6 ms·

>We don't know why people gain weight We actually do. In simple terms, if you eat more than you can use, you will gain weight. It is slightly more complicate

>We don't know why people gain weight We actually do. In simple terms, if you eat more than you can use, you will gain weight. It is slightly more complicated. I can explain more, but the web will do a better job than I can. The talk about leafy greens is that, we know they are low calorie, have essential vitamins and minerals, and provide fiber. Thus, they are definitely good for you. They don't harm you, they provide sustenance and other benefits and so your statement that we don't know what is healthy is just false.

whiddershins 13y ago
I don't believe that to be true. I have researched the hell out of this for years and I don't believe there is a definitive answer about this weight gain/loss thing.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Are you saying that someone eating 4,000 calories a day, but using only 2,000 per day will not gain weight? There are a small number of people with a bacteria that helps them gain weight. There are people with a bacteria that helps them not gain weight. There's a small number of endocrine disorders that make weight gain easy. There are some medications (eg some anti-psychotics) that increase weight gain (and it's not just increasing input). But even with all of that most weight gain is simple: people eat more calories than they use. The stuff about satiety doesn't address calories in, it just talks about feelings of fullness. What we don't know so much about is why some people over eat, and over eat to the extent they do. When a bariatric patient in a specialist weight-loss hospital smuggles in packets of crackers and jars of peanut butter (by hiding them under the folds of fat on their bodies) we can say that there's something weird going on. But again, 500 lb patients are not the norm and that kind of eating isn't the norm. Most people just don't know how much they're eating; don't know how many calories they're eating; and don't get enough exercise.
  - whiddershins 13y ago
    arguing by assertion doesn't make it true. You are referring to the caloric balance hypothesis, and it is sad that you guys are downvoting me for calling it in to question. It has not been experimentally verified. And yeah, some friends and I have tested on ourselves eating 4,000 calories without significantly altering exercise levels, and anecdotally have not gained weight.
    - farinasa 13y ago
      I just spent the last year losing 60 pounds. I did so by reducing my food intake. At one point I began to exercise without reducing intake and I began to lose weight. Once classes started, I could not longer exercise as much and my weight loss stagnated. So I tried simply eating less and continued to lose weight. I lost about 40 by exercising only and about 20 reducing intake only. There is a difference between protein calories and carbohydrate calories and how each is processed, but beside that, calories represent energy. Energy that must be used. Otherwise, it will be stored.
      - whiddershins 13y ago
        Just because something works doesn't mean your hypothesis as to WHY it works is true. See any research published on Traditional Chinese Medicine for a similar example. [spoiler: it definitely works, but is it REALLY because of qi meridians?] I think it is great that your approach is working for you, because that is what matters. Congrats on the weight loss.
        farinasa 13y ago
        >Congrats on the weight loss. Thank you. Much appreciated. >Just because something works doesn't mean your hypothesis as to WHY it works is true. But in general, it actually does. This is how science works. You get an idea that doing something will produce a result. If you do that thing and see the expected result, that indicates a successful hypothesis. After that the conversation devolves into existential questions on whether humans can really know.
  - VLM 13y ago
    The technical explanation of scientifically measured intake and output of calories smashes into uselessness when it collides with real world psychology. Example. Given gluten-intolerant subject. Feed them 4000 calories of whole wheat bread and they lay on the couch all day feeling kinda "off" and only burn 2000 calories BMR so they get fat. How did you feel today? "Eh about normal". Didn't you lay around all day and take an afternoon nap? "Well, yeah, now that you mention it..." Then feed them 4000 calories of steak and they get all hyper and burn 5000 calories going on a marathon bike ride or whatever and get thin. How did you feel today? "Eh about normal". Didn't you get all hyper and exercise all day like a madman? "Well, yeah, now that you mention it..." Obviously the real world delta is not 2000 calories a day. But a delta of 100 calories a day, which is NOT a heck of a lot, adds up over a year to 35 thousand calories or a delta, plus or minus, of about 10 pounds of fat per year. Repeat for a couple decades and you get either really fat or really skinny.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      You start by saying that calories in vs calories out is useless. You then give two examples. The first is where someone eats more calories than they burn, and gain weight. The second is where they eat less calories than they burn, and lose weight. Please, how does this mean that calories in vs calories out is useless? You appear to be ignoring the part of my post where I say that satiety is important for losing weight, but that it doesn't change the basic calories in vs calories out. > But a delta of 100 calories a day, which is NOT a heck of a lot, adds up over a year to 35 thousand calories or a delta, plus or minus, of about 10 pounds of fat per year. Repeat for a couple decades and you get either really fat or really skinny. Yes. We seem to agree? Eating more calories than you burn means you put on weight. Eating less calories than you burn means you lose weight.
      - VLM 13y ago
        Its a hard science error propagation thing. Look at your equation: (In) - (out) = (delta aka gain/loss) Some background is that both are about the same, it takes a decade or so to swing from anorexia to the worlds fattest man. Lets say the (delta) represents a percentage of (In) / (Out) of perhaps 110% for a pregnant woman with quadruplets to maybe 99% very long term for an anorexic. Watch the error propagation. The order of the (delta) error percentage is roughly equal to the order of whichever error is bigger, in or out. I claim the percentage error of (Out) greatly exceeds 10%. Saying more than 50% makes me uncomfortable. Probably the true value is well in excess of 25%. This means any estimation or modification of (In) less than 25% is lost in the noise of the (Out) signal making the calculated delta meaningless. Garbage in equals garbage out. Very few people screw around with their diet on a long term average more than 25%. Therefore any change they make will be lost in the noise of output energy level. The way you get thin is by altering your diet so you are more active. Some diets screw around with your blood sugar, insulin levels, inflammation levels, all that is going to screw around with energy out flow. Large amounts of dairy products make me kinda queasy, so rather than going out for a walk or yard work, its sit on the couch. Large amounts of protein make me feel pretty darn energetic so I walk about more. Certainly the swing exceeds that experienced with having a cold vs being healthy. For some people with gluten issues its probably more like having the flu vs being healthy. The TLDR is (in)-(out)=(delta) is useless because you need to characterize (delta) to pretty high accuracy to even figure out if your gaining or losing, and outside of a medical facility under observation you cannot characterize (out) accurately enough, or frankly, probably not characterize (in) well enough either unless you stick to industrially produced hyper consistent super processed foods, like all TV dinners every day, or always and only fast food or vending machines. Rats on a treadmill hooked up to a timer with analytical balance measured food intake and no free will WRT activity, yes that equation could have low enough error bars on both (in) and (out) to be usefully applied to get a realistic value for (delta). Average american diet and lifestyle? Naw all you're going to get as an output is a white noise source, on a medium term large population average anyway. (Ah I edit in this "real world-ish" example. Lets say skinny 20 yr old dude turns into fat 30 year old dude and he burns about 3000 calories per day to make the math easy. That means he averages a mere 103% of his perfect ratio of (In) vs (Out) where 100% would have resulted in no gain or loss over a decade. I theorize the error bars on (In) exceed three percent unless under constant medical supervision (every apple you ever ate was within 3% of spec? Really?) and the error bars on (Out) exceed twenty five percent, so the delta is meaningless WRT getting this dude either fat or thin. What does work is if his diet makes him sleepy / lazy / queasy / slow / blood sugar high or crash / whatever that screws up his (Out) enough to make him fat. And any change in (Out) is going to be more effective than any change in (In). So eat what makes you healthy, as long as you define healthy as "active" not necessarily classical stereotypical exercising)
- Mz 13y ago
  I have experienced dramatic weight loss in recent years by addressing other issues. I agree with some of the statements you have made here, though they don't give a good idea of what you do think is true. I would be interested in hearing about that. If you don't want to do it in a public and openly hostile environment, my email address is in my profile. Thanks.

whiddershins 13y ago

I don't believe that to be true. I have researched the hell out of this for years and I don't believe there is a definitive answer about this weight gain/loss thing.

DanBC 13y ago
Are you saying that someone eating 4,000 calories a day, but using only 2,000 per day will not gain weight? There are a small number of people with a bacteria that helps them gain weight. There are people with a bacteria that helps them not gain weight. There's a small number of endocrine disorders that make weight gain easy. There are some medications (eg some anti-psychotics) that increase weight gain (and it's not just increasing input). But even with all of that most weight gain is simple: people eat more calories than they use. The stuff about satiety doesn't address calories in, it just talks about feelings of fullness. What we don't know so much about is why some people over eat, and over eat to the extent they do. When a bariatric patient in a specialist weight-loss hospital smuggles in packets of crackers and jars of peanut butter (by hiding them under the folds of fat on their bodies) we can say that there's something weird going on. But again, 500 lb patients are not the norm and that kind of eating isn't the norm. Most people just don't know how much they're eating; don't know how many calories they're eating; and don't get enough exercise.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  arguing by assertion doesn't make it true. You are referring to the caloric balance hypothesis, and it is sad that you guys are downvoting me for calling it in to question. It has not been experimentally verified. And yeah, some friends and I have tested on ourselves eating 4,000 calories without significantly altering exercise levels, and anecdotally have not gained weight.
  - farinasa 13y ago
    I just spent the last year losing 60 pounds. I did so by reducing my food intake. At one point I began to exercise without reducing intake and I began to lose weight. Once classes started, I could not longer exercise as much and my weight loss stagnated. So I tried simply eating less and continued to lose weight. I lost about 40 by exercising only and about 20 reducing intake only. There is a difference between protein calories and carbohydrate calories and how each is processed, but beside that, calories represent energy. Energy that must be used. Otherwise, it will be stored.
    - whiddershins 13y ago
      Just because something works doesn't mean your hypothesis as to WHY it works is true. See any research published on Traditional Chinese Medicine for a similar example. [spoiler: it definitely works, but is it REALLY because of qi meridians?] I think it is great that your approach is working for you, because that is what matters. Congrats on the weight loss.
      - farinasa 13y ago
        >Congrats on the weight loss. Thank you. Much appreciated. >Just because something works doesn't mean your hypothesis as to WHY it works is true. But in general, it actually does. This is how science works. You get an idea that doing something will produce a result. If you do that thing and see the expected result, that indicates a successful hypothesis. After that the conversation devolves into existential questions on whether humans can really know.
- VLM 13y ago
  The technical explanation of scientifically measured intake and output of calories smashes into uselessness when it collides with real world psychology. Example. Given gluten-intolerant subject. Feed them 4000 calories of whole wheat bread and they lay on the couch all day feeling kinda "off" and only burn 2000 calories BMR so they get fat. How did you feel today? "Eh about normal". Didn't you lay around all day and take an afternoon nap? "Well, yeah, now that you mention it..." Then feed them 4000 calories of steak and they get all hyper and burn 5000 calories going on a marathon bike ride or whatever and get thin. How did you feel today? "Eh about normal". Didn't you get all hyper and exercise all day like a madman? "Well, yeah, now that you mention it..." Obviously the real world delta is not 2000 calories a day. But a delta of 100 calories a day, which is NOT a heck of a lot, adds up over a year to 35 thousand calories or a delta, plus or minus, of about 10 pounds of fat per year. Repeat for a couple decades and you get either really fat or really skinny.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You start by saying that calories in vs calories out is useless. You then give two examples. The first is where someone eats more calories than they burn, and gain weight. The second is where they eat less calories than they burn, and lose weight. Please, how does this mean that calories in vs calories out is useless? You appear to be ignoring the part of my post where I say that satiety is important for losing weight, but that it doesn't change the basic calories in vs calories out. > But a delta of 100 calories a day, which is NOT a heck of a lot, adds up over a year to 35 thousand calories or a delta, plus or minus, of about 10 pounds of fat per year. Repeat for a couple decades and you get either really fat or really skinny. Yes. We seem to agree? Eating more calories than you burn means you put on weight. Eating less calories than you burn means you lose weight.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Its a hard science error propagation thing. Look at your equation: (In) - (out) = (delta aka gain/loss) Some background is that both are about the same, it takes a decade or so to swing from anorexia to the worlds fattest man. Lets say the (delta) represents a percentage of (In) / (Out) of perhaps 110% for a pregnant woman with quadruplets to maybe 99% very long term for an anorexic. Watch the error propagation. The order of the (delta) error percentage is roughly equal to the order of whichever error is bigger, in or out. I claim the percentage error of (Out) greatly exceeds 10%. Saying more than 50% makes me uncomfortable. Probably the true value is well in excess of 25%. This means any estimation or modification of (In) less than 25% is lost in the noise of the (Out) signal making the calculated delta meaningless. Garbage in equals garbage out. Very few people screw around with their diet on a long term average more than 25%. Therefore any change they make will be lost in the noise of output energy level. The way you get thin is by altering your diet so you are more active. Some diets screw around with your blood sugar, insulin levels, inflammation levels, all that is going to screw around with energy out flow. Large amounts of dairy products make me kinda queasy, so rather than going out for a walk or yard work, its sit on the couch. Large amounts of protein make me feel pretty darn energetic so I walk about more. Certainly the swing exceeds that experienced with having a cold vs being healthy. For some people with gluten issues its probably more like having the flu vs being healthy. The TLDR is (in)-(out)=(delta) is useless because you need to characterize (delta) to pretty high accuracy to even figure out if your gaining or losing, and outside of a medical facility under observation you cannot characterize (out) accurately enough, or frankly, probably not characterize (in) well enough either unless you stick to industrially produced hyper consistent super processed foods, like all TV dinners every day, or always and only fast food or vending machines. Rats on a treadmill hooked up to a timer with analytical balance measured food intake and no free will WRT activity, yes that equation could have low enough error bars on both (in) and (out) to be usefully applied to get a realistic value for (delta). Average american diet and lifestyle? Naw all you're going to get as an output is a white noise source, on a medium term large population average anyway. (Ah I edit in this "real world-ish" example. Lets say skinny 20 yr old dude turns into fat 30 year old dude and he burns about 3000 calories per day to make the math easy. That means he averages a mere 103% of his perfect ratio of (In) vs (Out) where 100% would have resulted in no gain or loss over a decade. I theorize the error bars on (In) exceed three percent unless under constant medical supervision (every apple you ever ate was within 3% of spec? Really?) and the error bars on (Out) exceed twenty five percent, so the delta is meaningless WRT getting this dude either fat or thin. What does work is if his diet makes him sleepy / lazy / queasy / slow / blood sugar high or crash / whatever that screws up his (Out) enough to make him fat. And any change in (Out) is going to be more effective than any change in (In). So eat what makes you healthy, as long as you define healthy as "active" not necessarily classical stereotypical exercising)
Mz 13y ago
I have experienced dramatic weight loss in recent years by addressing other issues. I agree with some of the statements you have made here, though they don't give a good idea of what you do think is true. I would be interested in hearing about that. If you don't want to do it in a public and openly hostile environment, my email address is in my profile. Thanks.