ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:59 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:03 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Just wanted to add that I do agree 100% that there's 'more' to weight loss than calories in vs out. I just think with someone who's THAT overweight, it NEEDS to be kept simple... Like if you're teaching someone to squat or DL, you need to initially keep it as simple as possible. No point in saying "big chest, hips back, grip the floor, knees out, elbows forward, pull the bar into your back etc' when they don't even know how to get the hips back....

I don't believe people get that fat without eating way too much. I'm sure there's some medical conditions out there which may cause something like that to happen but, in general I don't believe that to be the case. If you could get that fat by NOT eating too much then we potentially have a cure for third world hunger by 'getting much more out of far less calories'... Unless of course i'm completely misunderstanding something here.

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:30 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Yes, the extremely obese require a huge amount of calories to maintain their fat - the poor cardiovascular system is constantly in overdrive to try to keep blood flowing everywhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
KPj wrote:
Just wanted to add that I do agree 100% that there's 'more' to weight loss than calories in vs out. I just think with someone who's THAT overweight, it NEEDS to be kept simple... Like if you're teaching someone to squat or DL, you need to initially keep it as simple as possible. No point in saying "big chest, hips back, grip the floor, knees out, elbows forward, pull the bar into your back etc' when they don't even know how to get the hips back....

I don't believe people get that fat without eating way too much. I'm sure there's some medical conditions out there which may cause something like that to happen but, in general I don't believe that to be the case. If you could get that fat by NOT eating too much then we potentially have a cure for third world hunger by 'getting much more out of far less calories'... Unless of course i'm completely misunderstanding something here.

KPj



Well you "believe" and "don't believe". That's the problem. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of that. None. That's the same evidence that there is to support the existence of unicorns.

When people are that overweight they generally have some sort of medical problem. Hormones have a lot to do with it.

Here is something that mentions a few studies but mostly focuses on a study done in the 1940's, that was finally published in 1950. It goes over the effects of low calorie or "semi-starvation" diets. An average of 1600 calories if I remember right. Notice the disastrous results.

http://www.possibility.com/wiki/index.p ... Starvation

Treating a complex biological organism like a simple math problem or a Newtonian physics law is silly. How is it even possible? Have you looked at the chains of molecules that result from different chemical reactions? It also ignores the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention EVERYTHING that goes on in the body involves chemical reactions. Many of these reactions are IMPOSSIBLE without enzymes to act as catalysts. For example the metabolism of cellulose requires an enzyme found only in herbivores. So in humans that reaction is impossible. So NOTHING happens, it goes in, it comes out, it does NOTHING. If people didn't poop or produce heat, you might halfway have a point. If endocrinology was just a simple one semester course given to general practitioners and not a specialization, you might have something.


Another problem is that even if the dubious relationship is a given, the assumption of cause-effect is ridiculous. With that logic, I could conclusively prove that the decline in the number of pirates causes global warming.

I think one of the problems is our puritanical roots. We BELIEVE in the "sin" of gluttony and we desire to see these people punished. We also see people in this terrible state of obesity and just can't accept that it just happens because of some medical cause. we just NEED to think people bring it on themselves through sloth and gluttony.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
frogbyte wrote:
Yes, the extremely obese require a huge amount of calories to maintain their fat - the poor cardiovascular system is constantly in overdrive to try to keep blood flowing everywhere.


Oh yea, just like the advancement in computer technology causes the passage of time.


The fact is the extremely obese not only need more food because they can't get hardly anything from their fat cells, their fat cells also store much of the energy before it can get used by the cells. The starving and dying cells send out the signal for more food. This increases the appetite.

We don't even understand how all of that works. We know about what insulin and glucagon do, and maybe partially HGH. But that's it. Nobody knows how the rest of that works. Leading experts can't even speculate on some of that. For example nobody knows WHY gastric bypass does everything it does. The effects greatly exceed what is expected from the procedures and nobody has the slightest idea why.

Then there is the regulatory effects of the B2 and B3 adrenergic receptors. Only so much is known about the manipulation of those.

In other words, no, we don't know that and what we do know points somewhere else entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:51 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I'm obviously missing a big point here.

Ironman wrote:
Well you "believe" and "don't believe". That's the problem. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of that. None. That's the same evidence that there is to support the existence of unicorns.


I don't think relying on opinion shows that you believe in unicorns. What else do we have? I don't think i've ever seen clear cut studies which no one can argue with. So, how do you make a decision? You form an opinion. A belief if you like.


Ironman wrote:
Here is something that mentions a few studies but mostly focuses on a study done in the 1940's, that was finally published in 1950. It goes over the effects of low calorie or "semi-starvation" diets. An average of 1600 calories if I remember right. Notice the disastrous results.


I'm clearly missing somethign here as I don't understand the relevance. Wouldn't you expect cutting your calories by 50% or going from 8000-ish calories down to 1500 to make all that happen?

All that article told me is that obese people have an addiction to food.

I think the theory of fitting the diet/exercise to your lifestyle and not the other way around is what anyone who is overweight needs. Otherwise it's not going to be sustainable results. Also, when they started the re-feed than stated that all the weight plus 10% came back. AND????? What's the point there? I ate like THIS to get this fat. NOw i'm eating like THIS to lose weight. Then i'll go back to how I was eating originally? Well, obviously you're going to get fat again????

I'm sure the article is just way over my head or something.

Ironman wrote:
Have you looked at the chains of molecules that result from different chemical reactions?


Actually, i've not.....

I would be more interested in how many donuts and pizzas they eat per day..... I'm not trying to be smart ass here, there is an underlying point.


Ironman wrote:
I think one of the problems is our puritanical roots. We BELIEVE in the "sin" of gluttony and we desire to see these people punished. We also see people in this terrible state of obesity and just can't accept that it just happens because of some medical cause. we just NEED to think people bring it on themselves through sloth and gluttony.


So, what causes people do get that fat then? Are you saying they didn't eat a ridiculious amount of food over a period of time to get like that?

My training partner decided to - as Dave Tate and co would say - 'get his bloat on'. He increased his calories to 7000-ish per day, just to see what happens. His strength went through the roof, and he gained around 30lbs of b/w over 3-4 months.

Are you saying that he put on all that fat because he has a medical condition?

When bringing calories back down, he's lost about 15lbs so far - Is this coicidence? Correlation is not causation? The unicorn/pirates theory?

I can only assume i'm really missing something? From my understanding, you're telling me that people don't get fat from eating too much....

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:53 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Ironman wrote:
In other words, no, we don't know that and what we do know points somewhere else entirely.


But, do we know what made them fat in the first place?

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:55 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
KPj wrote:
So, what causes people do get that fat then? Are you saying they didn't eat a ridiculious amount of food over a period of time to get like that?

I know that you were answering Ironman, but I wanted to say to this, "maybe not."

KPj wrote:
My training partner decided to - as Dave Tate and co would say - 'get his bloat on'. He increased his calories to 7000-ish per day, just to see what happens. His strength went through the roof, and he gained around 30lbs of b/w over 3-4 months.

Are you saying that he put on all that fat because he has a medical condition?

I think that because he does not have a "medical condition" this actually took concerted effort on his part. Also because he is presumably "normal," he gained strength and put on a limited amount of fat, probably along with some muscle mass. And because he doesn't have such a "condition" he wasn't obese in the first place.

KPj wrote:
When bringing calories back down, he's lost about 15lbs so far - Is this coicidence? Correlation is not causation? The unicorn/pirates theory?

And how hard was it for him to reduce the calories, and to drop the 15lb? I'm guessing not hard at all. For him, who is presumably normal, the correlation between calories up or down and weight gained or lost is probably a lot more simple. No, of course it's not a coincidence. But because it works simply for him proves nothing about the morbidly obese, who probably have dramatically different physiology.

And yes, correlation is not causation.

KPj wrote:
I can only assume i'm really missing something? From my understanding, you're telling me that people don't get fat from eating too much....

My point is that we're ALL missing something here. This is stuff that no one understands, even endocrinologists, few of whom concern themselves with this kind of research. I don't think the plight of the extremely obese is as simple as eating too much. Until there is more knowledge of the physiology involved, and of interventions, I think that the right thing is to offer those people compassion and understanding, and give them the best advise we have at the moment, which is low-carb eating and exercise with emphasis on resistance exercise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:30 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Jungledoc wrote:
I know that you were answering Ironman, but I wanted to say to this, "maybe not."


It's ok, thanks for responding, i'm just trying to learn somethin' ya know.


Jungledoc wrote:
I think that because he does not have a "medical condition" this actually took concerted effort on his part. Also because he is presumably "normal," he gained strength and put on a limited amount of fat, probably along with some muscle mass. And because he doesn't have such a "condition" he wasn't obese in the first place.


He was getting his bloat on. Fat gain is almost the point. Loads of fat was gained, he went from a visible 6 pack to looking like he was expecting twins..... He actually said during it, "i'm trying to get obese" lol. Yes he's strange. I can't defend him in anyway, but, I enjoyed the show. Not something I would do myself so it's interesting to watch.

It's hard to say how much was muscle, though but deffinitly a significant amount of fat.

Jungledoc wrote:
And how hard was it for him to reduce the calories, and to drop the 15lb? I'm guessing not hard at all.


Very difficult for him. He's still got a belly to get rid of. You can sort of see the edge of his top abs but that's it. 15lbs drop was his first attempt, and he's stayed at that for a few months now, atleast. He's now trying to shift the rest, but he hates it.

Jungledoc wrote:
And yes, correlation is not causation.


I believe all we really have on both sides of the fence here is correlation. Unless i'm mistaken. So, conlusion is left to opinion, that was my point, really. I don't think it's 'wrong' to just believe something, simply because there's no rock solid evidence to support your view.

Jungledoc wrote:
My point is that we're ALL missing something here. This is stuff that no one understands, even endocrinologists, few of whom concern themselves with this kind of research. I don't think the plight of the extremely obese is as simple as eating too much. Until there is more knowledge of the physiology involved, and of interventions, I think that the right thing is to offer those people compassion and understanding, and give them the best advise we have at the moment, which is low-carb eating and exercise with emphasis on resistance exercise.


I agree and always have. I'm just more concerned with how they got there in the first place. I 'believe' this is the real cause. "eating too much" is a very simple way of putting it, but with people so out of control, surely a simple approach is the only realistic approach.

About the only thing I don't agree with is that calories in vs calories out has nothing to do with it. From what I can gather and I welcome being corrected, there's a thought process here that, because there's more to do it than calories, then, calories are nothing to do with it. That's as black and white as me saying "no morbidly obese person has a medical condition, they're just fat and greedy" - which i've never said.

I agree on the compassion point. Trust me, if I didn't have compassion for it, then I wouldn't care much for the majority of my family. A notorious statement my dad has made is "when my sisters come and visit me, I feel like i'm in celebrity fat club". I don't think getting someone to eat less and move more is cruel in any way unless you do it like the biggest loser does. Also agree on the advice point - low carb and exercise. However, all that's doing is increasing expenditure whilst decreasing calories, which has about as much evidence to support it as the there is the existence of Unicorns, if i'm understanding Ironman Correctly :lol:

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:04 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6427
Location: Halifax, NS
There are a lot of people who don't respond to the normal rules. This is the medical intervention group.

The normal majority, as a group, is growing fatter all the time. This group should respond to proper diet and exercise. This is the group that we (non-medical) should be focusing on, but you can't assume everyone is in that group and diet and exercise won't be the complete solution for everyone.

I think Doc hit it bang on with "This is stuff that no one understands".

In the meantime we can continue to bash the media, gov'ment, big biz, big agra, big oil, etc for puting us in the mess we're in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:29 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Ironman wrote:
frogbyte wrote:
Yes, the extremely obese require a huge amount of calories to maintain their fat - the poor cardiovascular system is constantly in overdrive to try to keep blood flowing everywhere.


...

In other words, no, we don't know that and what we do know points somewhere else entirely.


This is simple stuff. There is a non-zero cost to keeping a cell alive. If you have 500 lbs of cell mass to keep alive, the calorie cost is higher than if you have 100 lbs of equivalent cell mass.

Do you dispute that hugely obese people have cardiovascular problems with higher heart rates?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:43 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6427
Location: Halifax, NS
When you were about 15 you probably went through a growth spurt where you gained a few inches of height in a relatively short time. You probably ate a lot during that time as well. Did the eating cause the growth, or did the growth cause the eating? Does an obese person gain fat because he eats too much or does he eat more because he gaining fat?

The obese's cardio system is often worked to the limit all the time. When building muscle, you work hard and then recover for a couple of days. That makes you stronger and grows muscle. If you worked hard all the time without recovery, you'd get weaker and your muscle would waste away. The human body is not designed to go flat out all the time. It's meant to go in spurts followed by recovery. That's why being obese is a risk factor for heart attacks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well I wasn't originally commenting on the cause of obesity. I was merely saying that if you want to maintain obesity you must eat a lot to keep all that mass alive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:11 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6427
Location: Halifax, NS
frogbyte wrote:
Well I wasn't originally commenting on the cause of obesity. I was merely saying that if you want to maintain obesity you must eat a lot to keep all that mass alive.


That would imply that simply eating less would cause the obesity to subside. I'm suggesting that it's not that simple.

I'd like to provide a link to the Taubes/Bray debate. I think Taubes summed up the "alternative hypothesis" quite well.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weig ... orge-bray/

Quote:
The alternative hypothesis begins with the fundamental observation that
obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation and then asks the
obvious question, what regulates fat accumulation.


Quote:
Thus, the alternative hypothesis: excess fat
accumulation is caused fundamentally by the effect of dietary
carbohydrates on insulin and of insulin on adipocytes. In this hypothesis
overeating and sedentary behavior – i.e. positive energy balance – are
compensatory effects of accumulating excess fat, not causes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well I certainly agree that breaking the hyper-insulin cycle many people are stuck in is the key to long-term health. I doubt it's possible to get to 400 lbs of blubber without eating non-paleo high-carb food.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4441
Location: Pennsylvania
"Well I wasn't originally commenting on the cause of obesity. I was merely saying that if you want to maintain obesity you must eat a lot to keep all that mass alive." - frogbyte

Not as much as you might think. Unlike muscle tissue, bodyfat burns very few calories. A soft, sedentary 300 lb man might actually eat signifigantly less each day than an active, muscular 200 lb man.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group