A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 11th, 2004, 01:22 PM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 06:19:46, Concordia wrote:

Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth
degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value
they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat.
Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage
has more calories than a pound of salmon.

Would that not be clear without calorie tables?

There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people
floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit
in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the
difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here
have to watch what they eat.

When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even
trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very
different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. No
snacks. None. The concept of the "office stash" is totally unknown -
you just don't eat during the day, except at a formal mealtime. The
young, who do go to McDonald's, are beginning to get fat.

And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need
to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there,
whereas in the USA I feel positively slender!

I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most
of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are
honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second
helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a
lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people
occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away
with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other
women. People see what they want to see.

Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a
heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a
pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties
don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because
the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it.

And of course many French women *do* watch their weight, but are
discreet about it - and successful! But they have as many health
magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any
other....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!
  #12  
Old August 11th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Concordia" wrote in message
...
One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital
would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather
hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one
could find out.


I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. This might indeed be
interresting to do, for educative purpose. I wish we had done that in
science class, might have been fun. However, I doubt it would have any
practical use for a dieting purpose.

Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not
common)


A blood sample would not *aid* ruling out hypothyroidism, it would diagnose
it or not I mean, when there is a direct exam and when it is so cheap
it's almost free (like, I paid less than $1 for mine), why not use it?

and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is
generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is
sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight.


That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue.
And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as
you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have
to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some.

This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through

metabolic
tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is
hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet.


What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and
obesity. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal,
either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal
problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal.
Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second
category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or
not.

Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly
or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph
the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place.


If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And
if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes
have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice
number, but not many useful things to do with it...

There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one
stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this?


I do have some doubts about women, but no, for men, that would be right. But
activity level would still vary, and this can make a lot of difference. And
hopefully, weight will be going down too

Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth
degree of precision.


I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe?
Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of
fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content.
Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high
enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely
drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will
have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food,
grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of
variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have
to go to the nth degree of precision to find it.
Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories
by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations
will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of
error...

Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage
has more calories than a pound of salmon.


Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need
a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need
that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of
time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with
exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load
of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked?
Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount
of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of
sausage...

A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term
attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand
this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated"
people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up
for it (which I somewhat disagree with).


Studies have proven that there is a meal to meal compensation, except,
again, in obeses. It's also something I experienced personnally.
You're also building a system that is a lot more complex than the original
biological one. The brain *will* adjust its calorie table. When you feed
"light" food to a rat, the brain will adjust the quantities in no more than
a couple of days and keep the diet iso-caloric. On the other hand, your
calorie table will remain the same even on hot dry years. You're still
lacking several levels of flexibility.

There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people
floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit
in France (does it really?).


Obesity is rising in France. If we define obesity as BMI30, the 2003
numbers are 11.3% (9.6% in 1997). The overweight or obese population is at
41.6% (36.7% in 1997). Massive obesity (40) is now at 0.6%. I haven't
checked the American numbers for a while, I don't know how you compared
right now.
There are indeed less and less of these people, since it's becoming hard not
to be under the influence of a bunch of dietetical advices. You can still
find them among kids, some teenagers and still quite a lot of adults. I
still do know quite a lot of them though. My father mostly doesn't watch
what he eats, and maintains his weight despite completely chaotic levels of
physical activities.
Don't you find it strange that the more dietetical advice we receive, the
more obese we become? As you pointed, most Americans are very conscious
about what they eat. Yet, most Americans also happen to be fat. If you go
back forty years ago, few Americans cared, yet less of them were fat.

If so, what do you attribute the
difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here
have to watch what they eat.


That's actually very scary when you're a Frenchman visiting the USA,
especially big cities. Actually seeing fitness shops selling diets products
(most of them being illegal here) like they are candies is completely
surreal to us. I mean, if I wanted to find such a shop in Paris, I would
have to seek in the yellow pages to get the addresses of the handful of them
we have. In NYC, it was impossible not to go past one daily.
I do think that's one of the key difference. We do watch what we eat - a
little. A lot less than you do anyway. Most people *like* eating. Most
people have enough respect for cultural eating that eating powdered food is
highly depressive to them. But we have been paying more attention to what we
eat in the past years. We even have our diet reality show now. But we are
now catching up on you quickly...
There are of course other factors too.
We walk much more than the average American does (except New Yorkers). Many
flats also have no elevator, I live at the 6th floor, no elevator, and
that's a minimum daily amount of exercise I have no way of doing without.
Most famillies don't eat in front of the TV. We don't eat in our cars
either. The dinner is still a social meeting for the familly. We don't eat
all the time in the streets "as Americans do" (sorry, that's exactly how
people would describe it). We drink soda, a little or mostly light - noone
would think about drinking a gallon of coke a day. We buy food in small
containers, not per the gallon. You can have two people eat from a single
entree at a French restaurant - something most French people do when they
visit the USA. The supersize deal in French McDonalds is roughly equivalent
to the medium menu in US McDonalds, likewise the small French fries we have
just doesn't exist in that size in the USA. The first McDonald in France
already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new
"healthy" salads they are now selling.
So, there are cultural differences, and they do play a role (especially
since some of these keep us focussed on what we are eating and our
feelings - like actually liking the food or not watching TV). But I think
the overall attitude towards diet is a good part of the equation.

I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following
Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the
form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also
began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to
be rewarding and enjoyable activities.
Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and
processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of
fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits
and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a
martini with or after dinner.


So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or
something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours
recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****). This is
still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. There are probably
other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself
solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with
time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food
of course)?

Are you positive you will be able to maintain for
life?


Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able
to keep from gaining weight.


I'm not too concerned about physical traumas. Most people regain weight from
psychological traumas, like a divorce or something that is experienced as
emotionaly strongly. The problem is that most diets do not try to prepare
you against that.

I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf
down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I
also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I
rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself
about what I was doing or the calories consumed.


Well, at least, that's something not included in your diet plan : admitting
you were over-eating, and even bingeing. When faced with that word, many
people go into denial and claim they only have a small problem with food. Do
you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial?
Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why*
you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that
weight?
What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose
weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and
how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet).
Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet
and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of
their own introspection, not of the diet itself.
Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all
diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of
people are able to make that introspection on their own. Even worse, a lot
of energy is devoted to methods that completely obliterate the need to do
any kind of introspection : diet pills, surgery, "miracle" diets...

Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these
"well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to
give a conscious thought to what they eat.


Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all
kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy
into the caloric explanation! If you do a history of obesity, a lot of
things have been blamed for it, not only mere calories : fat, carbs,
proteins, water, salt, red meat... Yet, throughout history, a majority of
humanity was able to maintain a stable weight. And we haven't been starving
much in recent history, nor have we always been exercising ourselves. If you
limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much
exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity.
How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic
advice of the time?

This is not what I am
seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of
these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat?


Well, looking around me, I would say roughly 30-50% of the people are still
eating normally. My father and mother are. My girlfriend is a recovered
overweight lady who is now listening to her instincts and doing well along
that way.
Of course, the more you tell everyone that they should watch what they eat,
the more they will just do that. And this is exactly what we are doing. I
mean, I can't live a single day without being submitted to some form of diet
information. This is like getting it brainwashed in. How can you explain we
*still* have any obese person left with all the information we receive?

I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people.


Well, at least, losing weight has been effortless for me. Even better, it
has been more pleasant than eating as an obese, because at least I
appreciate what I eat (I used to just throw food down my throat).

Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are
honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second
helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a
lot for lunch, etc.


I do often pass on dessert and second helping, because I just plainly do not
feel hungry anymore. This is sometimes annoying, since I have thrown to the
garbage bin tons of delicious stuff I had bought for dessert (until I
figured out how to manage my hunger throughout the various parts of the meal
or if I really badly want a dessert, I just start the meal with it). But
it's not a conscious effort. I have tried to force myself to eat past the
hunger a few time, and it just doesn't taste good without it.
But I will make a conscious decision not to take a second helping in order
to keep some hunger for the dessert, that one is true. The difference is
that the final decision comes from my hunger, it's where the limit is set,
not from some artificial conception of where I should stop eating or what I
should eat. The difference is that there is no frustration that way, I don't
give up something I would have wanted, I give up something I did have to
hunger for.

What's funny is now that I am thin, people
occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away
with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other
women. People see what they want to see.


Same here. But that *is* exactly my point. Most people have their mind
poluted by information and values from diets. They have their views so
distorted that they won't even see reality when it's in front of their eyes.
To them, someone who is slim is someone who doesn't eat "bad food". In deep,
very few people actually believe in the caloric equation. I can tell them I
can eat 100g of chocolate for lunch *and* that I will still lose weight
because my caloric balance is in deficit, they will not believe me. Or,
worse, they will believe it's some kind of miracle diet that involves eating
chocolate in its process.

The low fat diet.


Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will.
This is common sense.


Totally agreed. But then, why does the doctor asks you to cut fats? I mean,
if it's only calories, why the hell should I *also* cut the fats? Why can't
I cut a bit of fats and a bit of carbs? Or carbs or fats in various
proportion according to my fancy of the day?
The problem is that deep down, the doctor doesn't believe in the caloric
theory himself. He believes you have to cut fats, and also, almost as an
afterthought, cut the calories. But if you don't cut the fats, terrible
things will happen. They pay lip service to the caloric balance, but they do
believe in the fat is evil dogma with all their might.

If someone really thinks they can sit around
and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a
victim of their own stupidity.


Then, I'm sorry to tell you, but a good deal of the American population *is*
stupid. I mean, check how much low fat junk food people buy a year...

The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time.


But even doctors do not believe in the caloric equations. They believe you
should cut some bad foods/nutriments and, also, cut the calories.

The FDA pyramid.


The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an
oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that.


See? You too... If the goal is to achieve a caloric deficit, why not do it
on the FDA pyramid? But you also believe that carbs are bad. Don't you think
you can lose weight on eating a large amount of carbs? Do you believe you
can't control your appetite if you eat carbs?

What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is
going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed
foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are
always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it.


That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we
want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many
aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches,
entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have
consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards
food only mirror our attitude towards society in general.
But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't
matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what
you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good
food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at
that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a
price to be paid for pleasure. Do you know the amount of people who are
convinced that a single chunk of chocolate can destroy a careful diet? Or
how many people actually demand of their dietetian that he puts them on the
most strict diet and make them suffer?

People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and
choose to believe what they want to believe.


Yes. The problem is that a huge majority of the people are in that
situation. When, as a government, you spend a enormous budget communicating
about obesity, seeing that kind of result should call for some
brainstorming. And I don't mean creating some new ads. I mean, rethinking
the whole strategy. Yet, the only reaction to the fact that it is obviously
not working is to spend yet more funds to do the exact same campains, only
louder.

That is PRECISELY why I
am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this.


I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious
*cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty
of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they
guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual
methods.
Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is
introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current
hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in
the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with.

As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine.


Few people do that. Some people just give up trying. Given the statistical
net results of diets, I can't blame them. If one has to chose between 5% of
chances of losing some weight and 95% of chances of becoming fatter, being
cautious and chosing to be as healthy as possible at one's current weight is
not a bad choice.

Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food.


That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it
was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to
the information currently available at the time.


I don't blame conspiracies when I can blame common idiocy. The problem is
that, when you are a doctor, you are sworn not to broadcast false
informations. Yet, they put everyone on margarine without proper proof that
margarine was safe *and* without real proof that butter was unsafe. And it's
not an isolated event. Concerning obesity, it's done all the time. Just
check the past history of obesity surgery an drugs. How many of these have
been released and pulled from the market a few years after because of
serious problems with them? Yet, they keep doing it. We still don't know the
long term consequences of bypass surgery, but this doesn't prevent a bunch
of people (including some with only moderate obesity) from having their body
mutilated.

I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In
fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating.


It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or
even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is
devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood
that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of
the American population?

Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances.


Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding
a way around it.

So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it

doesn't
make my life miserable.


How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances?


Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever
I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever
I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any
particular meal), as long as I'm hungry.
This is of course a little more involved. I get psychological support, I'm
supervised by a nutritionnist, I have frquent blood samples, there was a lot
of actual work involved in feeling my hunger and satiety and breaking up
various food taboos...
Initial circumstances, six months ago, were 1m82 for 132kg, with a recently
diagnosed diabete and bad lipids. I had a past experience of binge-eating
and bulimia, though I took care of this one on my own. Currently, I'm at
108kg. Diabete is in good control (A1c at 5.8%, FG at 1g) and lipids are
within the norm. I also stopped my diabete medication a few months ago.

Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve
our own problems.


We can get help on our way though. Nowadays, most obeses trying to solve
their problems have to go *against* the flow (society judgement, dietetic
advice, doctors' advice...).


  #13  
Old August 11th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Concordia" wrote in message
...
One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital
would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather
hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one
could find out.


I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. This might indeed be
interresting to do, for educative purpose. I wish we had done that in
science class, might have been fun. However, I doubt it would have any
practical use for a dieting purpose.

Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not
common)


A blood sample would not *aid* ruling out hypothyroidism, it would diagnose
it or not I mean, when there is a direct exam and when it is so cheap
it's almost free (like, I paid less than $1 for mine), why not use it?

and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is
generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is
sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight.


That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue.
And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as
you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have
to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some.

This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through

metabolic
tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is
hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet.


What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and
obesity. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal,
either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal
problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal.
Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second
category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or
not.

Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly
or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph
the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place.


If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And
if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes
have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice
number, but not many useful things to do with it...

There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one
stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this?


I do have some doubts about women, but no, for men, that would be right. But
activity level would still vary, and this can make a lot of difference. And
hopefully, weight will be going down too

Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth
degree of precision.


I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe?
Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of
fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content.
Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high
enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely
drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will
have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food,
grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of
variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have
to go to the nth degree of precision to find it.
Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories
by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations
will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of
error...

Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage
has more calories than a pound of salmon.


Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need
a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need
that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of
time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with
exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load
of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked?
Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount
of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of
sausage...

A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term
attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand
this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated"
people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up
for it (which I somewhat disagree with).


Studies have proven that there is a meal to meal compensation, except,
again, in obeses. It's also something I experienced personnally.
You're also building a system that is a lot more complex than the original
biological one. The brain *will* adjust its calorie table. When you feed
"light" food to a rat, the brain will adjust the quantities in no more than
a couple of days and keep the diet iso-caloric. On the other hand, your
calorie table will remain the same even on hot dry years. You're still
lacking several levels of flexibility.

There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people
floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit
in France (does it really?).


Obesity is rising in France. If we define obesity as BMI30, the 2003
numbers are 11.3% (9.6% in 1997). The overweight or obese population is at
41.6% (36.7% in 1997). Massive obesity (40) is now at 0.6%. I haven't
checked the American numbers for a while, I don't know how you compared
right now.
There are indeed less and less of these people, since it's becoming hard not
to be under the influence of a bunch of dietetical advices. You can still
find them among kids, some teenagers and still quite a lot of adults. I
still do know quite a lot of them though. My father mostly doesn't watch
what he eats, and maintains his weight despite completely chaotic levels of
physical activities.
Don't you find it strange that the more dietetical advice we receive, the
more obese we become? As you pointed, most Americans are very conscious
about what they eat. Yet, most Americans also happen to be fat. If you go
back forty years ago, few Americans cared, yet less of them were fat.

If so, what do you attribute the
difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here
have to watch what they eat.


That's actually very scary when you're a Frenchman visiting the USA,
especially big cities. Actually seeing fitness shops selling diets products
(most of them being illegal here) like they are candies is completely
surreal to us. I mean, if I wanted to find such a shop in Paris, I would
have to seek in the yellow pages to get the addresses of the handful of them
we have. In NYC, it was impossible not to go past one daily.
I do think that's one of the key difference. We do watch what we eat - a
little. A lot less than you do anyway. Most people *like* eating. Most
people have enough respect for cultural eating that eating powdered food is
highly depressive to them. But we have been paying more attention to what we
eat in the past years. We even have our diet reality show now. But we are
now catching up on you quickly...
There are of course other factors too.
We walk much more than the average American does (except New Yorkers). Many
flats also have no elevator, I live at the 6th floor, no elevator, and
that's a minimum daily amount of exercise I have no way of doing without.
Most famillies don't eat in front of the TV. We don't eat in our cars
either. The dinner is still a social meeting for the familly. We don't eat
all the time in the streets "as Americans do" (sorry, that's exactly how
people would describe it). We drink soda, a little or mostly light - noone
would think about drinking a gallon of coke a day. We buy food in small
containers, not per the gallon. You can have two people eat from a single
entree at a French restaurant - something most French people do when they
visit the USA. The supersize deal in French McDonalds is roughly equivalent
to the medium menu in US McDonalds, likewise the small French fries we have
just doesn't exist in that size in the USA. The first McDonald in France
already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new
"healthy" salads they are now selling.
So, there are cultural differences, and they do play a role (especially
since some of these keep us focussed on what we are eating and our
feelings - like actually liking the food or not watching TV). But I think
the overall attitude towards diet is a good part of the equation.

I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following
Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the
form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also
began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to
be rewarding and enjoyable activities.
Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and
processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of
fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits
and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a
martini with or after dinner.


So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or
something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours
recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****). This is
still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. There are probably
other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself
solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with
time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food
of course)?

Are you positive you will be able to maintain for
life?


Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able
to keep from gaining weight.


I'm not too concerned about physical traumas. Most people regain weight from
psychological traumas, like a divorce or something that is experienced as
emotionaly strongly. The problem is that most diets do not try to prepare
you against that.

I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf
down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I
also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I
rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself
about what I was doing or the calories consumed.


Well, at least, that's something not included in your diet plan : admitting
you were over-eating, and even bingeing. When faced with that word, many
people go into denial and claim they only have a small problem with food. Do
you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial?
Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why*
you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that
weight?
What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose
weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and
how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet).
Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet
and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of
their own introspection, not of the diet itself.
Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all
diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of
people are able to make that introspection on their own. Even worse, a lot
of energy is devoted to methods that completely obliterate the need to do
any kind of introspection : diet pills, surgery, "miracle" diets...

Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these
"well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to
give a conscious thought to what they eat.


Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all
kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy
into the caloric explanation! If you do a history of obesity, a lot of
things have been blamed for it, not only mere calories : fat, carbs,
proteins, water, salt, red meat... Yet, throughout history, a majority of
humanity was able to maintain a stable weight. And we haven't been starving
much in recent history, nor have we always been exercising ourselves. If you
limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much
exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity.
How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic
advice of the time?

This is not what I am
seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of
these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat?


Well, looking around me, I would say roughly 30-50% of the people are still
eating normally. My father and mother are. My girlfriend is a recovered
overweight lady who is now listening to her instincts and doing well along
that way.
Of course, the more you tell everyone that they should watch what they eat,
the more they will just do that. And this is exactly what we are doing. I
mean, I can't live a single day without being submitted to some form of diet
information. This is like getting it brainwashed in. How can you explain we
*still* have any obese person left with all the information we receive?

I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people.


Well, at least, losing weight has been effortless for me. Even better, it
has been more pleasant than eating as an obese, because at least I
appreciate what I eat (I used to just throw food down my throat).

Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are
honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second
helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a
lot for lunch, etc.


I do often pass on dessert and second helping, because I just plainly do not
feel hungry anymore. This is sometimes annoying, since I have thrown to the
garbage bin tons of delicious stuff I had bought for dessert (until I
figured out how to manage my hunger throughout the various parts of the meal
or if I really badly want a dessert, I just start the meal with it). But
it's not a conscious effort. I have tried to force myself to eat past the
hunger a few time, and it just doesn't taste good without it.
But I will make a conscious decision not to take a second helping in order
to keep some hunger for the dessert, that one is true. The difference is
that the final decision comes from my hunger, it's where the limit is set,
not from some artificial conception of where I should stop eating or what I
should eat. The difference is that there is no frustration that way, I don't
give up something I would have wanted, I give up something I did have to
hunger for.

What's funny is now that I am thin, people
occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away
with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other
women. People see what they want to see.


Same here. But that *is* exactly my point. Most people have their mind
poluted by information and values from diets. They have their views so
distorted that they won't even see reality when it's in front of their eyes.
To them, someone who is slim is someone who doesn't eat "bad food". In deep,
very few people actually believe in the caloric equation. I can tell them I
can eat 100g of chocolate for lunch *and* that I will still lose weight
because my caloric balance is in deficit, they will not believe me. Or,
worse, they will believe it's some kind of miracle diet that involves eating
chocolate in its process.

The low fat diet.


Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will.
This is common sense.


Totally agreed. But then, why does the doctor asks you to cut fats? I mean,
if it's only calories, why the hell should I *also* cut the fats? Why can't
I cut a bit of fats and a bit of carbs? Or carbs or fats in various
proportion according to my fancy of the day?
The problem is that deep down, the doctor doesn't believe in the caloric
theory himself. He believes you have to cut fats, and also, almost as an
afterthought, cut the calories. But if you don't cut the fats, terrible
things will happen. They pay lip service to the caloric balance, but they do
believe in the fat is evil dogma with all their might.

If someone really thinks they can sit around
and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a
victim of their own stupidity.


Then, I'm sorry to tell you, but a good deal of the American population *is*
stupid. I mean, check how much low fat junk food people buy a year...

The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time.


But even doctors do not believe in the caloric equations. They believe you
should cut some bad foods/nutriments and, also, cut the calories.

The FDA pyramid.


The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an
oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that.


See? You too... If the goal is to achieve a caloric deficit, why not do it
on the FDA pyramid? But you also believe that carbs are bad. Don't you think
you can lose weight on eating a large amount of carbs? Do you believe you
can't control your appetite if you eat carbs?

What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is
going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed
foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are
always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it.


That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we
want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many
aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches,
entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have
consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards
food only mirror our attitude towards society in general.
But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't
matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what
you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good
food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at
that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a
price to be paid for pleasure. Do you know the amount of people who are
convinced that a single chunk of chocolate can destroy a careful diet? Or
how many people actually demand of their dietetian that he puts them on the
most strict diet and make them suffer?

People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and
choose to believe what they want to believe.


Yes. The problem is that a huge majority of the people are in that
situation. When, as a government, you spend a enormous budget communicating
about obesity, seeing that kind of result should call for some
brainstorming. And I don't mean creating some new ads. I mean, rethinking
the whole strategy. Yet, the only reaction to the fact that it is obviously
not working is to spend yet more funds to do the exact same campains, only
louder.

That is PRECISELY why I
am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this.


I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious
*cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty
of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they
guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual
methods.
Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is
introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current
hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in
the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with.

As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine.


Few people do that. Some people just give up trying. Given the statistical
net results of diets, I can't blame them. If one has to chose between 5% of
chances of losing some weight and 95% of chances of becoming fatter, being
cautious and chosing to be as healthy as possible at one's current weight is
not a bad choice.

Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food.


That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it
was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to
the information currently available at the time.


I don't blame conspiracies when I can blame common idiocy. The problem is
that, when you are a doctor, you are sworn not to broadcast false
informations. Yet, they put everyone on margarine without proper proof that
margarine was safe *and* without real proof that butter was unsafe. And it's
not an isolated event. Concerning obesity, it's done all the time. Just
check the past history of obesity surgery an drugs. How many of these have
been released and pulled from the market a few years after because of
serious problems with them? Yet, they keep doing it. We still don't know the
long term consequences of bypass surgery, but this doesn't prevent a bunch
of people (including some with only moderate obesity) from having their body
mutilated.

I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In
fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating.


It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or
even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is
devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood
that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of
the American population?

Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances.


Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding
a way around it.

So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it

doesn't
make my life miserable.


How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances?


Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever
I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever
I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any
particular meal), as long as I'm hungry.
This is of course a little more involved. I get psychological support, I'm
supervised by a nutritionnist, I have frquent blood samples, there was a lot
of actual work involved in feeling my hunger and satiety and breaking up
various food taboos...
Initial circumstances, six months ago, were 1m82 for 132kg, with a recently
diagnosed diabete and bad lipids. I had a past experience of binge-eating
and bulimia, though I took care of this one on my own. Currently, I'm at
108kg. Diabete is in good control (A1c at 5.8%, FG at 1g) and lipids are
within the norm. I also stopped my diabete medication a few months ago.

Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve
our own problems.


We can get help on our way though. Nowadays, most obeses trying to solve
their problems have to go *against* the flow (society judgement, dietetic
advice, doctors' advice...).


  #14  
Old August 11th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even
trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very
different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of.


As a side note, off these three meals, the breakfast tends to be pretty
small. For most French people it's a cup of coffee and some bread and
butter. End of meal. The idea of eating proteins for breakfast sounds
disgusting to most people, even though some force themselves to do it under
the presure of dietitians. It's actuall funny if you check the French diet
boards. Plenty of people are posting tricks about how to manage to eat that
much food in the morning without feeling nauseous or how to manage to get
children to eat such a large breakfast. All because the dietitians/magazines
told them to. So much for the idea that you *have* to eat a whole meal for
breakfast to stay slim.
On the three meals a day deal, there are different successful patterns in
the world. Asia seems to do very well on much more than that. Japanese eat
two extra meals (10am and 4pm) and seem to do fine on that diet. Other
Asiatic countries practice snacking and do fine on them.

No snacks. None.


The 4pm snack is an almost official meal for kids, but many (not all) adults
drop it.
Besides, nutritionists now make a distinction between a snack and a
"collation" (small meal). A collation is just a snack that you eat while
being hungry and while paying attention to what you eat. Collations = good,
snacking = bad, according to them.

And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need
to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there,
whereas in the USA I feel positively slender!


It's true that while visiting the USA, I felt positively slim. And I was in
relatively slim cities (NYC, SF). Also, I had to struggle to find clothes at
my size in France, but in the USA I could even find stuff that fitted me at
Gap! :-o Most fashionable brands here stop at XL, and your XL is more like a
XXL or XXXL here.

We eat because
the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it.


That's what psychologists have called externalism. Slim people react from
inner stimuli (they're hungry, they stop being hungry) while obese people
tend to react from external stimuli (time to eat, there is food in front of
me, people are eating, a serving = size of my appetite).

But they have as many health
magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any
other....


This is a recent phenomenon. I read a statistical study on it actually. In
just a few years, the number of articles concerning diets have multiplied
tenfold. Worse, they are becoming common in the press targetted towards
teenagers, while it was virtually unknown there a few years ago. There are
now even a few dieting articles in the men magazines, and this one is
totally new.


  #15  
Old August 11th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even
trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very
different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of.


As a side note, off these three meals, the breakfast tends to be pretty
small. For most French people it's a cup of coffee and some bread and
butter. End of meal. The idea of eating proteins for breakfast sounds
disgusting to most people, even though some force themselves to do it under
the presure of dietitians. It's actuall funny if you check the French diet
boards. Plenty of people are posting tricks about how to manage to eat that
much food in the morning without feeling nauseous or how to manage to get
children to eat such a large breakfast. All because the dietitians/magazines
told them to. So much for the idea that you *have* to eat a whole meal for
breakfast to stay slim.
On the three meals a day deal, there are different successful patterns in
the world. Asia seems to do very well on much more than that. Japanese eat
two extra meals (10am and 4pm) and seem to do fine on that diet. Other
Asiatic countries practice snacking and do fine on them.

No snacks. None.


The 4pm snack is an almost official meal for kids, but many (not all) adults
drop it.
Besides, nutritionists now make a distinction between a snack and a
"collation" (small meal). A collation is just a snack that you eat while
being hungry and while paying attention to what you eat. Collations = good,
snacking = bad, according to them.

And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need
to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there,
whereas in the USA I feel positively slender!


It's true that while visiting the USA, I felt positively slim. And I was in
relatively slim cities (NYC, SF). Also, I had to struggle to find clothes at
my size in France, but in the USA I could even find stuff that fitted me at
Gap! :-o Most fashionable brands here stop at XL, and your XL is more like a
XXL or XXXL here.

We eat because
the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it.


That's what psychologists have called externalism. Slim people react from
inner stimuli (they're hungry, they stop being hungry) while obese people
tend to react from external stimuli (time to eat, there is food in front of
me, people are eating, a serving = size of my appetite).

But they have as many health
magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any
other....


This is a recent phenomenon. I read a statistical study on it actually. In
just a few years, the number of articles concerning diets have multiplied
tenfold. Worse, they are becoming common in the press targetted towards
teenagers, while it was virtually unknown there a few years ago. There are
now even a few dieting articles in the men magazines, and this one is
totally new.


  #16  
Old August 11th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 16:36:48, Lictor
wrote:

The first McDonald in France
already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new
"healthy" salads they are now selling.


It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go
there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that
was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!
  #17  
Old August 11th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go
there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that
was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered.


Really? I would have sworn they had salads from the start... Though I was
only two years old back then Anyway, they were introduced pretty early
on, in my memories, I have always seen salads there...
It was actually pretty funny the first time I went there... My father told
me we were going to try out "American food" lol
And yes, a shake and a Big Mac *is* a lot of food! That would be around the
same number of calories as a Big Mac + Small Fries or BM + Small Salad I
guess, that's about what many people eat at McDonald (except hyper-active
youths, but I suspect some of them do burn that much calories).


  #18  
Old August 11th, 2004, 11:11 PM
bencon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to
eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no
shortcuts."

I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.
  #19  
Old August 11th, 2004, 11:11 PM
bencon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to
eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no
shortcuts."

I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.
  #20  
Old August 12th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.

"bencon" wrote in message
om...
I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't
overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy.


Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will
just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately,
it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you
would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and
overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and
start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where
fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole
range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal.
Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we
are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic
proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. Annabel Smyth General Discussion 25 August 13th, 2004 10:24 AM
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. Cheri Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 August 9th, 2004 06:50 PM
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. ClabberHead 4.01 Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. LucaBG General Discussion 0 August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention Pook! Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.