Are there any studies that show any relationship between a person`s bone structure and how much they weigh?
Are people with a small bone structure, as apt, to pack on the pounds as much as people with a larger bone structure?...or do people say with a larger bone structure have more trouble staying on the thinner side, on average?
.
If say it has been determined that the larger boned people have a problem more, then these people at least would have some sort of excuse.
I think the difficulty with your question is that 'large boned' isn't a thing.
Children have lower density bones, puberty increases bone density in both men and women. Resistance on muscles also increases bone density, and there is evidence that high impact exercise can increase bone density, all in specific bones. Later, hormones change again, and bone density decreases, all thing being equal. In any case, bone density doesn't influence body fat percentage.
I have noticed one way skeletons influence obesity: overall size. Recipes, restaurants, prepackaged foods... nobody scales their portions for a person's size. Shorter people should weigh less, should eat less. Most people finish their serving, so uniform portions contribute to a tendency for taller people to eat proportionally less and shorter people eating proportionally more, all things being equal.
And that brings another thought: Is there a difference in some people where some people crave food more than other people? Where say a person works physically hard all day, and burns up a lot of calories, you`d think they would naturally crave to eat more to make up for lost calories...but i`m not so sure if that is the case where how many calories a person expends, dictates how much food a person feels like eating.
Yes, there are both genetic and behavioral reasons for differential satiety.
I think many people who point the finger at fat people think they sit around stuffing their face. But do they? Can they?
The appropriateness of 'pointing the finger' depends a bit on whether they're moralizing or identifying the root cause. I have an aunt who smoked five packs a day and got lung cancer. Smoking was almost certainly the root cause, but that doesn't make her a bad
person.
I seem to have a limit to how much i can eat or drink, no matter what i do.
Everybody has a limit to what they can eat or drink; what varies from person to person is where on the body fat percentage continuum their body tells them they're satiated. This is[
homeostasis], and the 'trendy name' for weight homeostais these days is 'set point theory'.
Which brings up yet another thought; stomach size. Maybe THAT has something to do with it. Maybe if you are born with a smaller stomach, and perhaps have a smaller frame, maybe you aren`t as bound to get heavy, compared to people who are big boned with bigger stomachs? ???
Stomachs change size with eating habits, people are born with stomach sizes that appear to be proportional to their body size. They can stretch them by overeating, and this does impact satiety. There is evidence that while stomachs may not shrink when a person changes habits to eat smaller meals, there are other physiological changes that improve the satiety of less stomach contents. Lap Band and stapling are alternatives, appropriate for morbidly obese patients who have not been able to change behavior.
Specifically regarding the OP's periodic fasting proposal: this is a family of diets that work for a few people but have low adherence. Like all diets it works for at least one person - usually a strong advocate - but doesn't have a lot of success in the general population.
It's hard to show that convincingly, because (like astrology) there are about as many flavours as there are adherents: "Well, you disproved the Amrit-Strong diet where fasting days have 600 calories, but you didn't test the Liverpool diet where the fasting days are 500 calories of 40% protein, 30% carbohydrate 30% fat." There are literally infinite variations.
The main complaints I've read are impacts to 'energy levels' and 'concentration' on fasting or semifasting days that impact quality of life too much. Some diets attempt to compensate with stimulants such as caffeine, which causes its own problems.
Having said that, many of my clients found routine fasting to have a psychological attraction that was not specifically linked to addressing body fat percentage. Many were into zen or yoga, and their meditative 'practice' included fasting periods for its own sake. I didn't want to discourage this if it was working for them.
One concern, though, based on the specific algorithm: there is a risk that on fasting days, the dieter could be filling up with water, which could mean no weight loss for several days. This could lead to a very serious starvation response from the body. Chronic repetition of this scenario could lead to permanent organ damage (heart, uterus).
