Why do we get fat?

[HadEnuff]

This is what it all comes down to. It's like saying no to drugs. It's easy if that's the way you are put together, and it can be incredibly hard if you are not. I am always hungry, sometimes even when I've finished a meal. When I was working I would eat lunch with thin/normal size friends, and they would get about half what I would get, and not finish it. I, on the other hand, would only not get more out of embarrassment. I don't know if it's physical or psychological or what, but if I wasn't always hungry I'd be much thinner. I know it's possible to overcome with extreme application of willpower, but it's very hard, and even if I lose weight it's very difficult to keep it off. I've tried many of the diets and not a one of them has ever dealt with the hunger issue.

And I actually eat quite healthily, most of the time. I love veggies, I haven't had a sugary soda in decades, I don't eat too many processed carbs. I just eat a lot. When I quit drinking alcohol I lose some weight, about 7-10 lbs. That's an easy fix. But it's the food that's the hard part. If there was a drug (other than meth or coke) that would stop my hunger I'd probably lose 50 lbs in a year.

How much exercise do you get?
Do drink enough water?

My wife is quite fit, and to be honest, it upsets her when heavier people assume it's "easy" for her. It isn't. It requires a lot of effort, at times when frankly, she'd rather not put that effort forth. Sometimes it requires not eating something that at that moment, she'd rather eat.

When I quit smoking it wasn't easy. I substituted water and exercise, every time I wanted a smoke. You might try something like that to get you started.

Good luck!

 

[nash031]

We get fat - or at least gain weight - because we consume more calories than we burn. I don't think the science on that is under debate.

There are many, many factors which determine how many calories we burn (exercise, natural metabolism, hormones, other body processes such as pregnancy, etc.) and many more that determine how much we consume (carbs, insulin sensitivity, portion control, hunger and satiety, hormones, etc.), but the bottom line is still calories in vs. calories out. The type of weight we gain or lose - predominantly muscle vs. predominantly fat - is determined by the stresses on our bodies while taking in more calories or burning more.

But you can't just gain muscle without also gaining fat, just like you can't just burn fat without also burning muscle. The body doesn't work that way. You can burn or gain more of one than the other depending on how you exercise, but you're not going to be able to only gain one or the other... it's all calories in vs. calories out.

 

[MoneyCat]

I think the soup has more liquid and make you feel fuller. I used to love in-out-burger and shake but can't eat fast carb any more.

I feel sick when I eat fast food now so I avoid it. Strange how the body adjusts to healthy eating.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[karen1972]

We get fat - or at least gain weight - because we consume more calories than we burn. I don't think the science on that is under debate.

There are many, many factors which determine how many calories we burn (exercise, natural metabolism, hormones, other body processes such as pregnancy, etc.) and many more that determine how much we consume (carbs, insulin sensitivity, portion control, hunger and satiety, hormones, etc.), but the bottom line is still calories in vs. calories out.

Not sure how you can say hormones and insulin sensitivity impact calaries burned and then say its just calories in vs calories out.. ie every calorie isn't counted the same in your body. Carbs and Proteins are treated differently in your body...so not all calories are the same.

 

[nash031]

Not sure how you can say hormones and insulin sensitivity impact calaries burned and then say its just calories in vs calories out.. ie every calorie isn't counted the same in your body. Carbs and Proteins are treated differently in your body...so not all calories are the same.

No, I can say that because it is the mechanism of how we gain mass as humans: calories in vs. calories out.

I made pains in that post to acknowledge that there are many factors that affect how fast we burn calories and how many calories we are able to and desire to consume, but the biological mechanism of weight gain is the body's response to excess calories. 3000 calories more than your body needs will generally equate to a lb of weight gained. How, where and what that weight gain manifests is dependent on many other factors. How many calories your body needs is dependent on many factors.

But the biological mechanism is the same.

 

[donheff]

It is a tautology that calories in must be less than calories out to lose weight and must be balanced to maintain weight. But the idea that we can achieve that balance by counting calories seems ludicrous - if you miscount by a few you would be out of balance but the charts and measures have to be off significantly. Instead it seems logical to me that if we eat the right stuff (and maybe that is different for individuals) our bodies will tell us how much to eat to maintain balance.

That worked for me. Four years ago I lost 35 pounds on a lowish carb diet and got to my ideal weight. Then I added rice and potatoes back in but stayed away from sugar and highly processed junk. I have stayed +- 2 pounds ever since. I watch what I eat but never worry about how much I eat. My body must be taking care of that for me.

 

[Fedup]

Rice and potato turn into sugar in our body. We eat minimum Cal Rose rice, not jasmine rice. Jasmine rice breaks down too fast. For potato, we switched to have yam fries vs potato fries, or potato chip or celeriac or parsnip. Mashed potato has vey high glycemic index. Smallish boiled potato is ok, if eaten occasionally. My husband can have a few potato chips a day. The key thing is to eat so that you maintain your blood sugar level. No high, no low either. Also eat vegetables with more orange color, like pumpkin or butternut squash, they are good for you and possibly your brain.

 

[Amethyst]

I'm not "naturally thin" and would rather not exercise sometimes (OK, most of the time...), and a lot of times I'd like to eat dessert but tell myself no. However, it doesn't bother me when other people say things like "Oh, you can eat whatever you want. If I just look at food, I get fat." Why not let them have their fantasies. I realize they are just trying to make themselves feel better and it really is nothing personal.

I do find diet and exercise to be tedious topics unless I'm around people who know more than I do (as many forum members do) and can really teach me something (as some of you have). So I usually try to change the subject.

My wife is quite fit, and to be honest, it upsets her when heavier people assume it's "easy" for her. It isn't. It requires a lot of effort, at times when frankly, she'd rather not put that effort forth. Sometimes it requires not eating something that at that moment, she'd rather eat.

!

 

[dadu007]

I've cast my vote for Gary Taubes on this forum before, so I won't weigh in again on the validity of his findings, but I will lend this knowledge from my own empirical observations of my oldest son, who has type 1 diabetes: A carb is definitely not a carb. Refined carbs affect blood glucose levels very differently than carbs with a lower glycemic index and lead to insulin resistance.
CICO is a gross oversimplification of a very complex process and the vast majority of people who follow it usually gain most or all of the weight back. (See "The Biggest Loser" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html)

 

[nash031]

I think people are misinterpreting "CICO". Sorry for the oversimplification, but it is why we gain weight.

The impact of a food on your blood glucose doesn't cause weight gain. It causes your body to desire more sugar in order to maintain your glucose levels, which causes you to eat more, which causes you to gain weight.

So paying attention to glycemic indexes of food and managing blood sugar and insulin responses is managing your body's desire to take in calories. Those who have issues like diabetes and insulin insensitivities do not gain weight because their blood sugar gets out of whack. They gain weight because when their blood sugar gets out of whack they have to eat to stabilize it, and thus take in more calories... and if they aren't burning those calories, they gain weight.

Someone else said a calorie from protein is not the same as a calorie of carbs. That's not true... a calorie is a calorie. 1g of protein provides 4 calories of energy. 1g of carbs provides 4 calories of energy. 1g of fat provides 9 calories of energy. That they burn differently is inconsequential as it applies to weight gain.

What factors in is that 20g of protein is far, far more filling and satisfying and has less effect on your immediate blood glucose reaction than 20g of sugar-based carbs. Thus, you feel full and have less desire to eat after having the protein (or fat) than you are after the carbs, and since your blood sugar is stable, you don't feel the need to eat more after the protein than after the carbs.

So yeah, weight gain in general is very complex as is the body, but the mechanism that causes cellular growth in your body is based on the excess energy you consume in the form of food (calories) over what your body needs. Those needs are determined by a variety of other genetic, hormonal, metabolic, etc., factors, but ultimately if Michael friggin' Phelps eats more than his body needs, he's going to gain weight just like the rest of us, even if that means he has to eat 7000 calories a day to do so, where as someone else gains weight when they eat 1500/day.

 

[bclover]

It is funny.... I was over at a friends house yesterday and talking about losing weight...

We have been told that fat is bad for us... do not eat fat...

We have been told that carbs are bad for us... do not eat carbs...

And recently I read that Americans get too much protein... so protein is bad for us... do not eat too much protein....


Well, there is nothing left to eat!!! That is it... every food fits into one of those categories....

 

[photoguy]

Precise measurement of calorie intake along with calories out measurement has been very helpful for my wife. She had done all the usual things (more exercise, better diet, etc) but had been plateauing until she a got a fitbit and she started measuring all foods with a scale.

I understand that there is variability in the accessibility of energy in foods (supposedly they measure this by burning feces and there's some range depending on the food and the individual). And of course it would be unrealistic to expect the fitbit measurement of CO to be very accurate.

But I don't think inaccuracy is really that much of an issue from a practical perspective. Given that we are creatures of habits, any errors in the CICO measurement would probably be consistent from week to week. So one can just increase/decrease the target gap to adjust.

On the positive side, measuring all foods has helped in that she can return to enjoying various guilty pleasures like meringues or ice cream. Measuring the food with a scale also helps incredibly with portion control -- no way to fool yourself that you're eating less than you are.

 

[NW-Bound]

...you feel full and have less desire to eat after having the protein (or fat) than you are after the carbs, and since your blood sugar is stable, you don't feel the need to eat more after the protein than after the carbs...

Between 500 calories from protein and 500 calories from carbohydrate, the former takes longer for your body to digest and keeps you feeling full longer. It helps you to avoid overeating.

I have been paying attention to the glycemic index of food, and it is true that food with a high-glycemic index gets me hungry again a lot sooner than food with a low index. Bread, ramen noodle, steamed rice, crackers are terrible at getting you to eat more and develop diabetes at the same time. I do not avoid all carb, and in fact still eat a lot of carb. I just watch out to not snack on carby food when I feel hungry. A piece of cheese, some almonds, or even beef jerky is now my snack preference.

By the way, glycemic index of a food item is measured by having test subjects eating it alone. In real life, you do not eat just bread or steamed white rice. Other foods taken at the same time will slow down the conversion and absorption of the bad glycemic food. For example, they found out that fried rice is a lot better than steamed rice. Apparently, the oil used for frying slows down the absorption.

 

[dadu007]

So yeah, weight gain in general is very complex as is the body, but the mechanism that causes cellular growth in your body is based on the excess energy you consume in the form of food (calories) over what your body needs. Those needs are determined by a variety of other genetic, hormonal, metabolic, etc., factors,

Key words highlighted, which you gloss over, but that make all the difference.
Taubes' is saying that in certain people, many people, the mechanism for converting carbs to fat (or fuel) has gone haywire. It could be that the trigger is that the type of carbs have changed from generations before (certainly the amount has changed); it could also be that plus some environmental or hormonal trigger. SOMETHING has changed. Fat genesis becomes abnormal. CICO does not adequately explain the obesity epidemic.
Certainly the CICO premise makes it easy and convenient to shame overweight people.

 

[haha]

One thing I am certain of in this diet controversy, there will never be agreement here. People agree on a website organized to support low carb, or low fat, or CICO, or likely anything else under the sun. Not going to happen here, or anywhere else where people are gathered for various reasons other than a buy-in to certain weight maintenance ideas. I do think that people here, who have demonstrated extreme self control in most areas of life, are more likely to be able to succeed at this dietary control than the general population.

Personally, I do not like deprivation, and I might not be able to succeed using the will power method.

Same with exercise. Early on I realized that a coach would have a lot more success driving me to big outputs than I would have driving myself, because I really do not enjoy self inflicted pain.

Ha

 

[mpeirce]

CICO is a tautology - sure it's true, but it's not necessarily helpful.

It's like saying quitting smoking is easy, you just have to put down the cigarette. Sure, but...

I've watched various relatives quit smoking over the years. Most tried and failed and tried and failed before finally quitting. One DID just quit one day - it was easy for her.

Losing weight is analogous to this. Some people find it easy to adjust their eating habits, for others is a huge struggle.

Telling people that ALL it takes to lose weight is to eat less just isn't helpful.

 

[NW-Bound]

... Some people find it easy to adjust their eating habits, for others is a huge struggle.

Telling people that ALL it takes to lose weight is to eat less just isn't helpful.

Yes. That's why people need to avail themselves of tips and tricks to make it easier. One should eat more slowly, avoid high-caloric carby snacks, drink less sugary soft drink, etc... An egg has but 70 calories, compared to some crackers with 2x or 3x that for just a handful. Eat two eggs, and man, they stay in your stomach forever.

 

[misanman]

CICO works for me. I generally eat whatever I want. As long as I keep the total calorie count in line with what I burn by activity my weight is stable. If I consume less than I expend I tend to lose weight. And the opposite is true as well.

Sent from my XT1575 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[nash031]

Key words highlighted, which you gloss over, but that make all the difference.
Taubes' is saying that in certain people, many people, the mechanism for converting carbs to fat (or fuel) has gone haywire. It could be that the trigger is that the type of carbs have changed from generations before (certainly the amount has changed); it could also be that plus some environmental or hormonal trigger. SOMETHING has changed. Fat genesis becomes abnormal. CICO does not adequately explain the obesity epidemic.
Certainly the CICO premise makes it easy and convenient to shame overweight people.

I resent the implication that I'm "fat shaming" anyone for stating biological fact. As I said, many people struggle with weight for a variety of reasons, but those reasons are not causing the biological and cellular metabolic process of fat genesis to change in humans. Certainly it is much harder for some people to: (1) determine their caloric needs; (2) manage their caloric needs; and (3) sustain healthy lifestyle in the face of all kinds of issues that others don't have to deal with. A lot of it has to do with foods that are processed to be borderline addictive and a constant deluge of advertising that isn't focused on eating plants and animals.

Carbs do not get converted to fat. Calories in excess are converted to energy for cell production which tends towards fat unless the body requires more muscle, skin, whatever, to grow. It's why we eat more when we're growing up. It's why we eat more when we're healing from injuries. It's why we eat more to bulk up to be stronger. It's why some people get fat. If you eat too much of anything, it will convert to some kind of cell in your body based on what your body needs. When your body doesn't need anything, it stores fat in order to be prepared for time of famine (which in our case, never come) so that it has fuel to burn when glycogen (which is replenished by glucose in the blood) in muscles and organs is depleted.

That the process by which fat (and muscle and other cells in general as I said) is generated in the human body is the same as it ever has been does not mean anyone is "fat shaming" anyone. I don't know what Taube is selling or pushing, but the suggestion that "some" or "many" people have somehow evolved to process carbohydrates differently in the last, what, forty years, is implausible to the point of being ridiculous.

 

[MRG]

It is funny.... I was over at a friends house yesterday and talking about losing weight...

We have been told that fat is bad for us... do not eat fat...

We have been told that carbs are bad for us... do not eat carbs...

And recently I read that Americans get too much protein... so protein is bad for us... do not eat too much protein....


Well, there is nothing left to eat!!! That is it... every food fits into one of those categories....

Fat free, zero carb, and no protein. Have all you want:
https://goo.gl/images/8L51Qk

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[nash031]

Fat free, zero carb, and no protein. Have all you want:
https://goo.gl/images/8L51Qk

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

That can cause hypernatremia. [emoji1]

 

[Marita40]

People can argue about this until the cows come home, but despite all the controversy and the many things yet unknown people like me who want to lose weight need to get on with it. I lose weight by 1) counting calories and keeping them to 1200 per day; 2) eating mostly vegetables, protein, fruit, nuts and seeds with minimal low carb products (i.e. the whole wheat low carb low calorie tortilla I had as a fajita base for dinner today); 3) drinking lots of water; 4) tracking everything; 5) avoiding sugar and baked goods, fast food and any other such nutritional nightmares; 6) making all this a daily habit.
I'm not saying this is easy. But it is not rocket science and it works, week after week.

 

[Fedup]

CICO is a tautology - sure it's true, but it's not necessarily helpful.

It's like saying quitting smoking is easy, you just have to put down the cigarette. Sure, but...

I've watched various relatives quit smoking over the years. Most tried and failed and tried and failed before finally quitting. One DID just quit one day - it was easy for her.

Losing weight is analogous to this. Some people find it easy to adjust their eating habits, for others is a huge struggle.

Telling people that ALL it takes to lose weight is to eat less just isn't helpful.

It isn't helpful to everybody because there is no one size fits all on anything. This why we have to try a few things to see what works. I hate counting calories, so I never count calories.

Btw on the stop smoking, another anecdote. My brother quit cold turkey after smoking for more than 10 years. The birth of his first child. Much better motivator.

 

[NW-Bound]

We never count calories. My wife eats so little, it does not matter what she eats, so calorific intake is never her concern.

As for myself, within the last few years, I developed the habit of reading labels on food containers to see how many calories each type of food has, and I was shocked at carby food. But I still do not count calories or add them up. What I do is to weigh myself each day. If I get above the BMI of 24, I tell myself to eat less.

 

[Fedup]

I don't weight myself everyday either. Only once in a blue moon.