Fitness and weight loss - why can't anyone agree? (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

 

[James Daulton]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

It's the bolded plus our ease of access to high calorie, tasty food and drinks.

 

[Sabertooth]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

 

[Sabertooth]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

It's the bolded plus our ease of access to high calorie, tasty food and drinks.

Are you saying laziness is the reason America is fat?

 

[James Daulton]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

It's the bolded plus our ease of access to high calorie, tasty food and drinks.

Are you saying laziness is the reason America is fat?

That plus the availability of food.

 

[moleculo]

i think it boils down to this: There is no incentive for food producers to exclusively make healthy food, but there is incentive to make cheap, tasty food. As long as HFCS is cheap and readily available, people will consume it and it will do lots of bad things to their bodies.

I don't believe obesity can be cured for the general population. It would take the government mandating what folks can and cannot eat, and that's not something I think the gov't has any business doing. Health is a personal responsibility, not a societal one. Further, it would be impossible for the gov't to come to consensus on what "healthy" means, because (1) as noted in the OP, there are lots of conflicting studies, and (2) there are lots of interests lobbying for their products (i.e. agriculture industry, sugar industry, etc).

IMO, one thing that could be done is tie body fat percentage (or some other obesity related metric) to discounts on health insurance. You maintain a proper body weight, you pay less. It wouldn't be a cure, but it would be an incentive in the right direction.

 

[Sabertooth]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

It's the bolded plus our ease of access to high calorie, tasty food and drinks.

Are you saying laziness is the reason America is fat?

That plus the availability of food.

Food is certainly available. I had the flu a few weeks ago and it was like I was bombarded with food commercials constantly. Everywhere you look its food food food.

 

[Sabertooth]

i think it boils down to this: There is no incentive for food producers to exclusively make healthy food, but there is incentive to make cheap, tasty food. As long as HFCS is cheap and readily available, people will consume it and it will do lots of bad things to their bodies.

I don't believe obesity can be cured for the general population. It would take the government mandating what folks can and cannot eat, and that's not something I think the gov't has any business doing. Health is a personal responsibility, not a societal one. Further, it would be impossible for the gov't to come to consensus on what "healthy" means, because (1) as noted in the OP, there are lots of conflicting studies, and (2) there are lots of interests lobbying for their products (i.e. agriculture industry, sugar industry, etc).

IMO, one thing that could be done is tie body fat percentage (or some other obesity related metric) to discounts on health insurance. You maintain a proper body weight, you pay less. It wouldn't be a cure, but it would be an incentive in the right direction.

I know I can get my life insurance reduced if I lose weight. It wasn't enough incentive.

 

[culdeus]

Because studies rely on self reporting of intake. And people lie about that so the studies get slanted to tell whatever story their sponsors to tell.

 

[culdeus]

I'd support a flat tax rate of body fat % is what you pay. Give women a 10% discount for boobs.

That would solve everything.

 

[moleculo]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

 

[moleculo]

i think it boils down to this: There is no incentive for food producers to exclusively make healthy food, but there is incentive to make cheap, tasty food. As long as HFCS is cheap and readily available, people will consume it and it will do lots of bad things to their bodies.

I don't believe obesity can be cured for the general population. It would take the government mandating what folks can and cannot eat, and that's not something I think the gov't has any business doing. Health is a personal responsibility, not a societal one. Further, it would be impossible for the gov't to come to consensus on what "healthy" means, because (1) as noted in the OP, there are lots of conflicting studies, and (2) there are lots of interests lobbying for their products (i.e. agriculture industry, sugar industry, etc).

IMO, one thing that could be done is tie body fat percentage (or some other obesity related metric) to discounts on health insurance. You maintain a proper body weight, you pay less. It wouldn't be a cure, but it would be an incentive in the right direction.

I know I can get my life insurance reduced if I lose weight. It wasn't enough incentive.

I didn't think it would be, but there's not much more that should be done at a gov't level, IMO.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

High metabolism.

 

[Keerock]

I'd support a flat tax rate of body fat % is what you pay. Give women a 10% discount for boobs.

That would solve everything.

Says the 170#, 9% BF guy...

 

[Bull Dozier]

I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but I also think there are a couple of factors that contribute to conflicting and confusing study results.

First, I think that different people can respond to foods, and therefor diets, differently. This is obvious with medical conditions such as (diagnosed) celiacs, diabetes, and various allergies. I think it is obvious that different people can respond to foods differently as some foods simply cause upset stomachs, or other milder maladies in people that others don't get. I think it is easy to assume that some people will digest some foods differently than others. This can cause one diet to work well for person a, but person b can struggle on that diet.

Another factor is that multiple diets can work for the same person. Diets a and b might work for person x. Diets b and c work for person y. Diets a and c work for person z. But the three people together are not going to be able to agree on which is the best diet. This point is obviously related to the above point where people respond to different foods differently.

The human body is a complex machine, and they aren't universal.

 

[culdeus]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

 

[moleculo]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

right, but I don't think it's debatable that eating less and exercising more makes one lose weight (even if the loss is temporary).

 

[Sabertooth]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

High metabolism.

So how do you figure out your actual metabolism?

 

[Sabertooth]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

I know a ton of things that don't work. So what is the right approach?

 

[culdeus]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

right, but I don't think it's debatable that eating less and exercising more makes one lose weight (even if the loss is temporary).

Temporary weight loss is highly stressful on your body. So yeah, it matters.

 

[culdeus]

People should be taught this curve set. I had a better one from the internet earlier. If you want to understand why americans are fat and can't keep weight off you need to understand how these curves interact:

http://www.medbio.info/horn/time%203-4/homeos3.gif

I'm searching for the one that has the two overlaid and is on a % of scale which is more useful imo.

 

[culdeus]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

I know a ton of things that don't work. So what is the right approach?

Lift heavy weights and/or avoid steady state cardio (HIIT is the option). Eat less carbs. Get lots of fat and clean protein.

Keep your glycogen stores up so you don't feel hungry or else deplete them and utilize ketosis for fast fat loss.

 

[Sabertooth]

...

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

...

these articles aren't in opposition.

the first one says eating less and exercising more does not lead to long term weight loss.

The second one says eating less and exercising more leads to short term weight loss.

That's not inconsistent. The difference is that eating less and exercising more is not sustainable for most folks, and their weight rebounds.

The answer is that if you eat less and exercise more you put your body into a glycogen depleted mode on a cycle that is going to cause more hunger. This is why people gain it back, the willpower to sustain a lifestyle where they go to the gym and get on the elliptical for 30 minutes and mix in a salad or two is not the right approach.

right, but I don't think it's debatable that eating less and exercising more makes one lose weight (even if the loss is temporary).

Temporary weight loss is highly stressful on your body. So yeah, it matters.

Most peoples' bodies could use some stress. Most people are fat and weak.

 

[xulf]

I think someone just needs to invent booze which doesn't have any calories or hurt your liver. Problem solved for many people.

 

[shader]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

Are you sure about this? I've found that investigating claims like this (I used to make it about my cousin) typically fall on their faces. My cousin, for instance, has always ate really bad food. Chinese, McDonald's, cokes, etc. Whatever he wanted.

But...I started really watching him, and he really didn't eat a whole lot. Leaves some of the burger left over, only eats half of the fries, skips meals, etc. So while his quality is crap, he's just not a big eater.

I'm sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but I still haven't met the 3000 calories/day eater that is rail thin.

 

[Sabertooth]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

Are you sure about this? I've found that investigating claims like this (I used to make it about my cousin) typically fall on their faces. My cousin, for instance, has always ate really bad food. Chinese, McDonald's, cokes, etc. Whatever he wanted.

But...I started really watching him, and he really didn't eat a whole lot. Leaves some of the burger left over, only eats half of the fries, skips meals, etc. So while his quality is crap, he's just not a big eater.

I'm sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but I still haven't met the 3000 calories/day eater that is rail thin.

My brother is good for drinking beer from 6:00-10:30. But not eating until around 10:30 at night. Then he'd consume a frozen pizza or 2/3 pbjs So you might be onto something. He nevers eats breakfast. Rarely eats lunch.

 

[Sabertooth]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

Are you sure about this? I've found that investigating claims like this (I used to make it about my cousin) typically fall on their faces. My cousin, for instance, has always ate really bad food. Chinese, McDonald's, cokes, etc. Whatever he wanted.

But...I started really watching him, and he really didn't eat a whole lot. Leaves some of the burger left over, only eats half of the fries, skips meals, etc. So while his quality is crap, he's just not a big eater.

I'm sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but I still haven't met the 3000 calories/day eater that is rail thin.

My brother is good for drinking beer from 6:00-10:30. But not eating until around 10:30 at night. Then he'd consume a frozen pizza or 2/3 pbjs So you might be onto something. He nevers eats breakfast. Rarely eats lunch.

He wasn't rail thin either. But his arms were big, still are. He hasn't worked out in years and could throw 225 up no problem cold. Sometimes I hate that ####er.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

Metabolism.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Genetics,

Obviously true. Each person is different.

 

[The Tick]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

but that doesn't necessarily do what you want either. About a year ago, I did a fitness challenge with my workout group. Worked my butt off for a month was eating pretty healthy, working out a bunch, and felt pretty good. Before we started they did a body analysis weigh in, and another at the end. I lost about 10 pounds during that 5 weeks or so, and thought, man I killed, was really happy. When I did my post weigh-in I wasn't so thrilled, only 5 pounds of what I lost was actually fat, the other half was muscle because even though I was eating pretty healthy, I wasn't eating necessarily correctly for what I was doing. Trainer thinks I wasn't getting enough protein even though I ate meat daily, just wasn't enough.

So long story short, work off more than you consume not as straight forward as it sounds for actually getting healthy.

 

[culdeus]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

but that doesn't necessarily do what you want either. About a year ago, I did a fitness challenge with my workout group. Worked my butt off for a month was eating pretty healthy, working out a bunch, and felt pretty good. Before we started they did a body analysis weigh in, and another at the end. I lost about 10 pounds during that 5 weeks or so, and thought, man I killed, was really happy. When I did my post weigh-in I wasn't so thrilled, only 5 pounds of what I lost was actually fat, the other half was muscle because even though I was eating pretty healthy, I wasn't eating necessarily correctly for what I was doing. Trainer thinks I wasn't getting enough protein even though I ate meat daily, just wasn't enough.

So long story short, work off more than you consume not as straight forward as it sounds for actually getting healthy.

Again, the whole out vs in people always overlook this. Muscle burns a hell of a lot more calories than fat sitting on you. Your metabolism likely slowed substantially during this and thus you gained it all back and likely then some.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I wasn't eating necessarily correctly for what I was doing. Trainer thinks I wasn't getting enough protein even though I ate meat daily, just wasn't enough.

I give that advice all the time when people ask me about adding muscle or getting fit... I don't really care what you eat. A: Get plenty of protein.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

How do you explain people who can eat whatever they want then? My brother eats way way worse than me and he's always been physically fit (although he is now on blood pressure medication).

It's still burn more calories than you consume.

Daily base metabolic rate + calories burned via activity (exercise or otherwise) - calorie intake

That's the formula, and it really is that simple for the most part. Everyone has a different base metabolic rate so that could very easily explain the difference between you and your brother. If he got lucky there and his base metabolic rate is 500 calories higher than yours then that's just the luck of the draw.

You also have to keep in mind that calorie burn is not limited to time in the gym or out for a run. If you sit at a desk all day and someone else works outside that's going to make a huge difference. If you drive to work and someone else walks every day in Manhattan that's a huge difference.

A buddy of mine is a dean at a middle school and recently started tracking how much he walks during a day at work. He's all over the place. 5-8 miles/day. That's basically 400-700 calories a day he's burning over me sitting at a desk all day. Couple that with a better metabolism and he could be taking in almost a thousand calories more than someone else every day while still having the same net calorie intake.

There are places where you can get your base metabolic rate tested. Take that, then calculate the calories that you're burning via activity throughout the day, add them together and then subtract your calorie intake from that number. If you get a negative number than you WILL lose weight if you do it every day. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

[Statcruncher]

First of all weight loss and fitness are 2 totally different animals. Just because someone is thin doesn't make them fit, and just because someone is fat doesn't mean they're not fit.

Now if you're talking about overweight and why humanity struggles with how to lose excess fat, I think it's a combination of several things:

People eat food for pleasure, not for sustenance and fuel

People have gotten decades of bad information about what foods are healthy

The bottom line is that you can't just "eat less" as a permanent change. Our bodies were pretty well set at inception and we each have our threshold of calories that we have to have. IMO the problem is that we choose high calorie foods that don't satiate us or worse yet, screw with our bodies and ramp up our hunger even more. Don't think that tobacco companies are the only ones to ever actively study and implement everything possible to make their products more addictive. I don't blame the food industry because they simply make a product, but when it comes to food they are not your friend.

Your friends are down at the farmer's market, the one who harvested the fruits, vegetables, and raised the animals the right way, letting them roam open pastures while eating what they were born to eat. IMO the absolute easiest and best way to cut excess fat is to change the type of foods you eat to meat, eggs, vegetables, and some fruit. In my experience eating from these foods is self volume regulating as you can't eat a steak, baked potato, and salad and be hungry in an hour. The problem is that most people aren't eager to give up the plethora of sugary processed stuff that society seems to have embraced.

tl;dr - Eat meats, eggs, vegetables, and fruit and only eat when you're actually hungry.

 

[Jackstraw]

An underated cause I think is modern heating and air. People live most of their lives in a thin band from 68-75 degrees or so.

No sweating your stones off, or freezing them off. Little extra calories every single day that our ancestors burned that we don't.

 

[Sabertooth]

Genetics must play a part though right? I know people who are skinny just like mom and dad and I know guys who have been fat since they were 5.

 

[Sabertooth]

An underated cause I think is modern heating and air. People live most of their lives in a thin band from 68-75 degrees or so.

No sweating your stones off, or freezing them off. Little extra calories every single day that our ancestors burned that we don't.

Never thought of that but it makes some sense.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Genetics must play a part though right? I know people who are skinny just like mom and dad and I know guys who have been fat since they were 5.

Like I mentioned a few posts up, everyone's base metabolic rate is different and that's going to mean some people are going to burn more calories just sitting around than others.

This can be somewhat changed by adding or losing muscle, but genetics are certainly a big part of it. Even still, it's calories in Vs. Calories out. Some people just knock more out thanks to genetics.

 

[ChainsawU]

A lot of you guys have a very refreshing, logical take on diet and exercise.

 

[ChainsawU]

I think toxins, whether it be in ####ty food or just straight-up alcohol or whatever, releases a lot of dope into your bloodstream. As a result, people subconsciously become addicted to ####ty food. I know that for me it's a snowball effect that whenever I quit eating clean my brain tells me to dump as much ####ty food and alcohol into my system as possible. Our brains really work against us when it comes to weight loss/maintenance because millions of years of evolution have taught us to avoid starvation. I also think our bodies store fat and excess water, at least I think mine does, as a means to soak up all the ####ty stuff we dump into our systems. Eat fresh foods and don't drink alcohol and after about a week or two you will start to lean up once you crap out and sweat out all your toxins. Once you get all that #### out of your system you can become addicted to the naturally-occurring endorphins your body dumps into your blood from simply exercising.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Personally im sick of all the fatties. They take up more room and do everything slower.

Society really doesnt need them and I support any initiative that will end obesity.

It will be a better world for all of us without those sweaty wildebeests getting in the way.

 

[Dexter]

Genetics must play a part though right? I know people who are skinny just like mom and dad and I know guys who have been fat since they were 5.

No. It really is as simple as calories in < calories out in order to lose weight. Fat people are fat because they are lazy and eat too much. Fat parents have fat kids because they feed their children too much.

Of course that doesn't make a good article or book I can sell you.

 

[Dexter]

I think toxins, whether it be in ####ty food or just straight-up alcohol or whatever, releases a lot of dope into your bloodstream. As a result, people subconsciously become addicted to ####ty food. I know that for me it's a snowball effect that whenever I quit eating clean my brain tells me to dump as much ####ty food and alcohol into my system as possible. Our brains really work against us when it comes to weight loss/maintenance because millions of years of evolution have taught us to avoid starvation. I also think our bodies store fat and excess water, at least I think mine does, as a means to soak up all the ####ty stuff we dump into our systems. Eat fresh foods and don't drink alcohol and after about a week or two you will start to lean up once you crap out and sweat out all your toxins. Once you get all that #### out of your system you can become addicted to the naturally-occurring endorphins your body dumps into your blood from simply exercising.

What are "toxins"?

 

[James Daulton]

Work off more calories than you consume.....

but that doesn't necessarily do what you want either. About a year ago, I did a fitness challenge with my workout group. Worked my butt off for a month was eating pretty healthy, working out a bunch, and felt pretty good. Before we started they did a body analysis weigh in, and another at the end. I lost about 10 pounds during that 5 weeks or so, and thought, man I killed, was really happy. When I did my post weigh-in I wasn't so thrilled, only 5 pounds of what I lost was actually fat, the other half was muscle because even though I was eating pretty healthy, I wasn't eating necessarily correctly for what I was doing. Trainer thinks I wasn't getting enough protein even though I ate meat daily, just wasn't enough.

So long story short, work off more than you consume not as straight forward as it sounds for actually getting healthy.

Again, the whole out vs in people always overlook this. Muscle burns a hell of a lot more calories than fat sitting on you. Your metabolism likely slowed substantially during this and thus you gained it all back and likely then some.

Actually it's very debatable how many more calories muscles burn than fat. Certainly not a hell of a lot.

 

[James Daulton]

Genetics must play a part though right? I know people who are skinny just like mom and dad and I know guys who have been fat since they were 5.

No. It really is as simple as calories in < calories out in order to lose weight. Fat people are fat because they are lazy and eat too much. Fat parents have fat kids because they feed their children too much.

Of course that doesn't make a good article or book I can sell you.

That's basically what I said!

 

[tommyboy]

There are a million articles out there on fitness. But in an age where science can stop diseases cold, why can't we figure out how to stay fit as a culture? I know you should eat less. But that's not always true, and there are very official sounding articles that oppose this mindset. A quick google search turned up this one from TIME magazine.

http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/

Then here is the obligatory counter to that argument

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20769037,00.html

Is the misdirection a sort of thing to keep people forking boatloads of money into the fitness industry? Is it a concerted effort at subterfuge just to keep people yo-yoing? I believe this with cancer. There is way too much money in treating it for there ever to be a cure.

Is it more of a person by person thing? Is it laziness? Is it addiction? Is it HFCS tripping out nervous system?

Why the heck can't (or won't) this get solved.

I consider myself a fat ####. I'm weak and soft. But I went to a waterpark the other day and found that I'm just average. Lot's a way fatter and way fitter guys there.

Probably because people make money off "their" method.

But its fairly basic, burn more calories than you consume=lose weight.

For fitness, as you age the most bang for the buck is lifting heavy weights.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I think toxins, whether it be in ####ty food or just straight-up alcohol or whatever, releases a lot of dope into your bloodstream. As a result, people subconsciously become addicted to ####ty food. I know that for me it's a snowball effect that whenever I quit eating clean my brain tells me to dump as much ####ty food and alcohol into my system as possible. Our brains really work against us when it comes to weight loss/maintenance because millions of years of evolution have taught us to avoid starvation. I also think our bodies store fat and excess water, at least I think mine does, as a means to soak up all the ####ty stuff we dump into our systems. Eat fresh foods and don't drink alcohol and after about a week or two you will start to lean up once you crap out and sweat out all your toxins. Once you get all that #### out of your system you can become addicted to the naturally-occurring endorphins your body dumps into your blood from simply exercising.

What are "toxins"?

The stuff they make food out of

 

[Sabertooth]

I think toxins, whether it be in ####ty food or just straight-up alcohol or whatever, releases a lot of dope into your bloodstream. As a result, people subconsciously become addicted to ####ty food. I know that for me it's a snowball effect that whenever I quit eating clean my brain tells me to dump as much ####ty food and alcohol into my system as possible. Our brains really work against us when it comes to weight loss/maintenance because millions of years of evolution have taught us to avoid starvation. I also think our bodies store fat and excess water, at least I think mine does, as a means to soak up all the ####ty stuff we dump into our systems. Eat fresh foods and don't drink alcohol and after about a week or two you will start to lean up once you crap out and sweat out all your toxins. Once you get all that #### out of your system you can become addicted to the naturally-occurring endorphins your body dumps into your blood from simply exercising.

Absolutely.

Here is a quick rundown of how food works just like booze or dope.

https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/onebite.aspx

 

[fantasycurse42]

This isn't complicated. There are a few varying factors, but the overwhelming majority of people are operating under similar rules:

Calorie Surplus = Weight Gain

Calorie Deficit = Weight Loss

Someone's diet and exercise will impact the above.