Eating less does not result in weight loss

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Not as funny as the fact that some people, like me, remain
thin without having to worry about the fats or carbs they
eat, and live in the same environment and eat the same things
as the people who do have to worry.

Just not the same amounts.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message . ..
On 9 Oct 2003 15:40:22 -0700, (Ralph DuBose) wrote:

-"Michael Snyder" wrote in message
...

-
- It is not nit-picking -- it is a red herring. Show me where I claimed
- that oxygen is energy per se. I said you cannot derive metabolic
- energy from food without oxygen. The rest of your statement is
- content-free and reveals information about you, not me.
-
- Evidence is accumulating that you do not want top hear certain
-things. There have been several referrences to the fact that no one
-stays fat in boot camps or prison camps, that they all lose fat in a
-hurry. This is a non-trivial fact in the context of the original title
-of this thread. If you expect to be taken at all seriously, this is a
-point with which you must deal. Waving your hand and expecting it to
-go away does not work real well when the medium of dialogue is all
-permanent and written.

It's clear that people will get skinny, and finally starve to death
if enough food is withheld. It's not true that all energy nutrients
(fat, carbs, sugars, alcohol) act the same way as far as retaining
fat is concerned. It's not true that everyone has the same metabolic
rate, and it's very doubtful that everyone has the same "I've had
enough to eat" feedback loop regarding the various nutrients.


This is all true, more or less. But why you should say this here
and to me is a lttle mysterious. What is the point?
Do people vary somewhat in their resting metabolic rates? Yes, a
little. Duh.
Are observed differences large enough to make it impossible for
some people to lose weight? No. The differences observed are quite
small. Indeed, temperature control would be impossible if it got too
low.
Do some people crave food more than others? Yes. Wow.
Is every form of food-calorie handled EXACTLY the same? No, not
exactly the same. So the **** what.
The problem that bedevils this type of conversation is that people
so often confuse the fact that 1. Calculating or measuring the precise
calorie inputs and outputs of an individual is extremely difficult
because of all the possible variables and the difficulties involved
with making accurate measurements with 2. The notion that weight gain
or loss somehow takes place by magic rather than recognisable
physiologic principles.
Yes, mammalian energy metabolism is highly complex but it is also
highly efficient in every healthy person. Caloric intake never sneaks
out of your body without having to be burned in the course of doing
some kind of physiological work. There are in fact some rare
conditions (in people and animals)where energy stores are simply
burned up in a way that is unconnected with things like muscle
movement or enzymatic processes. These conditions are rapidly fatal
because body temp goes quickly higher until at about 42.5 degrees C.
your brain melts, (cooks really).
All that is worth knowing is that if you direct your body to do
lots of calorie burning work ever day while putting less food-calories
in your mouth than you are burning, weight/fat will be lost. Just
because predicting exactly at what point the balance is tipped, for
any given person, is nearly impossible from a distance means nothing.
Besides, it is not my problem.
I have been running since the late sixties and weigh within 10 lbs
from when I was a teenager. I am tired of listening to you people
whine.




http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/315/2/96
"Thus, resting metabolic rate is a familial trait in this population,
and it is independent of differences in fat-free mass, age, and sex.
We also found that persons from families with lower resting metabolic
rates were no more obese than persons from families with higher
metabolic rates. This finding may be partly explained by the close
correlation between fat-free mass and percentage of body fat (r = 0.81,
P less than 0.0001), which indicates that the resting metabolic
rate, as adjusted for fat-free mass, is already partly adjusted
for obesity. Only prospective studies will elucidate whether the
familial dependence of the resting metabolic rate is a contributing
mechanism to the familial predisposition to obesity.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:16:30 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
-It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
-without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
-isn't it?
-
- Not as funny as the fact that some people, like me, remain
- thin without having to worry about the fats or carbs they
- eat, and live in the same environment and eat the same things
- as the people who do have to worry.
-
-Just not the same amounts.

IOW, it's actually not all that funny that some people who live
elsewhere do the same thing as some people who live here. There's
fat people everywhere and not-fat people everywhere, though the
proportions vary quite a bit. Perhaps thereare no fat hut-dwelling
Amazon Indians, but that doesn't matter because, as least as far
as I can tell, the point of contention in these threads is:

Why would one person eat enough to get fat even when they
don't want to get fat, and another person never care or
worry about it and not get fat?

That question is still a matter of research, but there are physical
reason(s) for it, and they don't depend on anyone being somewhere
else any more than does the fact that some people [drink more
coca-cola] than do other people. Insert just about whatever you
want in the [].

It seems that this thread is mostly about the details of fat/carb
metabolism, but the question above remains unaffected.

The statements:

- everyone's BMR is the same
- all calories are the same as regards getting fat

are both false. The falsity of the second stmt shows it's possible
for a person to eat fewer total calories, in a different form, and
get fatter than they would by eating more calories. (I'm not claiming
that it's common or significant, just that it's possible.)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:24:22 GMT, Mr F Le Mur wrote:

Why would one person eat enough to get fat even when they
don't want to get fat, and another person never care or
worry about it and not get fat?

because the first person likes eating more than they dislike
being fat, and willing to do something about it.

Why would one person hate doing math homework and get F's even
when they want to pass the class, and another person never
worry about finishing the homework and still get A's?

two reasons: intrinsic ability and personal responsibility.

some people don't get addicted to tobacco.

The statements:

- everyone's BMR is the same
- all calories are the same as regards getting fat

are both false. The falsity of the second stmt shows it's possible
for a person to eat fewer total calories, in a different form, and
get fatter than they would by eating more calories. (I'm not claiming
that it's common or significant, just that it's possible.)

They are false but only in a small degree, that the BMR adjusted
for age, gender height and obesity does not vary very much empirically,
and neither does the second.

They do not explain the wide gulf in obesity.

dopamine receptors are probably more important.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:11:55 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos
wrote:

-On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:24:22 GMT, Mr F Le Mur wrote:
-
- Why would one person eat enough to get fat even when they
- don't want to get fat, and another person never care or
- worry about it and not get fat?
-
-because the first person likes eating more than they dislike
-being fat, and willing to do something about it.

Why do they like eating so much?

-
-Why would one person hate doing math homework and get F's even
-when they want to pass the class, and another person never
-worry about finishing the homework and still get A's?
-
-two reasons: intrinsic ability and personal responsibility.

Both of those things are abilities.

-
-some people don't get addicted to tobacco.

Because they're misssing the receptors.

-
- The statements:
-
- - everyone's BMR is the same
- - all calories are the same as regards getting fat
-
- are both false. The falsity of the second stmt shows it's possible
- for a person to eat fewer total calories, in a different form, and
- get fatter than they would by eating more calories. (I'm not claiming
- that it's common or significant, just that it's possible.)
-
-They are false but only in a small degree, that the BMR adjusted
-for age, gender height and obesity does not vary very much empirically,
-and neither does the second.

BMR varies by a few percent between similar individuals when
intake and physical activity are held constant. Which is
enough to gain 50 pounds in 10 years, though probably not
the reason for it.

-
-They do not explain the wide gulf in obesity.

Probably not; obesity seems to be the result of a feedback
loop which isn't calibrated perfectly, at least for our modern
society where food is always plentiful, and it doesn't have
to be off by much for someone to gain a fair amount of weight
over time.

-
-dopamine receptors are probably more important.

The feedback loop. It's true that one can accuse fat people
of "lacking willpower," (or motivation), but just because
someone's fat doesn't mean that they have less willpower
than someone who isn't fat.

On 10 Oct 2003 16:28:00 -0700, (Ralph DuBose) wrote:

-Mr. F. Le Mur wrote in message
. ..


- fat is concerned. It's not true that everyone has the same metabolic
- rate, and it's very doubtful that everyone has the same "I've had
- enough to eat" feedback loop regarding the various nutrients.
-
-
- This is all true, more or less. But why you should say this here
-and to me is a lttle mysterious. What is the point?

That some people were saying otherwise, seemingly including yourself:

You wrote:

Every healthy human has a extremely efficient metabolism, it does
not make sense that fat people could have even more efficiency.
...
There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this sort of
thing (and lots to the contrary) and solid theoretical grounds for
doubting it could happen. There is not much room for improvement over
normal.

- Do people vary somewhat in their resting metabolic rates? Yes, a
-little. Duh.

See above. Although not absolutely clear, the implication there
is the opposite of what you just now wrote.

- Are observed differences large enough to make it impossible for
-some people to lose weight? No. The differences observed are quite
-small. Indeed, temperature control would be impossible if it got too
-low.

The observed differences, a few percent, are enough to cause one
person to gain 50 pounds in 10 years and another person not to...
*if* they have the same appetite and eat the same amount, etc.

- Do some people crave food more than others? Yes. Wow.

I never said otherwise.

- Is every form of food-calorie handled EXACTLY the same? No, not
-exactly the same. So the **** what.

Some people claimed otherwise, that's the **** what. I thought it
may have been you, but apparently not.

....big snip of stuff which I'm too polite to respond to with
"so the **** what" and "Duh"...

- Besides, it is not my problem.

Nor mine.

- I have been running since the late sixties and weigh within 10 lbs
-from when I was a teenager. I am tired of listening to you people
-whine.

"You people?" Based on what you wrote there, I'd bet $100, sight
unseen, that you're fatter than I am. And I'd probably win.

My interest in this subject is the fact that I can't seem to get
fat, even when I've tried to do so, so I don't find it unusual
that some people may find it difficult to do the opposite.

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Because they're misssing the receptors.

No, because they've got the brains to avoid tobacco to begin with.

Probably not; obesity seems to be the result of a feedback
loop which isn't calibrated perfectly, at least for our modern
society where food is always plentiful, and it doesn't have
to be off by much for someone to gain a fair amount of weight
over time.

It must be a feedback loop that is largely unique to the United States.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Because they're misssing the receptors.

No, because they've got the brains to avoid tobacco to begin with.

Probably not; obesity seems to be the result of a feedback
loop which isn't calibrated perfectly, at least for our modern
society where food is always plentiful, and it doesn't have
to be off by much for someone to gain a fair amount of weight
over time.

It must be a feedback loop that is largely unique to the United States.

I think that this thread has drifted somewhat into word problems.
(I may have added some to this.)
Of course there is a feedback loop involved in hunger/eating. As
soon as someone starts eating, hunger begins to fade until there is no
hunger left and eating stops. And I do not quarrel with the general
idea that obesity is related to the fact that obese people eat past
the point of hunger that would correspond to a calorie balance. In
other words, they have a defective sense of appetite. The
disagreements seem to revolve around the question of why fat people
want so badly to overeat in relationship to calorie expenditure.
Some opinions:
Normal hunger is a very powerful craving. If there is factor that
"resets" this process to be over needy for food, you will indeed get
fatter. Some drugs, like steroids, are appetite enhancers and people
put on them often gain weight. If there is an environmental "factor"
that did this, a population would tend to get fatter. I doubt that
there is. My personal guess is that the homeostaic feedback system
for weight control does not work well when activity levels drop below
a certain point. After all, there is no historical precedent for the
degree of immobility/desk jobs/elevators seen today in our convenience
clogged lifestyle. Nothing about our bodies are well designed for
this.
In other words, the problem is not the overabundance of food, that
has been seen commonly in times past.The problem is that our bodies
are not designed to only crave 2000 calories a day. The control
systems for eating/hunger homeostasis are not designed for such
parameters.
It is also my guess that far-gone fat people are eating for a
dopamine rush rather than in response to normal hunger signals.
Listening to dieters talk about their diificulties sounds eriely like
junkies in rehab. "Diets do not work". Well, neither does drug rehab.
The thing is, I do not think that very many thin people think about
food at all. College students who are really active and eat lots of
cheese pizza at 2 am and stay thin are not thin because of anything to
do with self control or even conscious thought. The moment of truth
comes when they leave school and start a desk job. Keeping themselves
as active as before is hard to do without deliberate effort and the
hunger fat-o-stat is not very accurate at low calorie burning
conditions.
I wrestled in college and tried a few times to drop a weight class.
I could not do it. I hated being hungry way more than I wanted the
chance to compete at 137. So, my "gut" feeling is that it is 100 times
easier to will oneself onto greater activity than to will oneself into
enduring hunger 18 hours a day. And if getting really active indeed
makes the hunger-device function better (and I think it does) then
exercising like a maniac is the best first step to staying fit.
Seems to me.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:15:52 GMT, Mr F Le Mur wrote:
-dopamine receptors are probably more important.

The feedback loop. It's true that one can accuse fat people
of "lacking willpower," (or motivation), but just because
someone's fat doesn't mean that they have less willpower
than someone who isn't fat.

People who aren't fat either

1) unconciously adapt their eating without willpower
2) do actually have willpower and discernment

people who are fat

1) did not adapt their eating to their situation and do
not use willpower sufficiently

One may be surprised at how not-fat people actually think about their
food intake. Undoubtably there are very active young men who don't
think about it one bit, but I think general consideration of food
intake among the normal weight is more common than some realize.

Personally I always try to remember roughly how much I ate in the last
day or so and counter balance the quantity and frequency, as well as
weigh myself daily on a digital scale. I didn't talk about this to
anybody either, I just did it.

The gulf in obesity between less educated and more educated is
significant, and very likely not genetic either.

In article , Ralph DuBose
says...

Mxsmanic wrote in message
...
Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Because they're misssing the receptors.

No, because they've got the brains to avoid tobacco to begin with.

Probably not; obesity seems to be the result of a feedback
loop which isn't calibrated perfectly, at least for our modern
society where food is always plentiful, and it doesn't have
to be off by much for someone to gain a fair amount of weight
over time.

It must be a feedback loop that is largely unique to the United States.

I think that this thread has drifted somewhat into word problems.
(I may have added some to this.)
Of course there is a feedback loop involved in hunger/eating. As
soon as someone starts eating, hunger begins to fade until there is no
hunger left and eating stops. And I do not quarrel with the general
idea that obesity is related to the fact that obese people eat past
the point of hunger that would correspond to a calorie balance. In
other words, they have a defective sense of appetite.

I don't think it's truly physical appetite so much as expectation. Fat folk are
eating for pleasure and entertainment value beyond their caloric needs, but,
especially in a society as ours which jacks up expectations, consider it
reasonable to eat yea much and yae many times a day.

That's why people gain weight as their caloric needs go down - they don't adjust
because they feel entitled to the food.

I had an intersting conversation in another NG. The usual "but some fat people
can't help it" thing came up and someone pointed to the case of his mother who
had gained tremendous amounts of weight once she was treated for heart disease.
He blamed all the medications. She pretty much was immobile, I recall. He said
her diet was reasonable and fine, some of it planned by dieticians in fact. I
pressed him for how *much* she had eaten. He resisted, then described a diet of
four substantial meals a day, one a 'meals on wheels' that likely was planned
for her entire daily caloric need, cookies and ice cream (oh but it was *low
fat* ice cream he pointed out). It's all very reasonalbe he said.

Four meals. Glycemic treats. For an inactive elder. She gained weight. Well
duh.

Banty