jpschust wrote:

davecamaro1994 wrote:all that salt makes you retain water. I was drinking prolly 4 or 5 a day and working out like mad and not losing weight fast at all. Once I quit the pop and went to water I started dropping almost 5 a week

Moreso than the sodium issue we're seeing a lot of studies come out that say that all that induction of Nutrasweet and the like actually inhibits the ability to lose weight.

Links?

With all due respect, and with the understanding that new findings on old(ish) products are always possible, artificial sweeteners have been the target of such a staggering number of bullshit "studies" over the years, I would be shocked (though interested) to learn that they have been clinically shown to have any detrimental effects*, especially on something with such a direct, widespread interest as weight loss.

And Dave, if you were really losing five pounds per week, that's a problem. Doctors recommend that kind of aggressive weight loss only in very extreme situations, and even then only under strict medical supervision. If you worked out a ton and did a really poor job of hydrating yourself, you might be able to have a freakish spike like that, but otherwise that's a terribly unsafe rate of weight loss. If you achieved your goal, that's great -- I don't mean to take that away from you. But if you find yourself losing five pounds per week again, you should be talking to a doctor.

Please don't misunderstand, guys, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. And maybe there is something to cutting artificial sweeteners, I don't know. But if decades of medical research have shown us anything, it's that "eat less, exercise more" is the only safe and reliable way to lose weight, and that all of the magic bullets are at best insignificant window dressing, and at worst total falsehoods that only serve to distract from the only thing that, despite all of the fad diets and false miracle solutions and medical "discoveries", has always remained true:

Calories In - Calories Out = Weight Loss

* - With the exception of triggering headaches in some, for which there seems to be a reasonable amount of actual clinical evidence.

Dmnkly wrote:Calories In - Calories Out = Weight Loss

Not to quibble, Dom (which of course means I recognize I'm quibbling), but isn't it really "Calories In - Calories Out = Effect on Weight?" I can't site a source right now (so take it with a grain of salt, and let's not get into a sodium discussion) but I've read that everyone has their own Calorie setpoint. When the Calories In - Calories Out equation exceeds that setpoint, weight gain results. When the Calories In - Calories Out equation results in a number below that setpoint, you get weight loss.

Simply making the calculation does not equal weight loss.

When I worked on the introduction of Equal and NutraSweet in the early 1980's, there was some research that indicated that more deviation from the setpoint did not yield linear effects in terms of weight loss/gain, but it was rather more of a stepstair effect. But I haven't followed the research since then, though, so I don't know if that's the currently accepted model.

nr706 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Calories In - Calories Out = Weight Loss

Not to quibble, Dom (which of course means I recognize I'm quibbling), but isn't it really "Calories In - Calories Out = Effect on Weight?" I can't site a source right now (so take it with a grain of salt, and let's not get into a sodium discussion) but I've read that everyone has their own Calorie setpoint. When the Calories In - Calories Out equation exceeds that setpoint, weight gain results. When the Calories In - Calories Out equation results in a number below that setpoint, you get weight loss.

Simply making the calculation does not equal weight loss.

Well, sort of... that "calorie setpoint" that you refer to is, I presume, your Basal Metabolic Rate which, as a means of oversimplifying, is the number of calories you'd burn lying in bed all day. This varies from person to person. But that's still a measure of burning calories. So you can write the equation as "Calories In - (Calories Out by Means of Activity + "Calorie Setpoint") = Weight Loss", but it's effectively the same thing. I meant it more as an illustration than an actual equation, but if you wanted to get technical about it, I guess I'd write it as (Calories In - Calories Out)/3500 = Change in Weight in Pounds.

Either way, yes, it's an oversimplified equation, but if your body burns more energy than it absorbs, it makes up the difference by converting fat into energy (or other tissues, but generally speaking fat comes first -- that's what it's there for) and you lose weight. If it absorbs more than it burns, it stores that as fat and you gain weight. The point is that while there are some things you can do to help make the process a little more efficient, that's basically it. And the reason all of these diets and discoveries and tricks and magic bullets flash and fade is because they don't change that basic truth.

Most fad diets are designed to either limit your calories in fancy, complicated ways, or they're designed to make you shed water weight which can show quick results on the scale in the short term, but isn't sustainable and isn't healthy. The only real exception I'm aware of is Atkins and its numerous variants, which intentionally puts the body into a state of ketosis -- but even there, whether it's any more effective than cutting some calories and exercising a little more is a matter of debate and there are some clinical studies that support both positions (personally, I'd rather hop on a bike for 20 minutes a day than give up pasta). And though no adverse effects of Atkins have been demonstrated clinically, the longest available studies only look at the first year, and many doctors have concerns about what a prolonged state of ketosis might do to your body in the long term. And maybe this artificial sweetener thing will turn out to be the amazing discovery that makes a huge difference in people's ability to lose weight. But it's approximately the 11,349th amazing discovery that "studies" have shown are stopping people from losing weight, and the first 11,348 either have or are on their way to fading into obscurity. Some of them might help a little, but like I said earlier, they're window dressing. The meat and potatoes, as it were, comes down to Calories In, Calories Out.

Bottom line, there's a reason that if you ignore diet purveyors and media outlets and instead ask your doctor the best way to lose weight, s/he's going to say "eat a balanced diet, eat less of it, and exercise more". It isn't what most people want to hear, which is why weight loss is such a monster industry, but it's the truth.

We agree, then. I was simply trying to say that Calories In - Calories Out doesn't automatically equal weight loss.

nr706 wrote:We agree, then. I was simply trying to say that Calories In - Calories Out doesn't automatically equal weight loss.

Yes, absolutely... I didn't mean to suggest otherwise

Mhays wrote:As we were discussing this issue, both of us inclined towards anti-medication, I realized that, in making the argument that pharmaceutical companies were driving people to medicate, the author had missed an important issue: do shy people want to be shy?

I am amazed by all of the medication advertising that bombards us constantly on TV. I have to laugh when I hear the phrase "Ask your Dr. if XYZ is right for you." What a joke, I couldn't get my Dr. or probably any other Dr. to answer that question on the phone if my life depended on it. Americans have become programmed to believe that all their problems can be solved with some new pill and many Drs. have become little more than pill salesmen, getting kickbacks from drug companies for writing enough prescriptions. It seems like they have discovered new ailments we had never heard of until recently, that can be conveniently treated with the latest drug. Heartburn and gastric reflux disease seem rampant now whereas 20 years ago, it was hardly noticed. There are constantly ads running that imply we can't get a good night's sleep without a pill. My latest favorite is "restless leg syndrome." Sheesh, PT Barnum was right. The FDA has been transformed into little more than a rubber stamp for the pharmaceutical industry, who are making record profits. They can't even keep the snake oil salesmen in check, hence the diet pill that makes you lose weight without exercise or reasonable eating habits, or Bob, the dweeb who is blessed with all of the benefits of "male enhancement." We commonly believe that we have the best health care system in the world. But there are many countries where the life expectancy is better than ours, and they do it without all of the drugs.

I don't buy the argument that being overweight is caused by some genetic condition. Sure, there can be genetic conditions that contribute to being overweight, but that doesn't explain the epidemic of obesity that is taking place in the US. I believe it is quite simply the cumulative effects of our typical lifestyle; poor diet and lack of exercise.

People seem so totally to have missed my point that I guess I'll have to take it step by step. Just as earlier generations unthinkingly applied ethnic slurs, anti-fat bigotry has become so ubiquitous in our society that people don't even realize they're engaging in it.

We don't quite have BINGO yet, but I suspect we'll get there if this thread goes on much longer.

Some people here might benefit from exposure to such concepts as Health at Every Size, size acceptance, fat rights and other issues explored at Big Fat Blog and elsewhere in the fatosphere.

It's easy to live in denial

That's fine that you're willing to take the argument that it's ok to be fat and eat whatever you want, but....

I don't buy the argument that being overweight is caused by some genetic condition. Sure, there can be genetic conditions that contribute to being overweight, but that doesn't explain the epidemic of obesity that is taking place in the US.

Translation: "You're delusional." Bingo card, B1, B3, N1 and N5.

love of food could lead any or all of us to an early death.

Translation: "Enjoying food makes you fat and fat people are unhealthy." G2.

I do see it as a kind of civic responsibility

Translation: "Fat people are too dim-witted to take care of themselves, so somebody has to tell them how." I4 and G5.

it's a problem not just for individuals but for the nation

Translation: "Fat people are a burden on society." B1 and I2.

reduce their portion sizes ... we'd see a decrease in obseity

Its a matter of knowing when to push oneself away from the table.

With images of food everywhere you look, it takes real concentration not to succumb to mindless eating

the way to lose weight is relatively simple. Calories out minus calories in resulting in a net loss will make anyone lose weight.

Translation: "Fat people have no self control." O5.

I hate that people who could maybe lose a few are lumped in the same health category as those whose weight actually poses a serious health threat.

Translation: "No Fatties In My Back Yard -- only people fatter than me are actually fat." N4.

I have learned how to continue to enjoy great food and also do it in a way, and with some tools, that contributes to better personal health

Translation: "I did it! So can you!" G1.

YourPalWill wrote:Your post seems to assume, without any explanation, that you believe that folks who look to lose or keep weight off are vapid, self absorbed types who aren't happy with themselves.

I assumed nothing of the kind. What I said was that I personally have no interest in the reading the intimate details of other people's health issues. I daresay some people reading this site may be facing hemorrhoidal ligation, colonoscopy and cholecystectomy, to name a few other procedures linked to food and digestion, and if folks want to post about their experiences, well, I wish everyone the best of health....

I apologize for venting, but regarding weight loss, I have heard it all before, in vast, ugly detail -- from Weight Watchers, the Grapefruit Diet, Atkins, Slim-Fast and Atkins again to Jack LaLanne, Jazzercize, Nautilus, Richard Simmons and Pilates to amphetamines, Ayds, phen-fen and Metabolife to high colonics, bariatric surgery and liposuction. Weight-loss efforts are so absorbing to those engaged in them that they talk about them constantly. I have done more than my share of listening to the trials, tribulations and self-righteous proselytizing of would-be weight losers and while I wish them all well, I don't care for repetitions. I have spent my life surrounded by fat people who have tried them all -- and I cannot name a single individual of significant size whose efforts led him or her to long-lasting slimness. I have gritted my teeth so hard and so often to keep in the I-told-you-so's that I needed root canal (not to burden you with my own health problems).

Had this thread limited itself to people's personal weight-loss efforts I would not have posted; I commented because it veered into public policy issues and narrow-minded characterizations of fat people.

YourPalWill wrote:I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my plight, LAZ. I have certainly heard your criticisms of my "fight" chronicle from other forum members that you have expressed it to over the past couple of years.

To my knowledge, I made exactly one comment about it, in a pm responding to a moderator who implied my post of a single link to a fat-activism site was meant as an attack on you. It is interesting to know how such private messages are passed along.

Will, when I said there was nothing personal, I meant it. My comments in this thread were not directed at you individually. I wish you well and sincerely hope that you beat the odds;* your great effort deserves long-term success.



* Bariatric surgery for obesity, ECRI; 2004: "Although morbidly obese patients lose a clinically significant amount of weight, ECRI found that three years after surgery, the typical patient is still obese. The analysis found that although patients' quality of life improved dramatically after bariatric surgery, the improvements did not typically bring them to a normal quality of life."

LAZ wrote:

I don't buy the argument that being overweight is caused by some genetic condition. Sure, there can be genetic conditions that contribute to being overweight, but that doesn't explain the epidemic of obesity that is taking place in the US.

Translation: "You're delusional." Bingo card, B1, B3, N1 and N5.

How so?

Dmnkly wrote:

jpschust wrote:

davecamaro1994 wrote:all that salt makes you retain water. I was drinking prolly 4 or 5 a day and working out like mad and not losing weight fast at all. Once I quit the pop and went to water I started dropping almost 5 a week

Moreso than the sodium issue we're seeing a lot of studies come out that say that all that induction of Nutrasweet and the like actually inhibits the ability to lose weight.

Links?

With all due respect, and with the understanding that new findings on old(ish) products are always possible, artificial sweeteners have been the target of such a staggering number of bullshit "studies" over the years, I would be shocked (though interested) to learn that they have been clinically shown to have any detrimental effects*, especially on something with such a direct, widespread interest as weight loss.

And Dave, if you were really losing five pounds per week, that's a problem. Doctors recommend that kind of aggressive weight loss only in very extreme situations, and even then only under strict medical supervision. If you worked out a ton and did a really poor job of hydrating yourself, you might be able to have a freakish spike like that, but otherwise that's a terribly unsafe rate of weight loss. If you achieved your goal, that's great -- I don't mean to take that away from you. But if you find yourself losing five pounds per week again, you should be talking to a doctor.

Please don't misunderstand, guys, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. And maybe there is something to cutting artificial sweeteners, I don't know. But if decades of medical research have shown us anything, it's that "eat less, exercise more" is the only safe and reliable way to lose weight, and that all of the magic bullets are at best insignificant window dressing, and at worst total falsehoods that only serve to distract from the only thing that, despite all of the fad diets and false miracle solutions and medical "discoveries", has always remained true:

Calories In - Calories Out = Weight Loss

* - With the exception of triggering headaches in some, for which there seems to be a reasonable amount of actual clinical evidence.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-sweetener17mar17,1,517680.story


Though it's really no use to even be engaging at this point.

I agree with all of the above. All of it. There are so many facets to this issue that they all seem reasonable, depending upon your viewpoint.

As for me, I know I'd be happier if I didn't have to shop for clothes in a special section of the store called "plus-size" and if the clothes that were available to me looked more like "normal " clothes do, like the clothes a few racks over in the "Misses" section, instead of having to choose between horizontal stripes or sweatshirts with giant appliques of Winnie the Pooh characters and the like.

So, does that mean I should lose weight to be able to fit into the "normal", more stylish clothes, or does it mean that the people who design clothes should make an effort to design clothes that look good on larger people?

Probably a little bit of both, as it is in all things related to weight.

Now wait a minute, LAZ - while I appreciate the pervasiveness of weight-based discrimination and that a lot of the current "health" directives are bunk, I think you're making some false assumptions about people's intent. I don't think anyone here is directing anyone to change, or making a blanket statement about what is "too big."

While I agree with the statement that all fat people are not unhealthy, that does not make the converse of this statement true - however, I, and for that matter most of the "diet-guru" types are not doctors and can't make this distinction - and, most especially, the distinction needs to be made on an individual basis, not as a blanket statement. Most importantly, a person's health is their own business.

jpschust wrote:Moreso than the sodium issue we're seeing a lot of studies come out that say that all that induction of Nutrasweet and the like actually inhibits the ability to lose weight.

jpschust wrote:http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-sweetener17mar17,1,517680.story

Though it's really no use to even be engaging at this point.

I hope there's use -- I know I'm highly skeptical on the subject, but I think that skepticism is warranted, given the history of dietary "breakthroughs". If, however, there's real, meaningful research done on the subject, I'll be the first to accept it for what it is (and I'd love for it to be true, Diet Pepsi being my beverage of choice).

To be fair, however, this article points out one clinical rat study that suggests aspartame might encourage overeating (again, the real culprit being excessive calories), and then goes on to cite two other clinical human studies that found this was not the case. It then mentions a couple of other studies that demonstrate a correlation between soda consumption and metabolic syndrome (one considering diet soda, one finding that it didn't matter whether the soda was diet or regular), but that didn't show causality in any way. Studies like this are interesting and they're one of the ways we can identify areas of concern that should be tested, but they shouldn't be confused with actual findings. Correlation, of course, does not mean causality, and an uncontrolled study like this might ignore, for example, the fact that sodas are the most common beverage at fast food restaurants, and the consumption of burgers and fries among that same group might also be substantially higher than the general population (just to throw an example out there). But that's why controlled clinical studies exist -- to eliminate those kinds of variables.

As such, I think to say that "we're seeing a lot of studies come out that say that all that induction of Nutrasweet and the like actually inhibits the ability to lose weight" is at the very least grossly premature, and definitely misleading (though I don't mean to suggest it's intentionally so). The number of medical suggestions that are supported to this degree vastly outnumber the ones that are, in the end, demonstrated to actually be true.

Jen Wade is giving up Diet Coke for now[url]. (You have to scroll down the page a bit.)

LAZ, I look at at least one like Big Fat Deal or Elastic Waist every day. The more I read, the more I find that everyone's process is different. Many of the best writers, who've put in hard time on this issue, are quite ambivalent themselves about issues of size acceptance. [/url]

A recent article in Gastronomica pointed out that the focus on obesity actually directs our attention away from some of the things that affect our diet. If we think of food in relation to obesity, the discussion soon turns to the definition of obesity, individual choice, dieting, food preparation, and the like. The issue of food and health ultimately turns into a question of what individual people should or shouldn't do, and not a question of what public policies should or shouldn't do.

If we think in terms of food and public health generally (i.e. not just as it relates to people's weight), then we often start discussing a completely different set of topics: food inspection, dietary guidelines, farm subsidies, school lunch programs, food deserts, and so on.

I think the NY Times article was an easy piece to put together, because it fit the model for "lifestyle" stories. But I don't think that this piece, or most others I've seen on the topic of obesity, contributes much that is useful to discussions of public health and food.

Cogito wrote:

LAZ wrote:

I don't buy the argument that being overweight is caused by some genetic condition. Sure, there can be genetic conditions that contribute to being overweight, but that doesn't explain the epidemic of obesity that is taking place in the US.

Translation: "You're delusional." Bingo card, B1, B3, N1 and N5.

How so?

Aren't you saying that those who believe in such research as I cited on genetics are deluded and/or looking for excuses to justify being fat instead of facing our "poor diet and lack of exercise"?

Liz in Norwood Park wrote:So, does that mean I should lose weight to be able to fit into the "normal", more stylish clothes, or does it mean that the people who design clothes should make an effort to design clothes that look good on larger people?

When the Torrid stores for teens opened, some weight-loss experts denounced them because, if fat girls could buy attractive clothes it might reduce their motivation to diet.

I'm not sure where you're shopping, Liz, but it does seem as if some clothing makers are getting it, especially for younger women who can wear sizes 12-26. When I was a girl, Lane Bryant sold mainly frumpy clothes for matronly ladies. Now that I am a frumpy matron, they seem to sell mainly clothes suitable for teenagers. However, national chains like Catherines and Avenue, and locally, BonJour Madame, sell stylish clothing for grown-up women.

Mhays wrote:Most importantly, a person's health is their own business.

No argument there.

As much as I wish they'd keep it to themselves, I have no problems with anyone making their own decisions about their health or their weight. I object to the scare tactics being fostered by the weight-loss industry, and I object to Big Brotherly attempts to legislate fitness and nutrition. ("Bend lower, please.")

If I want to live fast, die young and leave an ugly corpse, that should be my decision.

MariaTheresa wrote: The issue of food and health ultimately turns into a question of what individual people should or shouldn't do, and not a question of what public policies should or shouldn't do.

If we think in terms of food and public health generally (i.e. not just as it relates to people's weight), then we often start discussing a completely different set of topics: food inspection, dietary guidelines, farm subsidies, school lunch programs, food deserts, and so on.

Yes, I'm with you 100% here.

Although I'd like to see public policy support specific education about how food affects our health, I wildly disagree with legislating an adult individual's right to consume whatever foods they choose (e.g. trans-fat bans, foie gras bans, high-fructose corn syrup bans, bans on imported food etc, etc, etc.) I understand it's a complex issue, I generally agree with those who are pushing for posted nutritional information in restaurants.