On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Reverse situation here... I can't just wing it with losing weight. If I eat as much as I want, I'm about keeping my weight, but it creeps up slowly over the months and years. I guess this happens mostly because of alcohol. In a way, calculating EVERYTHING about the meals and drinks and cooking myself seems like the easiest way for me to go about losing weight. This means a plan that sets everything that will be eaten in a week, and nothing outside of that plan. It counts every table spoon of oil involved in cooking, every apple as a snack, etc.
In experiments with modifying that plan about food for the week, I didn't see any changes when using different amounts of carbohydrates, fat, proteins and alcohol... it was always the calories that determined my weight over time. Fast food and frozen food also didn't seem different, the calories mentioned on the box worked just like home-made food when planning.
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote: I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
Calling other people "lazy slobs" wasn't insulting to others, though? You're a funny little hypocrite. I think it's a little ridiculous how the majority of people on this thread seem to think people are either 100% lazy and irresponsible, or not at all. As if there's no grey area or that genetics don't affect things. I can agree that hard work can generally overwhelm other factors. But I still think you're scum to speak so condescendingly to other people. Too bad your parents never taught you respect.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
So any evidence you are presented with can be explained away with one of two arguments: 1. Random nitpicks. 2. Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter.
Care to present evidence to the contrary other than "benefit of the doubt?"
...So let me get this straight. It's a random nitpick to say that maximum oxygen uptake increase from aerobic activity isn't related to a genetic cause behind metabolism to the point it gives some people a massive advantage in weight loss/weight gain? It's a random nitpick to say that another link isn't relevant to anything? It's a random nitpick to say that HIIT temporarily increasing your metabolism isn't related to a genetic cause behind metabolism in regards to weight loss/weight gain? There's obviously some differences in obese people with hormone function + neurological/psychological differences for things like reward centers and satiety, but that's completely different than claiming you barely eat anything and still can't lose weight, or you eat 5000 calories a day and can't gain weight. And it's nearly impossible to say
And um, yes, anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. I also not to tend to believe in ghost stories and people who claim they've seen angels with haloes.
Those aren't nitpicks, it's called having some basic scientific logic behind what you believe in. Unlike you, I don't allow myself to get convinced of a viewpoint because a BBC article informs me a small group of skinny people ate a lot of ice cream and gained different amounts of weight. I try to actually, you know, verify it makes sense.
And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
On June 21 2013 03:49 Fruscainte wrote: On the one hand this is going to increase awareness of it and make a much more proactive effort by the medical community to combat this. It's no longer a symptom or a potential cause of greater harm, it is now scientifically accepted as being inherently harmful. Hopefully this will encourage doctors to be far more persistent in their patients losing health and hopefully a lot more effort by people to lose their weight.
On the other hand, we're going to get tens of thousands of overweight people who now have a reason to stay fat because they have a DISEASE and how can they help it.
Overall this is good though. Still can't understand why they use BMI though. I've been with four personal physicians my entire life and every single one said BMI is a load of crap, Bodyfat % is what I should base my health after they recommend.
People don't want to have any diseases, this is 100% the right move. And no, for the vast majority of the population the BMI correctly predicts morbidity and mortality increase. It is also very practical and easy to understand for most people. Finally, the body fat % isn't too useful, because morbidity and mortality rates are more closely related to visceral fat, which isn't correctly assessed by fat %, something much simpler, abdominal circumference, has a much better correlation with poor outcomes in most patients.
On June 21 2013 08:23 Heavenlee wrote: And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
So you don't provide evidence to the contrary, and you think any evidence for this position is insufficient? ...well there's nothing more to be said here, is there?
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate. [/QUOTE]
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
On June 21 2013 08:23 Heavenlee wrote: And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
So you don't provide evidence to the contrary, and you think any evidence for this position is insufficient? ...well there's nothing more to be said here, is there?
Not really. What evidence do you want me to provide? And yes, I think most evidence is insufficient, but you could try and provide me an actual paper that would begin to minorly convince me in that direction, sure. I've been looking for the Ethan Sims paper but there is no actual publication of it I can find.
And there is nothing more to say here because the claim was stupid to make in the first place. That's the point. If you think my methods of trying to determine whether a claim is valid or not are "nitpicky" and ridiculous, then you can just continue believing whatever you hear just because. Oh, by the way, peanut butter causes cancer. And aspartame does too. And chocolate. And bananas. Vaccines cause autism. Blood is blue. Pluto is a planet. lalala
Fucking shit, if this seriously starts a reassessment of insurance coverage in the states I'd get a good laugh about it. It will just a matter of how long. I went to my Rheumatologist today and passed a cardiologist's office in the lobby. There could not possibly have been anyone there under 250lbs.
If anything the government should concern themselves with the cost of eating healthy. I go through between 3-4k calories a day in the summer months and it costs a fuckton just to keep myself fed. I'm conscious about what I eat and I cook my own food and because of that it's an arm and a leg. I can see why people would consider the fast food alternative I just don't get why they consume it so much.
The most frequent comment I overhear about Americans from foreigners when I'm overseas is their weight problems. Idk if every overweight person in a foreign country is American but I'm relatively certain that's what most foreigners think. And it's fucked up because it has some semblance of truth in its roots.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Case in point.
Thank you very much for linking that video. I'm definitely bookmarking it, as it looks interesting. I guess that explains why my mom is always saying that "Fat Free!!" on the food label means nothing if it's loaded with sugar.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
[quote]
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Did you really count everything in actual numbers to try to gain weight? A hamburger doesn't have many calories. The German McDonalds Hamburger is 255 kcal, for example. I'd need about 10 of those a day to gain weight. It feels much more than it actually is, and I'd feel sick of it, I'm pretty sure.
EDIT: I looked the numbers up, and I lied a bit. A good sized burger that feels like a real meal will surely be 500 kcal. Those tiny $1 hamburgers are the only ones that are 250 kcal.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
[quote]
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
Yeah I read a similar posit in a journal a few months ago, I'll try and find the link when I have time between lessons tomorrow and post it here but interesting stuff.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
I'll give this video a fair chance later, but On_Slaught's description makes it sound quite silly.
"Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. "
We're talking about humans here, not plankton. There is a human brain actively taking every bite of food that goes down their throat. Human beings are responsible for their own food intake, not hormones, not the weather, not discrimination, etc.
I've always wanted to read Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories, even though I hear it's pretty dense. I may start later on. His viewpoint does make sense and the whole "calorie in v calorie out" thing is a bit obnoxious.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote: [quote]
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
EPT
