way all the time... everyone has a breaking point. This can be fixed with wise food selection, but not by simply reducing the portions of the same foods that are causing irregular satiety. The Folk Prophet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The only thing to understand is that you have an agenda, and every other point of view is wrong... Of course I have an agenda. With all the sick people in America, every American should have an agenda. I experienced the change of nutrition lifestyle between the Philippines and the US (I touched on it on my very first post)... and now I see the change happening in the Philippines - a product of American culture seeping into the Filipino lifestyle. You, as a nation, need to address this problem. Kudos to Michelle Obama for taking it on as an agenda. I don't like her proposed solutions but at least it's making people aware that there is a problem. And no matter how you slice and dice it, your point of view will not solve the problem. But, you're free to continue along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 If only we could all be like the Filipinos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.