The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[marplots]

For the second time in a row, I never said it doesn't require any energy to eat. I am saying, that people's metabolic rates are different. Meaning, they burn fats, sugars, starches, and calories at different rates!

Quite true. Which means some people take longer to starve than others. But no one is immune to starvation.

 

[The Norseman]

Quite true. Which means some people take longer to starve than others. But no one is immune to starvation.

Is this your refutation of metabolic rates so you can bang on about laziness?

 

[marplots]

Is this your refutation of metabolic rates so you can bang on about laziness?

No. The original point was that it takes more effort to gain than lose weight. So long as the metabolic rate isn't zero or less, the point stands as a biological fact. All this bit about how people differ doesn't challenge that fact at all.

 

[rustypouch]

This is the biggest pile of steaming horse manure I have read in a thread of nothing but big piles of steaming horse manure.

Apparently, The Atheist knows very little to nothing at all about biology. So lemme give a (VERY!) brief synopsis here:

Evolution:

Humans have evolved, over the course of over a hundred thousand years, to quickly and easily put on weight in the form of fat. Like almost all other animals, during times of food scarcity, you have a storage of fat that your body can rely on for energy. And let's face it: For the vast majority of human history (up until about 150 years ago,) food has always been very, very scarce. The vast majority of all humans who have ever lived, have died from starvation than any other cause.

So yes. It is, in fact, a HELL of a lot easier to put on weight, than to lose it! 100,000 years of evolution that led to you, ensures that is so.

Biology:

Each individual person is different. Some people have lighter colored skin, and others have dark colored skin. There are various shades of skin color in between. Likewise, some people have blue eyes, some brown, some green. Some people have blond hair, some brown, some red. Everyone has different facial features. Some people have big noses, some people have small ears. Some people have high cheek bones. Some people are tall, some are short. Some people have broad shoulders, and some people have wide hips.

Those are just external differences that one can very easily see at a glance.

If there are external features that mark each human being as being "different," it follows that inevitably, there are INTERNAL differences as well. Some people have higher blood pressure than others. Some people have messed up nasal passages, and some have deformed ear canals.

And, this is my main point, some people have higher metabolism than others.

There are also eating disorders, and not through any fault of anyone. One in particular is called Prader-Willi syndrome.

When you never feel full, how in the world can you blame a person for wanting to eat?

Now for a personal anecdote:

Comparison between myself, and my best friend:

I am 6'0 tall even. At my heaviest, I weighed in at 300lbs. I was a pretty good athlete most of my life. I have always exercised, and lifted weights. Around age 25, I started putting on weight as soon as I got out of my regular exercise regimen. (And honestly, my diet was never all that bad. I literally only ate at McDonald's like a handful of times in my life. I eat a lot of vegetables and fruits. I just enjoy eating those foods. Once in a while, I would partake in a really nice steak dinner. Not too often, as steak can be downright expensive.)

My best friend, on the other hand, is 6'3. He probably weighs all of about 200 pounds. Maybe. A veritable bean pole. This guy can easily down an entire pizza, 12' hoagie, and drink a 2 liter Pepsi by himself. I would gain about 10 pounds just for sniffing said pizza. Nevermind touching it.

I have two jobs: One as a freelance web designer, and another working at a circuit board manufacturing plant where I am on my feet 8+ hours a day. My friend only has one full-time job where he sits in front of the computer virtually all day. Then he comes home, and is a gamer. Whereas, I get home, and I hit the gym for an hour each day.

After reaching my max weight of 310 lbs, it took me the better part of a year of getting back into working out every single year to get back down to 270. Another year to get down to 250. And I have to work very, very hard and pay very close attention to what I eat in order to maintain my weight at 250 at the height of 6 ft.

My friend literally does nothing, and is barely 200 lbs at the height of 6'3.

So no. Weight can have very, very little to do with "choices." Sure, you can maintain good health, and some people have to work very hard at maintaining a healthy weight. Some people have to do nothing at all to remain skinny. (Although, eating nothing but pizza, hoagies, and Pepsi....no matter how fast your metabolism....is never healthy.)

So, yeah. You are so full of BS when you make the idiotic claim that "it requires no effort to lose weight." Yes. It does. For many people, it requires nearly Herculean effort to lose even an ounce of fat.

Wow... there's just so much ridiculousness here...

I'll let our friend NDT articulate for me.

 

[Nihilianth]

No. The original point was that it takes more effort to gain than lose weight. So long as the metabolic rate isn't zero or less, the point stands as a biological fact. All this bit about how people differ doesn't challenge that fact at all.

Oh, yes it certainly does. My metabolism is a lot lower than my friend's. It takes a lot less work for me to gain weight, than it would for him. Simply because my body just happens to not metabolize calories as rigorously has his does.

The original claim that I responded to, was an overarching broad brush of "losing weight is easy. Gaining weight is much harder."

It's such a ridiculous claim, because of the variety of ways in which different human bodies react to the same foods. I have acid reflux. Eating spicy things...hell, just drinking coffee...makes me sick. I know people who are lactose intolerant. Eating dairy products makes them sick. I have a cousin who is severely allergic to peanuts. Eating a peanut could potentially kill him.

Just sitting here, and making the idiotic statement that: "It is easy to lose weight, but hard to gain weight" (probably because you, yourself are a decent weight and maybe with a high metabolism) is so simplistically shortsighted. Again, I eat a few slices of pizza, I gain weight. My best friend can down an entire 12' pizza pie, eat a 12' hoagie, and drink two liters of pepsi and gain not an ounce of fat. Why? Because he is him, and I am me. Our bodies process food incredibly differently. As differently as someone who is lactose intolerant, and someone who is not.

Essentially it's the same broad-based argument as: "Drinking fresh pasteurized milk cannot make you sick." I am arguing that for some people it does make them sick. "It's easier to lose weight than to gain it." I am arguing that for some people that is completely false. That's my argument.

 

[Nihilianth]

Wow... there's just so much ridiculousness here...

I'll let our friend NDT articulate for me.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_96754bc2a4865fbc.jpg[/qimg]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a physicist. Not a biologist. Also, link. Also, strawman.

Is this your refutation of metabolic rates so you can bang on about laziness?

A rather ironic argument, isn't it?

 

[rustypouch]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a physicist. Not a biologist. Also, link. Also, strawman.



A rather ironic argument, isn't it?

Here's the Twitter link: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/342005336712040449

Weight control is simple. Consume more energy than you burn, you'll gain weight. Burn more energy than you consume, and you'll lose weight. Of course, this is over the long term, and one meal won't make a huge difference. The fact is, excess weight comes from excess food consumption, it doesn't just happen without reason.

It might be simple, but it can be difficult, and there's all sorts of faulty logic, excuses, and rationalizations people use. The fact is, excess weight comes from excess food consumption, it doesn't just happen without reason.

 

[marplots]

Oh, yes it certainly does. My metabolism is a lot lower than my friend's. It takes a lot less work for me to gain weight, than it would for him. Simply because my body just happens to not metabolize calories as rigorously has his does.

That's an error in reasoning, since you do not experience the effort your friend does. I think this is worth dilating on...

The mistake is using a "between" comparison instead of a "within" comparison. If I and a horse set out to walk a mile, the horse can rightly say that it took more effort (more calories burned) for the horse than me. In fact, if we limit how many calories are burned, the horse might have to stop after a half mile. It could rightly say (by using a "between" comparison) that it takes less effort to walk a mile (when I do it) than walking half a mile (when the horse does it). But obesity and effort should properly be measured as a "within" - on an individual basis, comparing me to me.

The original claim that I responded to, was an overarching broad brush of "losing weight is easy. Gaining weight is much harder."

The point stands. Since I'm using animals (to avoid the "fat shaming" trope), I present the bear. He's out consuming as much as possible during the spring and summer, expending energy far above his metabolic minimum. But because he is consuming many more calories than he is using, he gains a tremendous amount of weight.

That same bear then goes into hibernation. Now, he's at a metabolic minimum (his "zero" point) and making no effort. He loses weight. Why? Because, even though he is making no effort, his metabolic minimum still burns calories.

Just sitting here, and making the idiotic statement that: "It is easy to lose weight, but hard to gain weight" (probably because you, yourself are a decent weight and maybe with a high metabolism) is so simplistically shortsighted. Again, I eat a few slices of pizza, I gain weight. My best friend can down an entire 12' pizza pie, eat a 12' hoagie, and drink two liters of pepsi and gain not an ounce of fat. Why? Because he is him, and I am me. Our bodies process food incredibly differently. As differently as someone who is lactose intolerant, and someone who is not.

This is also an error in reasoning. It revolves around an ambiguous use of the word "effort." And it highlights the value of using a biological/physiological metric - calories consumed vs. utilized.

Jimmy, our test subject, is a junior in high school. He has two tasks of import today. The first is to audition for the orchestra. He has to play the violin while standing and reading sheet music. Jimmy enjoys this task, and is good at it.

His second task is to pass an algebra test, something he worries about because math is quite difficult for him.

On a calories-burned basis, the violin test takes much more effort. He's standing, concentrating hard, moving the bow (rather dramatically) and so on. But if you ask him, he'll tell you the algebra test took much more "effort."

The problem here is using effort to mean a kind of psychological and emotional state that is perceived to be harder, even though, on a calories burned basis, it isn't. That is the value of looking at calories instead of personal experience. The calorie measurement doesn't lie, gives reliable results, and can be the basis for intervention, since it is directly related to the matter of interest - overall weight.

Essentially it's the same broad-based argument as: "Drinking fresh pasteurized milk cannot make you sick." I am arguing that for some people it does make them sick. "It's easier to lose weight than to gain it." I am arguing that for some people that is completely false. That's my argument.

Calorie consumption isn't variable enough for your objection to hold. It is quite fundamental and applicable, not only for humans, but (as I hoped to show with my horse and bear examples) applicable across species as well. It cuts through the nuances - and that's the value of using it as a metric.

 

[bit_pattern]

The point stands. Since I'm using animals (to avoid the "fat shaming" trope), I present the bear. He's out consuming as much as possible during the spring and summer, expending energy far above his metabolic minimum. But because he is consuming many more calories than he is using, he gains a tremendous amount of weight.

That same bear then goes into hibernation. Now, he's at a metabolic minimum (his "zero" point) and making no effort. He loses weight. Why? Because, even though he is making no effort, his metabolic minimum still burns calories.

A mistake you are making here is that avoiding calories intake requires no effort. That's nonsense. I've just been watching BBC Horizon: The Right Diet for You and they took a large number of overweight volunteers and did extensive testing to identify why each specific individual overeats.

The identified three groups:

Emotional eaters - people for whom overeating is a psychological response.

Feasters - people who for reasons of genetics have lower amounts of specific hormones that send signals from the gut to the brain to tell them that they are full.

Constant cravers - people who, again due to genetics, have problems with the signals going to their brains that tell them their body fat reserves are full, meaning their brains are constantly being told that they are hungry.

They put each group on a diet specific to each condition and tailored to getting past the root cause and allowing the individual to develop healthy habits.

At the three to four week mark, every group was registering fatigue and emotional distress because they had to work hard to fight the chemical urges. The fatigue was particularly pronounced in the constant cravers because in virtually every waking hour they were having to fight with the impulses that cause them to seek out food - they did experiments to track eye movements on different groups, this one group were registering brain activity three times higher than any of the others when confronted with food stimuli (seeing food being sold, seeing ads for food, seeing people eating).

For people with these conditions the constant energy needed to stick to their diet and fight the impulses was physically, emotionally and mentally exhausting.

The idea that not eating food is easier than eating food is complete woo dreamed up by people who have never actually experienced the effort required to fight chemical impulses in their body, nor seen/provided/developed any evidence beyond the assumptions based in their own personal experience to support the notion that not eating is easier than eating.

The problem here is using effort to mean a kind of psychological and emotional state that is perceived to be harder, even though, on a calories burned basis, it isn't. That is the value of looking at calories instead of personal experience. The calorie measurement doesn't lie, gives reliable results, and can be the basis for intervention, since it is directly related to the matter of interest - overall weight.

Again, this is nonsense too. The mental/emotional and physical stress of avoiding food might very well expend a lot of calories but the solution for relieving that stress - i.e. eating - far exceeds that being expended. So while eating is adding calories, the actual fact of eating is also using up less calories because it requires less effort.

 

[casebro]

Apparently food addiction may be chemical addiction. I thought it was just the brain's chemicals, but it seems the various organs do actually make Morphine.

Here is one link: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14091.abstract
" Without doubt, human cells can produce the alkaloid morphine. "

That link was research with cancer cells, but what brought me that knowledge was looking into Proline specific enzymes that break down gluten, for when making gluten free beer. Seems the anti-gluten fanatics are right about gluten being addictive. I hadn't looked into the background of that until a couple days ago. Seems days ago I read that it is made in healthy pancreas cells too. It was a different study looking for endogenous morphine in different organs. Sounds to me that some people get a bigger kick out of eating.

Perhaps the obese have some poor calibrations that makes extra large amounts of morphines?

 

[marplots]

A mistake you are making here is that avoiding calories intake requires no effort. That's nonsense.

In the extreme, it actually requires no effort. That's the point. But in any case, and on a calorie burned basis, it always requires less effort not to eat than to eat - unless, perhaps we envision someone who has to fight off being force fed.

I've just been watching BBC Horizon: The Right Diet for You and they took a large number of overweight volunteers and did extensive testing to identify why each specific individual overeats.

The identified three groups:

Emotional eaters - people for whom overeating is a psychological response.

Feasters - people who for reasons of genetics have lower amounts of specific hormones that send signals from the gut to the brain to tell them that they are full.

Constant cravers - people who, again due to genetics, have problems with the signals going to their brains that tell them their body fat reserves are full, meaning their brains are constantly being told that they are hungry.

They put each group on a diet specific to each condition and tailored to getting past the root cause and allowing the individual to develop healthy habits.

Which of these groups burns more calories not eating than eating?

At the three to four week mark, every group was registering fatigue and emotional distress because they had to work hard to fight the chemical urges. The fatigue was particularly pronounced in the constant cravers because in virtually every waking hour they were having to fight with the impulses that cause them to seek out food - they did experiments to track eye movements on different groups, this one group were registering brain activity three times higher than any of the others when confronted with food stimuli (seeing food being sold, seeing ads for food, seeing people eating).

For people with these conditions the constant energy needed to stick to their diet and fight the impulses was physically, emotionally and mentally exhausting.

Were they able to demonstrate that "worked harder" and "having to fight the impulse" burned more calories than the opposite conditions? That would certainly argue against my idea.

On the other hand, if the conditions you are describing do not have a concomitant calorie outlay, you are using "effort" to mean something different than I am - more of a psychological/emotional feeling of "working hard," and not the biological/metabolism meaning.

The idea that not eating food is easier than eating food is complete woo dreamed up by people who have never actually experienced the effort required to fight chemical impulses in their body, nor seen/provided/developed any evidence beyond the assumptions based in their own personal experience to support the notion that not eating is easier than eating.

Complete woo? Did you read about weight loss during coma? Explain how being in a coma is harder than not.

What you seem to be saying is that people who are prone to obesity find it mentally difficult to avoid eating while living their day-to-day lives, in situations where the decision to eat or not eat is constantly before them. No one disputes this. No one disputes that we can be driven by hormonal and biological urges either. But we even have examples of anorectics/bulimics for whom not eating is the norm and eating causes the anxiety.

The only and sole point I've been making is that it costs more calories to eat than not eat. And this, only because there is a physical activity that burns calories in the one case and not as much in the other.

However, I am open to a study showing this is not the case. I'd find it surprising and would want an explanation, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm, not entirely sure what you point is? Are you saying that if people would just overcome 4 billion years of evolution and deny their own survival instincts that would be easier than consuming calories and they would lose weight?

If you think that the human body can be reduced down to a simplistic calorie-in-calorie out model whereby "effort" can only be measured by calorie expenditure - so that controlling fundamental biological instincts is somehow easier than responding to them because the physical action requires more caloric output, well, that's just reductionist idiocy so far removed from the real world that it doesn't deserve to be dignified with anything approaching a rebuttal. It is just stupid.

 

[marplots]

I'm, not entirely sure what you point is? Are you saying that if people would just overcome 4 billion years of evolution and deny their own survival instincts that would be easier than consuming calories and they would lose weight?

If you think that the human body can be reduced down to a simplistic calorie-in-calorie out model whereby "effort" can only be measured by calorie expenditure - so that controlling fundamental biological instincts is somehow easier than responding to them because the physical action requires more caloric output, well, that's just reductionist idiocy so far removed from the real world that it doesn't deserve to be dignified with anything approaching a rebuttal. It is just stupid.

That's what I thought too. That it was so obvious as to not require any explanation. However, I found out differently when others chose to dispute the point.

As far as it being "just reductionist idiocy," well, the topic is related to reduction, after all. And, I get the feeling that some are willing to ignore the fundamental principles in service to some kind of self-justification.

The idea of getting people to change their behavior as the difficult barrier to conquering obesity is fine, but we shouldn't lose sight of the underlying physiology - the biological facts have to both set the goals and validate the path to those goals. Otherwise, there's no particular reason to lose any weight at all. If it feels better to eat and be fat, the psychological pain is assuaged. The only reason weight-loss is a "thing" is because of the health effects, another word for the biological effects. And that takes us right back down the reductionist hole.

 

[Nihilianth]

Here's the Twitter link: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/342005336712040449

Weight control is simple. Consume more energy than you burn, you'll gain weight. Burn more energy than you consume, and you'll lose weight. Of course, this is over the long term, and one meal won't make a huge difference. The fact is, excess weight comes from excess food consumption, it doesn't just happen without reason.

It might be simple, but it can be difficult, and there's all sorts of faulty logic, excuses, and rationalizations people use. The fact is, excess weight comes from excess food consumption, it doesn't just happen without reason.

I get your point, but you are not arguing against anything I have said. It was a strawman.

While, simplistically put, it is true that you must burn more energy than you take in in order to lose weight. However, it is actually more complicated than that. It isn't just about caloric intake vs. metabolic rate. It is about "what foods, and in what quantities should be consumed that will maximize an individual person's metabolic rate, while burning more fat than calories you are taking in?"

You are right about one thing: It can be difficult. The argument I have been making....the one you dismissed outright with your NDT comment....was an argument against the ridiculous notion that "gaining weight is much easier than losing weight." Nowhere in my refutation have I said anything about what you are arguing.

 

[Nihilianth]

That's an error in reasoning, since you do not experience the effort your friend does. I think this is worth dilating on...

The mistake is using a "between" comparison instead of a "within" comparison. If I and a horse set out to walk a mile, the horse can rightly say that it took more effort (more calories burned) for the horse than me. In fact, if we limit how many calories are burned, the horse might have to stop after a half mile. It could rightly say (by using a "between" comparison) that it takes less effort to walk a mile (when I do it) than walking half a mile (when the horse does it). But obesity and effort should properly be measured as a "within" - on an individual basis, comparing me to me.

Uuummm....WHAT!?

Marplots, this was the original argument:

"It is much easier to lose weight, than to gain weight."

That is a VERY broad-brush argument, and far too simplistic in terms of biology! In some instances, that may be true. (My friend.) In other instances, that is completely false. (Me.)

The entire point of comparing two different human bodies, is to show the extreme variability of two different human beings and how the body functions from one individual to another. I don't have to experience what my friend does. It is a fact: He is thin even though he has a normally terrible diet (one high in fats). I am slightly overweight, even though I have a very good diet. The difference being, the metabolic rate of his body compared to mine. I have to work a hell of a lot harder to keep from becoming overtly fat than he does. He has to work really hard at maintaining a healthy amount of fat without wasting away.

This directly and immediately disproves the notion that "gaining weight is harder than losing weight."

The point stands. Since I'm using animals (to avoid the "fat shaming" trope), I present the bear. He's out consuming as much as possible during the spring and summer, expending energy far above his metabolic minimum. But because he is consuming many more calories than he is using, he gains a tremendous amount of weight.

That same bear then goes into hibernation. Now, he's at a metabolic minimum (his "zero" point) and making no effort. He loses weight. Why? Because, even though he is making no effort, his metabolic minimum still burns calories.

This in absolutely no way proves anything about your idea that "gaining weight is harder than losing weight." Forget about stupid animals. You are just confusing your arguments. Stick with the person in a coma. (Cannot believe I am doing this. UGH!)

A person in a coma loses weight while he sits in bed. The person in a coma has no way of responding to external, or internal stimuli. The person in a coma is, for all intents and purposes, at the mercy of his/her own body, and the external environment. Doctors, for instance, feed a coma patient a very specific combination of fluids though an IV to keep that person from starving to death. (The very act of breathing...converting oxygen to carbon dioxide....necessarily requires energy. If you are alive, in other words, no matter what, you are consuming energy.)

So yes. You are correct. A person in a coma does lose weight. Simply because that person cannot feed themselves, and their body must rely on what the doctors give them to consume. Not to mention, their body chemistry is completely out of whack, simply because their brain is not functioning normally. (You do know that the brain is a huge contributor of balancing certain chemicals, and the consumption and distribution of energy, right? When the brain is nearly out of commission, that throws your entire biological system totally out of whack! Again, comparing a coma patient to a fat person who is 100% conscious is comparing apples to orange trees!)

Now, your point that you are TRYING to make, is that it is easier to not eat than to eat. You are exactly wrong on that point! It is INCREDIBLY difficult to keep yourself from eating if you are hungry! Just ask anyone who has ever attempted a food strike. Or at least, try it yourself. Go 5 or 6 days without eating a solitary thing. I guarantee you would cave in about 2 days.

We are a product of evolution. Evolution that stretches back nearly 4 billion years. Living things have a strong desire to live. And to live, they must consume. Therefore, living organisms have a very strong desire to consume. That is something which is not very easily overcome.

In our modern world, it is a hell of a lot easier to just stop at McDonald's and grab a burgher real quick, than it is to go to the supermarket, walk through the store, look at all the food labels, go to the counter, pay for it, go home, and prepare a meal. One requires actively, and consciously making informed decisions arrived at by more work of counting calories and carbohydrates.

Now tell me: How in the world is it "easier" to go to the supermarket, read all the labels, count all of the calories, plan out your meals, then cook your meals....than it is to just run right over to McDonald's and grab a burger, fries, and a Coke?

Not to mention, if one wanted to work off your meal: Working off a vegetable salad that you prepared yourself, is a HELL of a lot easier than working off an 800 calorie meal full of fat, sodium, and sugar from McDonald's.

Now let's get even less extreme:

For myself, I do shop at the grocery store. (Lord knows, I couldn't even afford to eat at McDonald's everyday anyway. They charge nearly $8 for a friggin meal! That, and I have acid reflux. Bad foods literally make me sick. I cannot eat it, same as someone who is lactose intolerant cannot drink milk.)

For the most part, I stick to the outer edges of the store. I only venture down the aisles if I need something specific, like oil or vinegar, or herbs and spices. Granted, I do eat my fair share of red meat. But only usually about 2 or 3 times a month. I do workout on a regular basis. I still have a small gut on me that I will never be able to lose without even more extreme measures. Losing weight for me is extremely difficult, and very time-consuming. I have a low metabolism.

 

[Nihilianth]

In the extreme, it actually requires no effort. That's the point. But in any case, and on a calorie burned basis, it always requires less effort not to eat than to eat - unless, perhaps we envision someone who has to fight off being force fed.

That was not the original argument that I responded to before you interjected! The original argument was:

"It is easier to lose weight, than to gain it!"

You are moving goal posts here. While at the same time, ignoring how different individual human bodies process foods differently from each other. You are forgetting basic concepts such as "metabolic rate." Someone with a low metabolism, require more of an effort to keep their calorie-intake at a level where they do burn more energy than they consume. You are forgetting that just being alive, necessarily means that we are programmed, through billions of years of evolution, to want to consume when food is readily available. Because throughout those 4 billion years (except for the last 150 years of human history,) food has always been quite scarce. Animals were required to eat whenever they possibly could throughout the entire history of life on earth just to survive.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm, not entirely sure what you point is? Are you saying that if people would just overcome 4 billion years of evolution and deny their own survival instincts that would be easier than consuming calories and they would lose weight?

If you think that the human body can be reduced down to a simplistic calorie-in-calorie out model whereby "effort" can only be measured by calorie expenditure - so that controlling fundamental biological instincts is somehow easier than responding to them because the physical action requires more caloric output, well, that's just reductionist idiocy so far removed from the real world that it doesn't deserve to be dignified with anything approaching a rebuttal. It is just stupid.

This. ^

 

[The Don]

Losing weight for me is extremely difficult, and very time-consuming. I have a low metabolism.

Did you receive this as a medical diagnosis, or is this something you have determined for yourself based on your proclivity to gain weight easily ?

My experience is purely anecdotal but back when I was 225lbs I would tell people that I had a slow metabolism. I was pretty active (a few games of squash a week and a couple of hours in the gym) and thought that I ate healthily and in moderation, plenty of fruit and vegetables, no desserts or chocolate, gallons of fruit juice.

Then Mrs. Don joined weight-watchers and we measured and weighed everything carefully. It turned out that my modest portions weren't modest at all, my pasta portions (150g per person dried pasta) were more than twice the recommended serving size and that some of my dietary choices (slathering a sandwich with mayo, drowning a salad in dressing, eating a jacket (baked) potato with butter, drinking litres of fruit juice) were less that ideal. It transpired that I was woefully underestimating my calorie intake.

The flipside of this is a friend who is stick thin and claims that he cannot put on weight no matter how hard he tries. He claims to have a fast metabolism, which he may, but having worked away with him on a number of occasions and so having seen what he eats and drinks in a typical working day, he simply doesn't eat that much and what he eats tends not to be particularly calorie dense.

tl;dr version, you may have a slow metabolism but there are far more people out there who just aren't very good at estimating how much they actually eat and so underestimate this very badly.

 

[marplots]

That was not the original argument that I responded to before you interjected! The original argument was:

"It is easier to lose weight, than to gain it!"

You are moving goal posts here. While at the same time, ignoring how different individual human bodies process foods differently from each other. You are forgetting basic concepts such as "metabolic rate." Someone with a low metabolism, require more of an effort to keep their calorie-intake at a level where they do burn more energy than they consume. You are forgetting that just being alive, necessarily means that we are programmed, through billions of years of evolution, to want to consume when food is readily available. Because throughout those 4 billion years (except for the last 150 years of human history,) food has always been quite scarce. Animals were required to eat whenever they possibly could throughout the entire history of life on earth just to survive.

I have moved no goalposts. The whole mix-up comes from misunderstanding what "easier" means. You insist on making it about choices between eating and not eating (or eating one thing instead of another) and then pointing out that choices which lead to weight loss are harder to make (and keep) than choices which either add or maintain obesity.

Plainly, that's so, or people wouldn't have difficulty losing weight.

But "easier" has a biological meaning as well - the one I've been using since this whole thing started. And I'll stick with it. If it takes energy to consume food (which it does) then not consuming food takes less energy - which it does.

Perhaps this is more obvious to me because I often find eating to be a burden and notice the effort it takes to seek out, prepare, and consume food. It's something I need to do to stay healthy, but it's certainly not without effort. And, if I didn't make the effort to eat, I'd certainly lose weight.

Unintended weight loss in the elderly is a direct result of this fact. They lose their appetites and don't expend the effort to eat. They lose considerable weight.

 

[bit_pattern]

But "easier" has a biological meaning as well - the one I've been using since this whole thing started. And I'll stick with it. If it takes energy to consume food (which it does) then not consuming food takes less energy - which it does.

This implies that the chemical and hormonal responses to food that have evolved over 4 billion years are not biological in nature - again, it's just stupid. Contrarian waffle at its worst.