Sort of a tangent, and I'm polishing up my conspiracy theory tinfoil hat here. The weight loss industry in the US is estimated at $60B/year. If all of that actually worked, we'd go on whatever diet once, lose the weight, and go on our merry way with the weight gone. The fact that it doesn't work for 95% of the population is what keeps the weight loss industry going year after year.
SO - as more studies like this are published, backed by actual science*; how might they fight back to keep the status quo going, in which they are able to steal our self-regard and sell it back to us at a profit? At a minimum, it seems like it would be pretty easy to use social media to shout down those who share their experiences of the damage dieting has caused. The comments on any article related to a fat person achieving happiness, love, career success, making the world a better place, boil down to "nothing counts unless you're thin". I'm no fan of Chris Christie, but can we please let go of the narrative that his weight has any impact on whether he is fit to govern?
So yeah - anytime I see the "just eat less move more" or "just eat healthy and resist the cake" narrative I do actually wonder if the commenter makes their living pushing that message.
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
You know what was self-defeating and unproductive? Actively starving myself for 6-12 weeks at a time to try to get below my set point during my 20s. No hyperbole here - under 1000 calories while working out 2 hours a day was pretty damn defeating. I'd stop only because I'd reach a point where I was too tired from lack of sustenance to get through my basic activities in the day. And I STILL didn't get very much below my set point. I would've been a much happier young adult if I just accepted those literal 5 pounds that separated me from a normal BMI and being overweight. So really, go fuck yourself.
What the fuck?! This is ridiculous and frankly rude and hurtful. I don't know your story and you don't know mine. Obviously my definition of set point is different than yours.
You know what was self-defeating and unproductive? Actively starving myself for 6-12 weeks at a time to try to get below my set point during my 20s. No hyperbole here - under 1000 calories while working out 2 hours a day was pretty damn defeating. I'd stop only because I'd reach a point where I was too tired from lack of sustenance to get through my basic activities in the day. And I STILL didn't get very much below my set point. I would've been a much happier young adult if I just accepted those literal 5 pounds that separated me from a normal BMI and being overweight. So really, go fuck yourself.
What the fuck?! This is ridiculous and frankly rude and hurtful. I don't know your story and you don't know mine. Obviously my definition of set point is different than yours.
Nah, what you said was rude and hurtful. People are just responding to you being an asshole.
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I backed out of the thread because I have no experience relevant to weight loss, but I'm back in for this comment. I've spent the last year dispelling this notion. By way of context, DH discovered a heart thing (genetic - not related to traditional risk factors, like obesity, so again my experience isn't relevant to weight loss) so he (meaning all of us) had to go on a heart healthy diet. Low saturated fat, low sugar (which also means low carb), lots of veggies, lots of fiber - it's been a complete diet overhaul in the Axilla household. Vegan is the gold standard, but plant-based is good enough. When this all began, I'd already taken up cooking as a hobby, so it was my mission to find tasty, healthy recipes. I won't lie - it's taken a aome trial and error, but there are AWESOME recipes out there that are easy and healthy and full of fiber and protein and veggies that we love. And there are TONS of spices and flavorings that DH can have - like garlic, basil, cumin, saffron, curry, lemon juice, olive oil, vinegars... You're not facing a lifetime of grilled chicken and broccoli. There's a whole world of delicious plant-based recipes out there! Although, there are some really bad ones, too - lol.
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying it's easy peasy. I guess I just want to be encouraging about delicious, easy, healthy, plant-based meals.
I have found that medication changes my "set point." I am generally always one weight regardless of activity or diet. But when I went on antidepressants my weight jumped up and then was consistent at that new number. Going off of that med brought it back down to the original number.
Medications changed my set point, too.
Several years after quitting them my set point is about 20 pounds lower, but still 15-20 pounds higher than it was (genetically, all the women in my family are extremely thin- I know BMI is crap, but BMIs of 16-18 while eating healthily and quite a few calories).
When I was on those meds, damn. I gained so much weight so fast, joined a weight loss group and got half of it off, but the other half didn't budge no matter what I did.
You know what was self-defeating and unproductive? Actively starving myself for 6-12 weeks at a time to try to get below my set point during my 20s. No hyperbole here - under 1000 calories while working out 2 hours a day was pretty damn defeating. I'd stop only because I'd reach a point where I was too tired from lack of sustenance to get through my basic activities in the day. And I STILL didn't get very much below my set point. I would've been a much happier young adult if I just accepted those literal 5 pounds that separated me from a normal BMI and being overweight. So really, go fuck yourself.
What the fuck?! This is ridiculous and frankly rude and hurtful. I don't know your story and you don't know mine. Obviously my definition of set point is different than yours.
But saying "sure you have a certain set point if you're sitting on the couch everyday and eating junk, but if you become more active and start eating better your set point changes." in a thread with an article supported by research about how it's more difficult than that is not rude and hurtful?
The clear implication of your post is that fat people are fat only because they eat junk and sit on the couch, even though both the article and people's experiences say otherwise.
I eat healthier now than I have my whole entire life. And I weigh more now. For me it definitely was pregnancy/bedrest/health issue related. And I think I could get it off, but really, once you are an adult and have a job and a million responsibilities, and then you throw children in there (who are forever effin up your sleep cycle making you always tired) it's impossible for me to find the time and energy to workout as much as I should. I'm motivated, but I just need 2 more hours in the day where someone doesn't need something from me.
And food addiction is real. When I do overeat it is emotional or boredom related. It's so compelling in that moment, I really haven't found the right trigger to help me combat the urge.
I would think that one of the issues is that once a fat cell has been established within a body it is there forever, it can be emptied of fat but the cell remains. This is why it is so easy to regain lost weight. So...it is, in fact, easier for people with less body fat to cheat occasionally because those fat cells are not present in as many numbers, whereas for someone who has lost the weight, the fat cells are there, just waiting to be filled again.
There was a documentary on hbo not too long ago which talked about that. They said that someone who was once obese but lost the weight might need to eat 1200 calories or less a day just to *maintain* their new weight whereas someone who had never been overweight might be able to eat up to 1500 and still maintain their weight. So basically, the best way not to become overweight in the future is to have never been overweight in the past. Helpful. Not. Lol.
I wonder how gaining weight for a pregnancy plays into all this.
Italicized: Well it certainly isn't very motivating in terms of realistic goals. I mean, 1200 calories is doable, if you never socialize, never drink, never really have a life...it's just so fucking depressing. I have done it, but never for more than 2-3 days in a row and even that is brutal because it makes my energy level so low.
Bolded: This is where I am most worried because previous to being pregnant my highest weight had been 196, now it is about 230...that's a good 35lbs, which I know is entirely made up of fat cells, that I now have to content with when I lose the weight. I will lose the weight, I am just worried that it will now be entirely harder for me to maintain 160lbs than it was previously, which will be very hard for me both emotionally and just in terms of realistically do it.
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday talking about how we've bred our food to be tasteless. In an effort to make it more robust for transport, grow bigger more quickly, and have a longer self life we've made food that doesn't taste very good. In the meantime, processed food is continually tweaked to taste better. So you have "natural" food that's kind of boring compared to "fake" food that is full of flavor.
The bright spot was someone who made a hybrid tomato with tons of flavor and robustness. So maybe something can change?
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I backed out of the thread because I have no experience relevant to weight loss, but I'm back in for this comment. I've spent the last year dispelling this notion. By way of context, DH discovered a heart thing (genetic - not related to traditional risk factors, like obesity, so again my experience isn't relevant to weight loss) so he (meaning all of us) had to go on a heart healthy diet. Low saturated fat, low sugar (which also means low carb), lots of veggies, lots of fiber - it's been a complete diet overhaul in the Axilla household. Vegan is the gold standard, but plant-based is good enough. When this all began, I'd already taken up cooking as a hobby, so it was my mission to find tasty, healthy recipes. I won't lie - it's taken a aome trial and error, but there are AWESOME recipes out there that are easy and healthy and full of fiber and protein and veggies that we love. And there are TONS of spices and flavorings that DH can have - like garlic, basil, cumin, saffron, curry, lemon juice, olive oil, vinegars... You're not facing a lifetime of grilled chicken and broccoli. There's a whole world of delicious plant-based recipes out there! Although, there are some really bad ones, too - lol.
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying it's easy peasy. I guess I just want to be encouraging about delicious, easy, healthy, plant-based meals.
Share some of these fabulous recipes! Or cookbooks- particularly the easy and fast ones
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday talking about how we've bred our food to be tasteless. In an effort to make it more robust for transport, grow bigger more quickly, and have a longer self life we've made food that doesn't taste very good. In the meantime, processed food is continually tweaked to taste better. So you have "natural" food that's kind of boring compared to "fake" food that is full of flavor.
The bright spot was someone who made a hybrid tomato with tons of flavor and robustness. So maybe something can change?
I can't find the article.
I think this is very true, and it's one of the reasons I have a small garden. My home-grown veggies have so much more flavor than store-bought. I agree with MrsAxilla that healthy foods don't have to be boring, though I absolutely concede that it can take time to prepare them well.
All of that said, I still get that there is more to weight loss than just eat healthy and get off the couch.
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday talking about how we've bred our food to be tasteless. In an effort to make it more robust for transport, grow bigger more quickly, and have a longer self life we've made food that doesn't taste very good. In the meantime, processed food is continually tweaked to taste better. So you have "natural" food that's kind of boring compared to "fake" food that is full of flavor.
The bright spot was someone who made a hybrid tomato with tons of flavor and robustness. So maybe something can change?
I can't find the article.
I think this is very true. I've noticed a huge difference between taste in the veggies I get at the grocery store vs. the veggies I get from my parent's or a local farmer who uses heirloom seeds. But even if I'm buying from the grocery store, in season vs. out of season will always taste better. I think Americans are often so disconnected from their food source that they don't realize the season actually does effect the taste of the exact same variety of vegetables.
Sucks, heyjude. But, glad you feel good about taking control and that it's working. FWIW, I was pregnant less than half the time you were and I still gained weight--working with an online dietitian to take it off again.
2nd pregnancies! WTH?! Weight goes on fast. Good luck to you!
I did manage to get down to a really happy weight after DD but it took til she was about 3 years old. Eating to maintain that was really different. No snacks. Desserts maybe once a week. I ate real food and carbs, it was just, you know, nothing to shout about. The studies about having to eat less then when you were previously thin made a lot of sense to me.
So this time, I'm sorta just not really thinking about weight so mush as having satiating meals. I'm nursing so I'm always hungry. Now that we aren't sick ALL.THE.TIME I'm having an easier time. I have 30 lbs to loose and a lot of abdominal muscles to get back, but I know it takes time and I'm not going to spend time hating myself in the meantime when I know I can't do anything about either yet.
It does NOT get easier as you get older either. I eat much better and less now than at most points in my life (had some issues with eating disorders and over exercise in my teens - to the point where I lost my period for months at a time..)- exercise more (other than the teen years) and weigh more than I ever have. It is frustrating to say the least.
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday talking about how we've bred our food to be tasteless. In an effort to make it more robust for transport, grow bigger more quickly, and have a longer self life we've made food that doesn't taste very good. In the meantime, processed food is continually tweaked to taste better. So you have "natural" food that's kind of boring compared to "fake" food that is full of flavor.
The bright spot was someone who made a hybrid tomato with tons of flavor and robustness. So maybe something can change?
The point is that there are multiple things working against us. If your brain doesn't make you eat and choose the foods that make you gain weight, your body will get you eventually. Your body doesn't want to lose weight. Why would it evolutionarily? You can do it, you just probably won't. That's all it's saying.
I think this is what it boils down to. In the wild, carrying around excess fat mass doesn't happen except for some special situations where the excess is stored and eventually used (i.e. hibernation, pregnancy). Animals don't overeat when all they have access to is their natural diet.
Our environment has drifted sooooo far from anything that resembles the wild and on top of that, most processed foods are specifically engineered for over-consumption.
All we have to "fight" this is a collection of hacks like will power, diets, calorie counting, food rules, etc. Sometimes these things work but according to this article they usually don't. It's not surprising since all of the above take up mental energy/focus that's available in limited quantity.
Animals can't overeat when all they have is access to their natural diet. They pretty much put most of their life into seeking out and eating food and end up with just enough to survive because eating from the wild takes a lot of time and effort.
Our food takes no time or effort to acquire. And that has happened within two generations for me (both my sets of grandparents were sustenance farmers and hunter/gatherers, both my parents grew up learning how to do that and live that way, and now all of us children pretty much don't even have a garden and don't really use any of the other skills they have).
The point of this article isn't "don't even try." She's not saying "it's ok, just eat donuts all day." She's saying, realistically, if you try to diet, you will fail because nearly everyone fails, so stop feeling like you're a moral failure if you can't do it."
THIS! Don't come in here and say, "well, I just eat more quinoa and kale, let a Hershey kiss melt in my mouth every other week and walk every evening on a treadmill, that has been great for me, you should try it" because SOME OF US HAVE BINGEING ISSUES and legitimately struggle with feeling out of control re: food. Just let me have this one today, is all I am saying. Let.me.have.this.one.today. We can go back to the other shit tomorrow.
This is me. I eat for comfort and help with stress (and gained 70 lbs in law school). When I focus on moderation and making healthy choices, it lasts a few days, and then I cave and gorge on chips. Or a blizzard. Or french fries. I wish this problem were taken as seriously as anorexia and bulimia. Basically, I'm a bulimic who doesn't make myself throw it up. I think that compulisve overeaters should be given the same intensive treatment options as people with other eating disorders. I looked into an in patient program at Duke and another in California, but at something like $3,000 a week, I couldn't afford to do it long enough to make a difference.
Health insurance should cover intensive treatment for obesity, but weight loss treatment is an exclusion on policies because the attitude is like, just go on Weight Watchers and don't eat as much. Yeah, when it's a crazy addition with physical cravings that takes over your thoughts and is a constant struggle, it's not that easy. I hate that it's not recognized as just as complex of an issue as anorexia. It blows my mind that this is the case, given that obesity is such a problem in the US. Clearly the way we've been treating it isn't working and something else needs to be done.
ETA: Also, do we need to wait for the thin priveldge people to come in and say "well yeah but you could just eat healthy and weigh a little bit less!" Or can we skip that part of Fat Tuesday?
I do honestly think there's just something genetic that allows thin people to be satisfied with either not having that donut, or only having one bite of it. For example, my sister has a much harder time with food than I do. We both went and got ice cream recently. I had three bites, and then I was done with it. After that, subsequent bites weren't satisfying-- they were just more of the same taste. I threw mine away and she was shocked. She said, "I guess that's the difference between us. I can't possibly stop eating this once I've started. You don't even want to keep eating yours."
And along these same lines, I volunteer for a program that teaching health, nutrition, and cooking to low-income individuals. This round I am at a center that deals with people with mobility issues. Can we talk about how there is just not nearly enough help for people who don't have access to unlimited therapy for food addictions? One woman in particular in this class clearly WANTS to succeed. She is signed up for a six week program that lasts several hours each class. She has been to EVERY class. She requires the use of a power scooter to be mobile. I really don't think that anything she has learned in this course is going to help her though, because it does nothing to address food addictions, or self-medicating for emotional issues with food, and I really think she is dealing with something along those lines. We met at the grocery store yesterday to discuss shopping strategies and she had gotten there early to do her shopping. Her scooter's cart was full of cakes from the bakery, packages of bacon, Little Debbie type snack cakes, white bread from the bakery, cookies, and just basically all the stuff that we have gone over in class as the opposite of what you should be eating. But none of the volunteers are counselors! We are chefs, nutritionists, and people who just want to volunteer to assist, but nobody is a certified counselor. We have no business trying to counsel her, and I don't even know that we have any business asking her if she wants help being directed to someone who might be able to help her in that regard. Why will our health care system spend money trying to manage all the symptoms that are associated with this, but none of the causes? Why is mental health care for the low-income seen as a potential giant cost, instead of a potential money-saver?