CPAPtalk.com

Also, regardless of my disagreement with your statements, I am sorry to hear about your friend.

NameGoesHere wrote: Furthermore, the formula still holds true for "weight [not] STAY[ing] lost", if you don't have the discipline to stay with a healthy diet and exercise level, yes, you will increase weight again. The math doesn't lie.

In other words, it's all about fatties and their lack of willpower....

A true MORAL failing, rather than biological issues.

The fattie is the new n-g--r. It's inappropriate to use racial, ethnic, gender or other slurs, but, oh, those fatties deserve every sneer and smear we can hand them!

Except, again, you're wrong:

http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/20 ... to_ga.html

Kiralynx wrote:

NameGoesHere wrote: Furthermore, the formula still holds true for "weight [not] STAY[ing] lost", if you don't have the discipline to stay with a healthy diet and exercise level, yes, you will increase weight again. The math doesn't lie.

In other words, it's all about fatties and their lack of willpower....

A true MORAL failing, rather than biological issues.

The fattie is the new n-g--r. It's inappropriate to use racial, ethnic, gender or other slurs, but, oh, those fatties deserve every sneer and smear we can hand them!

Except, again, you're wrong:

http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/20 ... to_ga.html

Really? You're going there now? Have we taken away basic human rights from the overweight; redefined them as property; forced them into unwilling and unpaid manual labor; beat, raped, and killed them? Completely inappropriate to the discussion at hand.

Make all the excuses you want, demonize those who bring facts, play the victim card, it doesn't change basic physics and conservation of energy, you must take energy in to produce fat, period. Obviously this isn't going to be a rational discussion though so I'm done.

By the way, I'm overweight.

Really? You're going there now? Have we taken away basic human rights from the overweight; redefined them as property; forced them into unwilling and unpaid manual labor; beat, raped, and killed them? Completely inappropriate to the discussion at hand.

Don't get confused and carried away. She did not say obese people are treated like legal slaves.

But K, I do think it was inappropriate to use the word you used.

ChicagoGramps

I really should know better than to get in the middle of one of these.... but.... isn't it possible the formula "(caloric intake - caloric expenditure) / 3600 = lbs gained / lost" is true AND it is also true that different people have various factors that make it easier or harder for them to reduce caloric intake or increase caloric expenditure??? The formula doesn't imply some people don't have physical or biological factors that make it more difficult to increase caloric expenditure or decrease caloric intake. The presence of those factors doesn't imply the formula incorrect either.

ChicagoGranny wrote: Don't get confused and carried away. She did not say obese people are treated like legal slaves.

But K, I do think it was inappropriate to use the word you used.

There's a reason I chose to blip out most of that word -- because it IS an inappropriate word. It's not the kind of word, with its strongly negative connotations, which should be used in this modern era.

But the attitudes associated with that word are there -- in the way the obese are treated and viewed -- as smelly, dirty, second class citizens, deserving of scorn, generally viewed as stupid, uncaring and immoral. Most especially, the obese should not be allowed medical care until they have been properly shamed for their weight. And maybe not even then.

Don't believe me? Check out the posts on this blog:

http://fathealth.wordpress.com/2007/07/ ... es/#more-8

I'm just flat tired of listening to self-righteous people proclaim that it's all about calories-in-calories-out, and that if fatties just had a little willpower, they could lose weight if they really wanted to.

That attitude killed my friend. It came real close to killing me.

NameGoesHere wrote:Obviously this isn't going to be a rational discussion though so I'm done.

Yeah, that one's got a lot more issues than just weight, so me too.

http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=37389

But the attitudes associated with that word are there -- in the way the obese are treated and viewed -- as smelly, dirty, second class citizens, deserving of scorn, generally viewed as stupid, uncaring and immoral. Most especially, the obese should not be allowed medical care until they have been properly shamed for their weight.

From my "walks about town", I would say about 70% of women over fifty are obese. Just form a voting bloc and vote no respect and no medical care for the skinnies.

Hang Fire wrote:From my "walks about town", I would say about 70% of women over fifty are obese.

I guess you must be living in so-called "Fat City":

Hang Fire wrote: From my "walks about town", I would say about 70% of women over fifty are obese. Just form a voting bloc and vote no respect and no medical care for the skinnies.

OK Sludge, so it is only about 40%.

But that 40% is taking up 70% of the sidewalk space.

When i was younger, I was very fit from sports & weight lifting but always at the top end of the 'normal' BMI range. I would have turned into a stick figure if I had tried to lose weight.

Later on I gained a ton of weight and though I hid it well, bmi went up into the obese range. Turns out it was a thyroid problem! Now I can eat what I want and my body metabolizes it properly (though i still try to avoid sugar, starches, and especially HFCS).

I agree with Kiralynx, it is not as simple as calories in, calories out. There are a lot of factors which affect metabolism!

Sludge wrote: Yeah, that one's got a lot more issues than just weight, so me too.

Lol! Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at the opponent.

echo wrote: I agree with Kiralynx, it is not as simple as calories in, calories out. There are a lot of factors which affect metabolism!

Exactly! And if you and your doctor had not sorted out your thyroid issue, no amount of will power would have solved the weight issue.

echo wrote:Turns out it was a thyroid problem! Now I can eat what I want and my body metabolizes it properly (though i still try to avoid sugar, starches, and especially HFCS).

I agree with Kiralynx, it is not as simple as calories in, calories out. There are a lot of factors which affect metabolism!

Are you certain you are both referring to calories in / calories out in the fundamental and literal sense (energy gained/lost = energy in - energy out), and not just as a stand in for "try harder" / "willpower" / "obesity as a moral issue"? If those factors affect metabolism ---> Metabolism affects calories out. ---> Calories out affects weight gain / loss. That means all metabolic problems ARE as simple as calories in / calories out. The body was broken on the calorie out side, so "will power" wasn't the answer you needed, but that doesn't mean your body broke the laws of physics as we know them, or was created energy from sunlight, or some other radical departure from fundamental biology and physics as we know it.

If a body produces less energy than it is using it either uses energy reserves to make up the difference or it starts to die. That is the essence of the statement calories in / calories out. It explains why we lose weight and die if we stop eating. To seriously claim that calories in / calories out is incorrect we either have to break the fundamental law of conservation of energy (thereby making something from nothing) or assume the body it utilizing an energy source other than food calories. The first is impossible outside of an event on the order of the creation of the physical world, and the second is a pretty radical proposal. It is much easier to explain weight gain / loss issues through things like digestive processes where some people don't digest all the calories in the food they eat or metabolic defects where the body avoids stores any excess energy as fat and refuses to use it for anything short of actually starving to death. Which are exactly the kinds of issues underlying the "dieting makes you fat" and "gut bacteria makes you fat" and "you won't get thin by exercise alone" articles.

djhall wrote: If a body produces less energy than it is using it either uses energy reserves to make up the difference or it starts to die. That is the essence of the statement calories in / calories out. It explains why we lose weight and die if we stop eating. To seriously claim that calories in / calories out is incorrect we either have to break the fundamental law of conservation of energy (thereby making something from nothing) or assume the body it utilizing an energy source other than food calories. .

The body is not a simple system. It has storage capacity and it has a variety of processes - some of which are efficient and some which maybe are not. You can eat a lot today and not move and do a lot tomorrow while eating very little. It is also self adjusting for environmental factors (which includes emotions). I am sure over a life time calories = calories out, including the decomposition, I doubt many people want to consider the energy given off in their cremation/ decomposition when thinking about their diet.