The Off Topic Thread...

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2010 9:19pm

corkcomp wrote: »

its very common and not at all untrue. i know loads of friends and family etc who eat total crap but they normally eat very little of it or only two meals a day or have some routine which means they dont actually comsume that many calories .

They're not thin because they eat less, they eat less because they're thin. Mindblowing no?

rubadub · 10-02-2010 10:58pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

That's a little bit simplistic and not actually always true.

I would have thought it is true, and I think the theory really is that simple. What is not simple is why people do eat so much, but eating so much is what got them that way and I don't think there is any denying that. You can then start asking why they eat so much.

There was a thread on a TV program I forgot to reply to with a similar comment.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

It shows how the current obesity crises is not down to people being greedy and eating too much but how the hormones control appetite causing overeating.

To me this is contradictory, they ARE obese because of eating too much. Then you could say the hormones are the thing that give them an abnormal appetite, which some might call being greedy.

It reminds me of a conversation with a mate who said he was on really strong antacids (he did not know they were antacids), we asked why and he said due to a fall he had and hurt his arm, we could not understand why he was given them. But it turns out he was on painkillers which THEN caused the irritated stomach which lead to him needing antacids. Now you could go tracking back all the way, maybe alcohol got him drunk, that made him fall, making him take painkillers, making him need antacids. I would say the painkillers irritating the stomach are the direct cause/need, and then work back if interested,you could blame it on alcohol but I go to the previous step first.

Even there I am going 2 steps back myself, he is taking antacids due to the irritated stomach, then ask why, and why again.

Maybe a better example of a "how did he end up that way", would be another mate of mine who has pretty big arms, why is this? a direct result of resistance training causing hypertrophy. Why does he do this training, his job involves lots of manual labour, but I would not blame it on the job. Others in the same job are not that big, others not in the job are as big, just like I expect some people with abnormal hormones still do not overeat, and others with normal hormones could well overeat.

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2010 11:41pm

If calories are all that matter then why does this never ever work out that way in calorie restriction studies? As in people never lose 1lb of weight for each 3,500 calories they restrict. More often they lose much less or sometimes more than that.

All you need to refute the calorie theory is to find someone who can't gain weight, it's not hard, there are lots of them posting here all the time. I know one personally who is as thin as a rake and literally cannot gain weight, despite shoving 3,500 cals down their neck each day for weeks on end. What happens to those calories, why don't they gain weight? Because it's a little (in fact a lot) more complicated than that. Hormones control what is done with those calories. Hormones have the last say in fat deposition, metabolism, energy usage and hunger. You name it, hormones control it. It's why hypothyroid patients gain weight even when eating very little indeed.

From:http://thyroid.about.com/cs/dietweightloss/a/losingweight.htm

Some of this site's visitors have reported to me that they were on a 900-calorie a day diet, walking 3 miles a day, and not losing weight, and the doctor says, "well, you just must be eating too much."

The idea that we all became 'greedy' as a society all of a sudden is very dubious. Do people become greedy when they hit middle age and gain more weight? And before you say 'slowed metabolism', it's proven that the heavier you weigh, the higher your metabolism. Something else changes at middle age, namely hormones.

Here's an excellent explanation of how well the body regulates body fat:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

Read the next few posts in the series if you want to know why people really become obese.

Mellor · 11-02-2010 6:12am

PeteSanchez wrote: »

She said they did not contain much Omega3 as Oily fish but that it was still a delicious and utterly harmless dinner so long as its grilled.

Its sounds great as i love breaded (not battered) Cod. With home made chips.

Firstly, what the guys said abotu it being high in cals is true. But no all packets are equal, i've seen brands whose portion size (ie a single piece) varys from 80-200g
Also, cals per 100g could be 100-200

If you insist on eating it, pick the one with the smallest cals per portion, this means check labels.

Personally, I rather grilled fish with no batter or breadcrumbs.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

They're not thin because they eat less, they eat less because they're thin. Mindblowing no?

Isn't that exactly what he said in hsi post above. The one you disagreed with.
Seriously, some of your posts are very good, but most are argumentitive and very pedantic in my opinion.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

If calories are all that matter then why does this never ever work out that way in calorie restriction studies? As in people never lose 1lb of weight for each 3,500 calories they restrict. More often they lose much less or sometimes more than that.

All you need to refute the calorie theory is to find someone who can't gain weight, it's not hard, there are lots of them posting here all the time..

You right it isn't as hard and fast as cals alone. Hormone do play a part with hunger and also with the energy we take from food, some passes out the other end, not everyone is equal here.

But the vast majority of people who say they eat well and can't lose weight simply don't eat as well as they let on.
You see it here every day, somebody posts a diet, and its not as good as they said it was, or the portion sizes are way off.

corkcomp · 11-02-2010 8:30am

yeah Agree with most of mellors post. On the point of calorie restriction being ineffective, sorry but in most cases it IS effective! the reason weight watchers works for so many people is that they can eat what they want if they stay within defined allowances. Saying that people eat so little because they are thin is crap tbh, the reason they are thin is because they simply dont cumsume any excess calories.

El_Dangeroso · 11-02-2010 1:49pm

Mellor wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what he said in hsi post above. The one you disagreed with.
Seriously, some of your posts are very good, but most are argumentitive and very pedantic in my opinion.

You right it isn't as hard and fast as cals alone. Hormone do play a part with hunger and also with the energy we take from food, some passes out the other end, not everyone is equal here.

But the vast majority of people who say they eat well and can't lose weight simply don't eat as well as they let on.
You see it here every day, somebody posts a diet, and its not as good as they said it was, or the portion sizes are way off.

Rubadub added a little more to his post after I had clicked reply, so that's why it looks like our posts overlap.

Sincerely, I don't mean to be pedantic or argumentative but the statement 'you'll get fat if you eat too much of anything' just isn't true. It's a bit more complicated than that, and we are doing people a disservice by saying it's that simple.

Calorie restriction will make you lose weight, no argument there, I'm talking about gaining weight though and in that instance calories are an intervening variable, not a causal one, as in a calorie surplus is the result of a disordered metabolism, not the other way around.

Do read the last link in my post, those people were stuffing their faces and managed to gain 10lb, the minute they went back to eating normally, they lost it all. The body is as good at regulating body fat as it is at regulating temperature and blood pressure and blood PH and it will 'defend' its set-point with every tool in it's arsenal. What causes the set-point to rise is the true cause of obesity.

I'm reminded of a Richard Dawkins lecture for TED entitled 'Our Queer Universe'. In it, he mentions an anecdote where people are asked why they previously thought the sun rotated around the earth, their answer was 'that's what it looked like' to which the reply was 'Well what did you expect the earth rotating around the sun would look like?'.

It's the same with the cals in, cals out theory, we see obese people eating more calories than lean people and we think 'Ah! A causes B! Simple!'. But to use that exact logic in a different context, when growing taller, children must be in a calorie surplus too, does that mean that if you eat more you'll grow taller?

I know it is really hard to get your head around the fact that we don't get fat because we eat more, we eat more because we are getting fat. But it is important to note that calorie restriction tends to result in long term weight loss in only 0.03% of people. But those 0.03% think because it works for them, it works for everyone else.

We need something that works for the other 99.7%. I don't know exactly what that is yet but it has to be better than 'eat less, move more'.

Sorry for derailing the thread, mods please move to the war-zone as you see fit.

Sapsorrow · 12-02-2010 12:37am

I have to say I'm with Temple on this one, I personally think it has a lot more to do with the way our eating choices have shifted and the effects that is having on our hormones that the amount of calories. I mean look at the low carb thing, that can be really high in calories but without the hormones telling the body to store em away as fat they just magically disappear against our common logic of calories in/out.
Once you start studying the biochemistry of metabolism it's frighteningly complicated and to say it boils down to calories in calories out is ridiculously over simplified. I can't be arsed going finding it now but I have heard of research showing that a lot of obese people don't eat more (as in total calories) or exercise less particularly than their slimmer counterparts, I just think some of us are wired biochemically differently and can't deal with the diet some can witohut getting fat.
I'm too tired to contribute anything intelligent to this so I'm gonna go to bed now. I just had to join in, we haven't had a debate about anything in this forum for ages!! :pac:

rubadub · 12-02-2010 3:01pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

If calories are all that matter then why does this never ever work out that way in calorie restriction studies? As in
people never lose 1lb of weight for each 3,500 calories they restrict. More often they lose much less or sometimes more than that.

I would agree completely. I have pointed out many times that calories have NOTHING to do with humans, they are a measure of fuel for engineering purposes. Just like your gravitational pull on the earth is used as a guide to tell if the average person is overfat -they are using one exact scientifically defined unit to estimate something VERY inexact. Neither is ideal but are useful approximations, I would recommend calorie counting way ahead of WW points for determining of food will make you fat.

500kcal of well cooked rice will make you fatter than 500kcal of uncooked rice. 500kcal of the same rice might make you fatter if you eat it at night just before bed. I never mentioned calories in my previous posts, I simply was saying people got fat by eating too much, I don't care what the calories were, empirically it is blatantly evident you are eating too much. The evidence is there first hand, your forumlas/reasoning is obviously wrong, I see this all the time in my job (engineer) the formulas/theory for one thing can go out the window for something apparently similar. I use empirical measurements all the time, since thats what really happens. The mile per gallon measurements in cars do not often add up, just like the people in the studies could lose more or less, -again they are estimates presuming very fixed controls.

I know empirically that calories from alcohol certainly do not add up to that estimated 3500kcal =1lb of fat, studies have shown this too. Some poster on here said she could intake far more calories on a low carb diet and maintain the same weight. I am not surprised with any of this in the slightest. Just as I am not surprised lean rugby players might be deemed obese using a BMI scale -many do not understand the (extremely dumbbed down) science behind these theories and treat them like they are gospel.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

'you'll get fat if you eat too much of anything' just isn't true. It's a bit more complicated than that, and we are doing people a disservice by saying it's that simple.

I still think it is that simple, and its more a disservice to overcomplicate it by trying to put figures on "too much" by using calories or WW points as units. How much is too much? simple, the amount that makes you get fat- work from there, empirically. If you have an abnormally high/low metabolism then you adjust accordingly. If you change the way you cook food, how/when you eat it, doing exercise, getting older, having a disease, medication etc, then you will have to keep on checking if you are getting bigger or not, and adjust. Don't be surprised if the maths of the calories do not add up, they should not! they were never intended as an exact measurement of fuel for humans.

For me it is going around the houses unneccesarily, it reminds me of weightlifting forumals. People estimate you can lift 80% of your maximum ability for approx 8 times. e.g. if I can lift 100kg just once (1 repetition) I can then lift approx 80kg 8 times (8 repetitions). Many people want to lift weights for 8 repetitions and some will try and figure out their maximium ability, and then figure out 80% of this. This never made sense to me, if you want to figure out how much you can lift 8 times then keep adjusting the weight until you can only lift it 8 times. Same with eating, why try estimating what will or will not make you fat using forumlas. Keep track of all aspects your eating habits, if you are getting too big you are obviously eating too much. If some calculator says you should not be getting bigger then it is obviously wrong. Also do not presume your weight loss will be inline with your food intake, e.g. if you go on a deficit of "10 food units" and lose 1lb a week do not expect going on a deficit of "20 food units" will make you drop 2lb per week, I would be shocked if it was as linear as that.

You have to keep in mind the type of food, hows its cooked etc. 600kcal of dessicated coconut is 21.5 WW points 600kcal of white sugar is WW 8.5points. I reckon the sugar would make you fatter, while the WW theory infers it should make you put on 2.5times the weight.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

does that mean that if you eat more you'll grow taller?

No thats faulty logic, just like calorie counting is, its no secret. I come up against such faulty logic all the time in my job. It would be like concluding playing basketball makes you tall, because you see tall pro players.

El_Dangeroso · 12-02-2010 11:25pm

Rubadub, I see where you are coming from, weight gain occurs in a calorie surplus most of the time (we do have examples of people who gain weight eating less than calculated BMR, but they do remain the exception rather than the rule).

However, the causation remains pointed in the wrong direction, fat gain is down to the bodies 'set-point' being raised. The calorie surplus is a result of this, not a cause.

This means that if you just straight calorie restrict, you will lose weight temporarily, 0.03% of people will manage to permanently lower their set-point through prolonged calorie restriction (I bet the ones that succeed do some intense exercise, which has been proven to lower the set point, independent of calories - bear in mind not all exercise does this), the rest will eventually succumb to hunger and a slowed metabolism through reduced thyroid hormone production, namely reverse T3.

You really think a 0.03% success rate is an indication of an apt theory and a successful system? If you were working on something as an engineer that failed 99.7% of the time, wouldn't you start looking for a better solution?

Another example I can give you, and weight watchers people will recognise this, along with any other dieter, when you cheat, people often notice that the damage on the scale shows up 2-3 days later. If it was straight cals in cals out then why the delay? I'll tell you why.

Leptin.

Leptin is the king of appetite, and gives orders to pretty much every single other hormone, including insulin. It also keeps a record of energy consumption over time. Leptin knows what you've been eating for the last month, and makes presumptions about what you are likely to be eating tomorrow. Hence leptin can bump up your weight on days that you ate less than your BMR.

I think you have a scientific mind Rubadub, so you strive for the best explanation of a phenomena right? Well, I'm presenting a better explanation for obesity that explains ALL the exceptions that calories cannot, why cling to the old theory, especially since it's such a dismal failure when put into practice?

rubadub · 13-02-2010 10:00pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

we do have examples of people who gain weight eating less than calculated BMR, but they do remain the exception rather than the rule)

I would describe this as having examples of people who calculated their BMR incorrectly. If you are putting on weight at your TRUE BMR then you are a miracle worker, since by (my) definition or BMR this is impossible with the currently know laws of physics (correctly applied physics!), it is far more likely somebody did their sums wrong than performed a miracle.

It is all estimates, calories are far from an ideal measure of fuel, as I said before 500kcal of overcooked rice will provide a human with more energy than 500kcal of raw rice. If both are literally burned, i.e. combusted they release the same energy, this is the correct scientific usage of calories. It would be better to talk of energy, with no units, if you ingest more energy than you expend you get fat -to deny this is to deny the first law of thermodynamics, which I firmly believe to be true. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed -but some of your comments come across as possibly disagreeing or challenging this fundamental concept.

Some of this site's visitors have reported to me that they were on a 900-calorie a day diet, walking 3 miles a day, and not losing weight, and the doctor says, "well, you just must be eating too much."

If they ate nothing they would lose weight. If I only put 100ml of petrol in my new car each week and the tank was overflowing then my logic tells me I am putting too much in, yes it is strange that my new car is so efficient but I would not continue putting in 2 gallons per week like my old one. If I stop putting petrol in completely the tank will slowly empty, if not I have a device which defies physics. Most people live in fear of becoming more efficient with their energy usage.

The link you posted had a great comment left on it http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

We're not in the environment for which we're evolved, that's the problem. Yes, there's a complex system of hormones and what not that regulate appetite and intake and metabolic rate, but explaining human obesity in those terms is like putting a car underwater and explaining that it doesn't run because the spark plugs are gapped wrong for the new atmosphere. True, but...?

Also in that thread.

So yes, we are gaining weight because we eat too many calories relative to energy expended. But why are we eating too many calories? Because the system that should be defending a low fat mass is now defending a high fat mass. Therefore, the solution is not simply to restrict calories, or burn more calories through exercise, but to try to "reset" the system that decides what fat mass to defend. Restricting calories isn't necessarily a good solution because the body will attempt to defend its setpoint, whether high or low, by increasing hunger and decreasing its metabolic rate. That's why low-calorie diets, and most diets in general, typically fail in the long term. It's miserable to fight hunger every day.

The first bit in bold is all I am saying, end of story, I would prefer to say just eating "too much", and not continue to misuse calories as a unit. The rest is interesting but it still boils back to eating too much, they do not deny this. There was a link to the shangri la diet which sounds interesting which tries to reset this setpoint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangri_la_diet

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

However, the causation remains pointed in the wrong direction, fat gain is down to the bodies 'set-point' being raised. The calorie surplus is a result of this, not a cause.

set point goes up and they eat too much. If that excess food did not go in their mouth they would not be as fat, I am not arguing about how best to stop this going in, or drove people to eat it, I am just stating the basic physics of the situation.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

This means that if you just straight calorie restrict, you will lose weight temporarily

I would say they will lose weight continually if they ingest less energy. I am not arguing or denying that most people have a lack will power. I have seen many youtube videos with people living life with the "calorie restriction" diet and they were all thin, it did not surprise me one bit, they did have willpower.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You really think a 0.03% success rate is an indication of an apt theory and a successful system? If you were working on something as an engineer that failed 99.7% of the time, wouldn't you start looking for a better solution?

I was not recommending any weight loss system, just stating fact. Actually this would count as 100% success of my theory that eating too much will make you fat, the fact 99.7% of subjects did not follow the procedures is not of interest to me, I was not trying to determine peoples willpower or ability to follow rules.

This all goes back to that original post

PeteSanchez wrote: »

According to the woman talking (dietician) these are perfectly healthy once grilled and a great source of nutrition when eaten with potatoe/rice and veg as a dinner. Not fattening whatsoever.

rubadub wrote: »

Everything makes you fat if you eat enough

I have read nothing in those links that would make me rethink my statement. The OP might have very little understanding of food and could literally think he could eat mountains of particular foods and it would have no effect. I know 2 mates who were convinced that ONLY fat made you fat. I expect lots of people might have weird ideas in their head. People might saw something figuratively and others take the exact literal meaning.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Well, I'm presenting a better explanation for obesity that explains ALL the exceptions that calories cannot, why cling to the old theory, especially since it's such a dismal failure when put into practice?

The theory does hold true, its essentially the first law of thermodynamics that I am arguing, I was never discussing the success rate/willpower of participants in calorie restriction diets. The links make for good reading and I am totally with you debunking/arguing the 3500kcal/1lb of fat theory.

This all started form these comments

rubadub wrote: »

Everything makes you fat if you eat enough

corkcomp wrote: »

eating total crap wont make you fat either if you eat little enough of it..

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

That's a little bit simplistic and not actually always true.

I think it is always true, no mention was made of calories, no figures/units were mentioned at all. I like logic & physical laws, I had a sales manager specifying a machine just this week who requested a certain output and I said it could not be done, he replied "so you are saying you can't do it." as though I probably could do it if I only made the effort, or that somebody better experienced could do it -I like being able to reply "no, I am not saying it can't be done, the laws of physics are".

El_Dangeroso · 14-02-2010 3:31pm

I think you are mis-interpreting what I am saying, you think I am saying calories don't matter, but I'm saying calories don't matter as much as we think they do. And that calorie intake is VERY difficult to control with the conscious mind. I happen to have very little willpower and yet I lost four stone just eating as much food as I desired. I know plenty of people who quit smoking and yet cannot control their weight, so they clearly have willpower.

When you refer to the first law of thermodynamics, note that the last line of the law is 'in a closed system'. Human beings are not a closed system, we can transfer heat to the world around us for example.

Yeah, I did the shangri-la diet, (you name a diet, I've done it) it made me feel so nauseous that I couldn't eat anything so in that way it would probably work.:)

If those people calculated their BMR incorrectly, then why are there examples of people who don't lose weight at 1200 calories, but then switch to paleo and start losing weight at 1600 calories?

You still haven't explained why some people can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces? What happens those extra calories?

In a scientific context all I need to falsify the statement 'you'll get fat if you eat too much of anything' is one person who can't gain weight despite increasing cals by 1,000 a day. That's not hard to find on a bodybuilding forum, ergo that statement just isn't true. Focusing on food volume consumed in an effort to solve the obesity epidemic is trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

I'm really going to have to buy this t-shirt.

rubadub · 14-02-2010 5:09pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I think you are mis-interpreting what I am saying, you think I am saying calories don't matter, but I'm saying calories don't matter as much as we think they do.

No, I interpreted that correctly, and I see where you are coming from, you are more concerned with why you eat the food and the effect it has on your system etc. This is of interest to me of course, but at the end of the day it is like that quote about the car working under water, they got big because the food DID go in their mouth be it a tiny amount or a large amount its governed by energy intake.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

When you refer to the first law of thermodynamics, note that the last line of the law is 'in a closed system'. Human beings are not a closed system, we can transfer heat to the world around us for example.

Your mouth is the entry point for energy, this is my point, your mouth IS a closed system if you have enough willpower to keep it closed. I never said it was easy to do, I am just talking of simple physical fact. You are indeed transferring heat to the outside all the time i.e. you are always expending energy, if you do not eat (900kcal per day is still eating) you will lose fat, but some people really think they are exempt or somehow defy this fundamental law. (It can still be regarded as a giant closed system, the heat goes to your surroundings. when heating buildings they take into account the number of people present and the heat they give off)

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

If those people calculated their BMR incorrectly, then why are there examples of people who don't lose weight at 1200 calories, but then switch to paleo and start losing weight at 1600 calories?

Again you are talking about calories which should not be used in determining how much energy will be converted by the human body- the fact they lose weight at 1600kcal just empirically proves it is unreliable and is far from ideal, just like BMI falls down with muscular athletes. In my work I use calories to determine power needed to heat water, like a human body gives off heat I take into account heat given off my machines, the figures always add up, since I am using calories correctly.

People measure food using the best units they can, there is no ideal one out, and I doubt there ever could be. So they generalise and say 2500kcal per day, 1cal will heat 1g of water by 1C -nothing to do with humans. You could use another unrelated unit, like grams and say the average person needs 1500g of "food" each day. If you did that I would also expect varying results, people eating "human extractable energy" dense foods vs low energy foods.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You still haven't explained why some people can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces? What happens those extra calories?

I am not sure, it is obviously very complex, could be excreted with normal waste, the bodies ability to convert food to energy could be disrupted depending on what you eat, how its cooked, when eaten etc. But you are still using the term calories.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

In a scientific context all I need to falsify the statement 'you'll get fat if you eat too much of anything' is one person who can't gain weight despite increasing cals by 1,000 a day. That's not hard to find on a bodybuilding forum, ergo that statement just isn't true.

That is not falsifying anything, you are putting words in my mouth (1000kcal) to try and make it seem incorrect. You said it is not always true, and above I said -I think it is always true, no mention was made of calories, no figures/units were mentioned at all.

I never said it was easy to determine how many grams/calories/millilitres of particular foods that would cause weight gain. This amount is determined empirically for each individual, and will change over time.

If they added 10,000kcal a day and did not gain weight, then they are not eating "too much", if they put even more fuel/energy in their system it would eventually happen. They are not controlled like rats in a lab, people lie and often do not follow instructions, so over/underestimate their food intake. I have seen it time & time again a mate of mine is supposedly on WW at the moment but I have seen him eating almost unconsciously nibbling on stuff. 2 girls in work who "eat the same", they get burgers & chips, the thin one picks at it and the big one polishes off the thin ones leftover chips. Then there are those who really are blessed/cursed with a highly efficient body.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Focusing on food volume consumed in an effort to solve the obesity epidemic is trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

I never said anything about solving obesity or what method works best for people. If the food did not go in the mouth they could not put on fat, that is all I am saying. Putting food in your mouth is controllable if you have willpower, and so it is one controllable "symptom" which will then stop the resultant symptom -getting fat, making this hunger/urge easily controllable might be a better angle to come from but I was never arguing that.

El_Dangeroso · 14-02-2010 5:47pm

The mouth is the only point of input true, but that is to treat input and output as independent variables, which they are not. Eat more and you will burn more. Eat less and you will burn less. Every single over/underfeeding study bears this out.

I don't know why you keep re-iterating if you ate nothing, you'd lose weight. No one is arguing that, and it's pointless to bring it up as we are talking about what happens when people do eat. Weight gain occurs in positive energy balance, BUT what I am trying to say is that the hormones can create that positive energy balance, just like it can create a negative one. Also you can't quote the first law while at the same time ignoring the second.

I'll go back to the example of the person that can't gain weight as it is the best illustration I can give to show what I mean:

You eat x amount of food and maintain a stable weight of 160lb for 3 years. Then you eat 1.2 times the amount of food for 3 months and you still maintain the same weight. What happens? This leads me neatly to the second law of thermodynamics, the tendency towards entropy.

You might increase your body heat, of upregulate muscle repair, or just excrete these calories. What I'm saying is this is what happens in a normal body. That's the way it's supposed to work. The big question is why obese people do not have this facility?

So if you can't define 'too much' in calories, your argument becomes circular. 'Too much' is defined by gaining weight, 'Just Enough' is defined by a stable weight 'too little' as losing weight. Which makes 'too much' so subjective as to render it virtually meaningless as a concept.

rubadub · 14-02-2010 7:17pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I don't know why you keep re-iterating if you ate nothing, you'd lose weight. No one is arguing that

Some would argue that they ate "next to nothing" and did not lose weight, like the 900kcal people. I also do not believe people cannot put on weight with increased food intake, I would firmly believe there must be a point where they begin to put on weight.

corkcomp said

rubadub wrote: »

Everything makes you fat if you eat enough

corkcomp wrote: »

eating total crap wont make you fat either if you eat little enough of it..

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

That's a little bit simplistic and not actually always true.

Since he was quoting me too I am not sure which you were saying was not always true, but they are both similar logical statements to me, no figures on either. Instead of saying absolutely nothing I could saw as you approach eating no food you lose fat, and as you increase you go up, this is of course not linear.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

So if you can't define 'too much' in calories, your argument becomes circular. 'Too much' is defined by gaining weight, 'Just Enough' is defined by a stable weight 'too little' as losing weight..

That is exactly my point, and how I could not understand how you could say it is "not always true", by definition it is not even up for argument as logically it must be always true. If you really insist on figures try 1kcal per day and 50,000kcal per day. I think this has just been an argument about logic/semantics.

Which makes 'too much' so subjective as to render it virtually meaningless as a concept.

It is of use empirically, how you decide to determine your current energy intake is up to you, be it grams/millilitres/calorie content of your particular foods. My very point is that "too much" will vary, and the concept/logic still stands, I do not care if it is 900 or 9,000kcal per day you can adjust accordingly to change your weight, and review it over and over. I am not saying its the best way to reduce your weight.

El_Dangeroso · 14-02-2010 8:41pm

Ok, I agree we are getting lost in semantics here!:D

To pare it right back you said:

Originally Posted by rubadub
Everything makes you fat if you eat enough

That's simply not true. Your fat storage is not simply a dumping ground for excess calories. Adipose tissue is alive and an endochrine organ in it's own right. Obesity is a disruption of this highly regulated organ. So obesity is disorder of excess fat accumulation.

You can eat lots and lots of excess food that you don't utilise for energy or repair and not gain weight as long as your body co-operates and excretes it. I am living proof of this, but until we have a properly conducted study I guess you'l remain unconvinced. Unless you want to test the theory for yourself?

rubadub · 15-02-2010 12:55pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You can eat lots and lots of excess food that you don't utilise for energy or repair and not gain weight as long as your body co-operates and excretes it. I am living proof of this, but until we have a properly conducted study I guess you'l remain unconvinced. Unless you want to test the theory for yourself?

I have been effectively "overfeeding" for the past 6 months or so and putting on weight steadily, I was 80kg last june and 87kg now. I do not believe every obese person has a disorder, the likes of sumos & powerlifters could purposely overfeed to an obese state-where fat is an advantage to their sport, of course some might already have been obese and then took up the sport. Or actors putting on weight for a role -though they might just be classed as overweight. I have seen many documentaries of obese people and they had a massive calorie intake and when reduced they lost the weight. If there was a study to convince me it would not be mere 1.2 times their normal intake, it would be 5 times.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Yeah, I did the shangri-la diet, (you name a diet, I've done it) it made me feel so nauseous that I couldn't eat anything so in that way it would probably work.:)

I have to read a bit more on the site itself, today & yesterday I took 40g of coconut oil in the morning. I read you can take it just once a day which suits me, eat it at 8, and didn't eat until 10:30. Were you nausuous drinking the oil or throughout the day? I found the oil went down fine, just heated it in the microwave and lashed it down like a shot of spirits.

El_Dangeroso · 15-02-2010 1:35pm

rubadub wrote: »

I have been effectively "overfeeding" for the past 6 months or so and putting on weight steadily, I was 80kg last june and 87kg now. I do not believe every obese person has a disorder, the likes of sumos & powerlifters could purposely overfeed to an obese state-where fat is an advantage to their sport, of course some might already have been obese and then took up the sport. Or actors putting on weight for a role -though they might just be classed as overweight. I have seen many documentaries of obese people and they had a massive calorie intake and when reduced they lost the weight. If there was a study to convince me it would not be mere 1.2 times their normal intake, it would be 5 times.

No doubt you can raise your set point, probably by piling on the carbs in combination with oils high in polyunsaturated fat, along with disturbing the delicate balance of gut bacteria. That's how they do it in rats and rats are very hard to fatten up without removing the hypothalamus. I bet if you knocked your protein down to 80g a day and carbs to 50g you couldn't put on a kilo even if you drank three pints of cream a day. Go on.. give it a go, I'm more than open to be proven wrong

FIVE times the intake? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how hard it is to eat even 1.2 times your normal intake over a prolonged period? When I was doing my experiment I added a third more calories than I required, by the end of the two weeks I would rather swallow razor blades that eat another bite. Most overfeeding studies comment how hard it is to keep the overeating consistent.

Let me clarify what I mean by 'disorder'. I'm not saying there is some magical thing that comes out of the sky and messes our system to make us fat. It is a very gradual derangement of the tightly regulated process of appetite and fat storage. In the case of sumo-wrestlers, they deliberately overeat white rice, this raises triglycerides which in turn blocks the action of leptin on the hypothalamus. Leptin not reaching the hypothalamus allows further overeating as the powerful effect of a sated appetite is suppressed.

rubadub wrote: »

I have to read a bit more on the site itself, today & yesterday I took 40g of coconut oil in the morning. I read you can take it just once a day which suits me, eat it at 8, and didn't eat until 10:30. Were you nausuous drinking the oil or throughout the day? I found the oil went down fine, just heated it in the microwave and lashed it down like a shot of spirits.

I just felt vaguely nauseous all day, I didn't use coconut oil though as according to Seth Roberts it has to be an oil that has no taste whatsoever, so I used Mild and Light Olive Oil. I lasted 2 days, so can't testify to it's efficacy one way or the other, but the graphs on his website look impressive.

I have found that the best non-diet thing you can do to lower your set point in my experience is fast intermittently. Just in my own experience nothing has been so effective to shrink stomach fat, which is a sure sign of improving insulin sensitivity and other health markers. In the middle of a 20hr one right now in fact :cool:

rubadub · 15-02-2010 5:06pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

FIVE times the intake? Are you serious?

Yes, I was serious, and I think this is where wires are getting crossed. I do tend to think in extremes as I find it helps explain things or it helps me decide what in theory should happen, I have to write up explanations of thermodynamics for "laymen" like salesmen and it helps to go to extremes, e.g. what would you rather stand on in bare feet, a sheet of tinfoil out of the oven at 300C, or a thick baking tray at 100C -it gets people thinking

My original comment was directed at the OP who might have literally thought donegal catch was 100% incapable of making you fat. Some people are like that, I saw one guy on a program on obesity who was eating 35 oranges a day and thought this was a good thing (on top of rakes of pizza & other junk). One poster knew a girl who thought the MORE lean cuisines she ate the thinner she would get.

I was eating ~2000kcal per day for a good while, 10,000kcal actually does not seem an unreasonable amount to me, I probably downed that one of the days over christmas, a kilo of coconut oil would be 8-9,000 and I reckon I could manage that, I LOVE eating. I think the most I heard of a guy eating was 30 or 35,000kcal per day. Micheal Phelps refuted the claim he ate 12,000kcal a day, he only eats a mere 8,000-10,000kcal (obviously training a lot). When you see lads in the fitness forum saying they "eat loads" and can't put on weight when they actually post up the diet it is often not that much at all.

I didn't use coconut oil though as according to Seth Roberts it has to be an oil that has no taste whatsoever

Yes, I hold my nose and wash it down well with warm water to stop any flavour effecting me, I saw a large thread. Other guys were eating cottage cheese pinching their nose. I find the oil very easy and feel fine so far. It is a double hit since I wanted to up my intake of coconut oil for the supposed health & weightloss benefits. I also might try the fasting you mentioned, I usually end up doing it unplanned (too hungover to eat;))

El_Dangeroso · 15-02-2010 6:06pm

Extremes are lovely things to have, and probably easy to conjure in engineering. Biology, especially in human subjects isn't that easy. I don't think you'll find study subjects who could eat the 50,000cals that you're looking for.

I don't doubt that someone training for the olympics can pack in the calories when they are training, that's where the phrase 'working up an appetite' comes from.

It's not true that all people who cannot put on weight are eating less than they think. It's an easy way of dismissing a large amount of anecdotal evidence. Besides, how do you know the 35,000 calorie guy isn't mistaken in his calculations?

But I get it, anecdote is not good enough so I dug out a study today that might satisfy your requirements, the vermont prison study conducted in the 1960's by Ethan Sims. They gave the prisoners 10,000 calories a day and the goal was to gain 15%-25% in body weight. (He initially recruited students but couldn't force them to overeat consistently enough)

Most succeeded (but it took much much longer than expected - another arrow in the calorie hypothesis, but I digress

) and quickly lost all the weight they put on when they went back to eating normally.

But some could literally not put on any weight at all, at least not more than 2lb! These were documented cases of people eating 10,000 cals a day and not gaining weight. Now do you believe me?:)

I doubt the OP could even eat that much donegal catch, the filling effect of the protein would probably see to that. But the gluten and refined wheat in the crumb would make sure that the the body fat set point would be maintained or even raised, and that was my point.

Let's not add to the ignorance of people who think mainlining lean cuisine is the route to a healthy weight by telling people who are overweight that they just need to eat less and move more.

If that was the case then there wouldn't be thousands of scientists working in obesity research today trying to understand the intricacies of this amazingly complex system of appetite and fat storage because the job would already be done.

Sapsorrow · 15-02-2010 7:04pm

Geez if you could give me some tips on a fattening up diet Rubadub I'd really appreaciate it. My boyfriend has a weight problem (he's 33 yrs, 5 ft 10 or so and 7 1/2 - 8 stone) and we just can't get him to put weight on, over the last 6 years I tried lots of meat, fish, fat, carbs, having 4 big meals a day nothing works! The doctor says he really needs to put on a few pounds for his health. His brothers and dad are lean buth even they put on a few pounds once they got to their late twenties-early thirties.

rubadub · 16-02-2010 8:10pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Besides, how do you know the 35,000 calorie guy isn't mistaken in his calculations?

A doctor was monitoring him, it was really bizarre and very sad. He had a massive shopping list the receipt was about 5ft long, yet he INSISTED he ate normal amounts. His wife was no better, she was a bit overweight but had not a CLUE about how much he ate and she was feeding him. The doctor had strict calorie intakes set for him and they showed her cooking up a breakfast saying "oh hes meant to have 3000kcal a day" (or less not sure), the interviewer guy asked how much is in that (a massive fry up) and she just shrugged and said she had no idea.

In one other program a lad knew fine well how much he ate, he was unable to leave the apartment he was so big, and he had would ring the local takeaways and had a bucket he would put money in, then he lowered it out the window and the delivery guys took the money and filled the bucket -this was secret from his family most of the time.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

But some could literally not put on any weight at all, at least not more than 2lb! These were documented cases of people eating 10,000 cals a day and not gaining weight. Now do you believe me?:)

I looked up about that study and it does seem I will have to eat my words

Thanks for mentioning it, I did find this page which does prove my logic wrong -at least in the case of 10,000's of calories which I did think would go on & on gaining. Have you a link to the actual data, I still find a 2lb increase hard to believe! EDIT: I think I found it, have to run will read it again. http://www.jci.org/articles/view/106570

this was the page I first read
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

Some quotes

Dr. Sims first tried to make university students fat by having them deliberately eat two to three times their normal caloric intakes. Over 3 to 5 months, try as they might, the students were only able to increase their weights by 10-12% and couldn’t gain more.

Groups of “equally dedicated volunteers at the Vermont State Prison” signed up, committed to eating as much as they could for 200 days to try to get fat. Far from being easy, it wasn’t. In fact, most of the men found it so extremely difficult that many considered dropping out. Forcing themselves to eat so much became so unpleasant a few even barfed after breakfast. “Most of them developed an aversion to breakfast,” wrote Dr. Sims. Virtually all of them at least doubled the amount of food they usually ate and simultaneously reduced their activity, and many were eating as much as 9,000 to 10,000 kcal/day he said. Still, only twenty men managed to gain 20 to 25% of their weight with great difficulty and the others couldn’t, even though they were consuming more calories than the others, wrote Dr. Sims.

Once the prisoners had gained weight, their metabolisms had increased by 50%. The men who were able to reach their goal weight found that they could only maintain their weight gain by continuing to overeat — on average ten times more than theoretically should have been necessary for their new size.

I was only suggesting 5 times!

In study after study, the Rockefeller University researchers found that each person has a weight range of about 10-20 pounds that their body naturally gravitates to.

If you have any other studies or links let me know, and I would like to know your own typical diet.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Geez if you could give me some tips on a fattening up diet Rubadub I'd really appreaciate it.

I think Temple might have some tips, I have been on a terrible diet since before christmas, chinese takeaways 3-4 times a week, rakes of bars & biscuits. I like to keep my intake up over christmas to stave off illness, and it does work, I was fine, I do get prone to tonsilitis. I am also seeing if strength increases while weight training. In the fitness forum when skinny lads try and pack on muscle they usually recommend oats, pasta, meat, nuts, 2-3L of whole milk per day.

Sapsorrow · 16-02-2010 8:28pm

rubadub wrote: »

I think Temple might have some tips, I have been on a terrible diet since before christmas, chinese takeaways 3-4 times a week, rakes of bars & biscuits. I like to keep my intake up over christmas to stave off illness, and it does work, I was fine, I do get prone to tonsilitis. I am also seeing if strength increases while weight training. In the fitness forum when skinny lads try and pack on muscle they usually recommend oats, pasta, meat, nuts, 2-3L of whole milk per day.

Thanks for that. He can't really drink milk as he gets congested from it and it aggravates his asthma an awful lot but I try and get lots of coconut milk, bananas, bread, nuts, peanut butter and fish into him. He manages to fit in a bit of junk at least once a day when Im not around too. :rolleyes: He won't eat any meat other than fish but I do get eggs into him maybe 3 times a week too.
We're actually trying to get him to put on fat more so than muscle, either'd do but he had viral arithis for 2 months there and hasn't recovered to the extent that he can exercise other than walking just yet.
I don't know what more I can do really it seems a bit hopeless at this stage.

Any ideas temple?

El_Dangeroso · 16-02-2010 9:26pm

I'm in complete agreement about people underestimating intake. I've started to write what I eat this week and it's AMAZING how much you forget!! A bite here, a handful of nuts there, it's really eye-opening how easy it is to 'forget' about 800 calories! I think they did a study where people had to write down every morsel that went into their mouth for a month, most spontaneously lost about 5lb just from being aware of it.

I can't get the original papers unfortunately, my off-campus access only goes back to 1978. (ETA: Ah you found it! Nice one!)I'll have a root around next time I'm in college though. I love studies from the 60's and 70's though, no such thing as pesky ethics committees back then lol!

My own diet has slipped since chrimbo too..studying gets me every time! Haven't put on too much weight thankfully but it's a slippery slope so back on track this week with a vengeance.

Here's a really fun study I found today showing how mental exertion causes you to eat more calories too:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122781981

Sorry khystyna, the only way I know how to gain weight is by ruining my health

Rubadub's suggestions seem the most sensible, if they don't work and there is definitely no underlying illness then I'm out of ideas:(

rubadub · 19-02-2010 3:21pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I just felt vaguely nauseous all day, I didn't use coconut oil though as according to Seth Roberts it has to be an oil that has no taste whatsoever

I got the shangri-la book in the library yesterday don't know if you read the full thing, it said some people might not be used to ingesting oil and they got reports of headaches and upset stomachs, said your body has to release new enzymes or something.

I am half way through the book already, had my oil this morning and some sugar water around 10 and only ate about 1.30. Not hungry at all now, had sugar water before bed yesterday too. I think some of the trick is even the "no food 1 hour before or 1 hour after", it is like my theory that smarties would act as weightloss pills, have 10 a day equally spaced on an empty stomach

Has interesting bits about trying new foods/flavours and to avoid processed stuff since it is always the same. So if I am going to go lapse and go to the local chinese I will pick new dishes!

El_Dangeroso · 19-02-2010 4:17pm

Oh cool, glad your getting on well with it. Do keep us updated. I agree that anything that makes you snack less is a Good Thing. Hence all those rubbish pills always have an exclusion time around them.

My current experiment is supplementing with erythritol. It has been shown to reduce bodyweight by an average of 1kg in 12 weeks with no other purposeful change in diet:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19386741 (P=0.01 means it is very very unlikely to be co-incidental)

This makes sense to me as it would be very valuable food for gut bacteria which is vital to maintaining a healthy set-point.

I've also been eating a lot more onions in cooking. Last night I made a root veggie pie with two onions blended in. I thought it was gorgeous, OH thought it was vile

But I was really full after a tiny bowl.

It seems to be working on me, I seem to get more full eating far less food. I've just been adding it to a protein shake, it's also a sweetener which I don't like because I just completely kicked my sweet tooth..but there's only so much onions a girl can eat in polite society!:D

rubadub · 21-02-2010 3:11pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Leptin is the king of appetite, and gives orders to pretty much every single other hormone, including insulin.

Have you heard of any foods that can effect leptin. I just read that raisins can.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059539

http://www.dole.com/NutritionInstituteLanding/NI_Articles/NI_NutritionNewsDesk/NI_NutritionNewsDesk_Details/tabid/990/Default.aspx?contentid=8616 (of course Dole have a vested interest!)

A recent study in the journal Metabolism found that eating a cup of raisins a day for six weeks yielded a 38% increase in levels of leptin , a hormone which suppresses appetite and triggers thermogenesis, the conversion of calories to body heat. Incidentally, the word "leptin" derives from the Greek "leptos," meaning "thin." Keeping trim helps your heart - but the University of Connecticut researchers found that raisins provide another cardiovascular benefit, by lowering bad LDL cholesterol.

El_Dangeroso · 21-02-2010 4:45pm

rubadub wrote: »

Have you heard of any foods that can effect leptin. I just read that raisins can.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059539

http://www.dole.com/NutritionInstituteLanding/NI_Articles/NI_NutritionNewsDesk/NI_NutritionNewsDesk_Details/tabid/990/Default.aspx?contentid=8616 (of course Dole have a vested interest!)

When researchers first discovered leptin, they discovered that a mouse engineered to not produce enough leptin would pack on weight no matter what, and would become thin when injected with leptin.

Those researchers thought they had discovered the mother of all obesity treatments, leptin replacement. Except for one inconvenient aspect, obese humans have loads of leptin, far far more than a thin person. So why were they always hungry with loads of appetite-surpressing leptin floating around?

They discovered, for whatever reason leptin wasn't reaching the hypothalamus. Effectively, they were leptin resistant.

So increasing leptin really won't do anything if you're obese unfortunately.

But definitely avoid things that decrease leptin such as not getting enough sleep. Easier said than done I know..

itsallaboutheL · 21-02-2010 6:43pm

This is the worst Off-Topic thread Ever...

Here have a reptile...

El_Dangeroso · 21-02-2010 8:03pm

Lizards are nice.. not as good as a bacon cheese turtle-burger* though:

*Not actually made of turtle

TeletextPear · 21-02-2010 10:16pm

The Off Topic Thread...

Comments