Naturally thin?

[Bill]

NorthDave said:

I'm not Lactose intolerant. The food test identified that Casein was a protein in dairy which doesn't agree with me. This might well be similar to the protein you mention above.

Casein intolerance is an allergic reaction and can cause absorption issues, so still doesn't explain your weight gain. I think the weight loss was simply down to cutting out a densely calorific food source. You then got less particular about what you ate and started to reintroduce creamy sauces etc before noticing the cream content and ditching the tons of curry.

As a similar example I lost loads of weight when I took part in an experiment re salt and blood pressure. I did two weeks on a zero (or as close as possible) sodium diet. Obviously it wasn't the salt that contained the calories, but there isn't much salt free unless you cook from scratch. And then plenty of that is pretty dull as pasta and potatoes etc are very bland.

[johnwilliams77]

TartanPaint said:

No, it's not just the calories, it's the glycemic index. You're spiking your insulin when you eat sugar/carbs, and insulin is what regulates fat storage. Sugary/starchy things make you fat. Simples.

I think a lot of "naturally skinny/fat" stuff (ignoring exceptional things like thyroid issues) can be boiled down to insulin resistance. Somebody who is fat and inuslin resistant, maybe even pre-diabetic might lose a ton of weight, but because of their insulin resistance they'll put weight back on faster than somebody who has low and stable insulin levels, even if they eat exactly the same things.

So it's nothing to do with the total calories you consume and burn?

[frisbee]

hyphen said:

Exercise is good for fitness, but it burns relatively low amount of calories- would take best part of an hour just to burn off a mars bar for example.

Reducing what you eat is the key to weight loss, and sleeping well is also important. Informed people exercise to get fit, not as the primary means to lose weight.

The gym industry is worth so much, they like as few people as possible to know the truth.

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 23 August 16:05

Exercise can make a big difference, I got rid of my car to force myself to cycle to work and I've dropped from 180 to 150 lbs. I haven't consciously changed what I eat.

I can actually build and loose muscle depending on if I go to the gym but a lot of the weight loss must be well hidden fat.

Now I've cut out drinking to see if I can back to my teenage weight of 125lbs, hills will be a breeze then!

[hyphen]

frisbee said:

but a lot of the weight loss must be well hidden fat.

Ive read that health wise, the fat you see isn't what is bad for you, the hidden fat that builds internally around the organs is much worse.

[TartanPaint]

johnwilliams77 said:

So it's nothing to do with the total calories you consume and burn?

"Calories in, calories out" has been likened to saying "Bill Gates got rich because he spent less than he earned". It's true, of course, but it doesn't really tell us anything.

Watch this and you'll have a decent idea of what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E7IbEktEr0

[johnwilliams77]

TartanPaint said:

"Calories in, calories out" has been likened to saying "Bill Gates got rich because he spent less than he earned". It's true, of course, but it doesn't really tell us anything.

Watch this and you'll have a decent idea of what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E7IbEktEr0

Why are the kenyan runners not fat then who drink lots of of sugary drinks / lots of sugar in their tea and 95% carbs? Because of calories burned also. Sugar does not = fat.

edit: listened to him for 10mins. He is an idiot, just some journalist with no scientific experience. By your logic, if I eat a lot of sugar I cannot loose weight? That's totally wrong from my personal EXPERIENCE. Not some slides.

Edited by johnwilliams77 on Thursday 24th August 10:14

[RobM77]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[ecs]

Wobbegong said:

I managed that in Dubai earlier in the year. All you can eat buffets kill my selfcontrol as I demand quantity for money plus I ate two of these to myself, I estimate about 3 000 calories per serving

I always visit Cheesecake Factory when I'm there - usually takes me two sittings to finish one of these off:



(I used to eat it in one sitting as I'm a greedy fker, but my other half convinced me to take some home as leftovers for another day!)

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

If your idea of gym cardio is walking on a treadmill at 2mph, yes Doing light DIY isn't gonna get you under 1hr30min for a half marathon is it?

Three years ago we bought a project house and as such my free time has been filled with pretty serious DIY. I've spent the last 3 years digging, shifting, sawing, hammering, carrying plasterboard around etc and I'm in the worst shape I can remember for years. My times cycling, running and swimming have nose dived. There is an old adage that gardening, DIY and short walks keeps you fit, but they mean 'fit' as in healthy and normal, not proper gym/sports fit.

In answer to the OP's original question, yes, there are a number of different factors that naturally vary between people (hunger trigger, BMR etc). However, there was a study done once where they locked people in a room and measured everything they ate, sweated, stted etc and it convincingly proved the 'calories in / calories out' argument. The study was discussed in depth in a recent 'Life Scientific' on Radio 4.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 24th August 12:15

Calories in/out is a truism. It is an application of the principle that energy cannot be destroyed but only change form. Absent some failure to digest food and so extract the calories from it, calories in must be turned into something else (including fat - an energy store).

But that doesnt really address some of the complexity - e.g. insulin sensitivity and other things are relevant to whether the body deals with the (at that second) excess blood sugar by laying down more muscle glycogen or depositing more fat or generating more body heat or sending signals to the brain to move about a bit, etc etc etc.

It is because of all these complex things (including metabolic and other responses to exercise) that some diets are much better than others for specific people. I dont know exactly why, but I lose lots of fat when I reduce carbohydrate intake. It might be mostly because I then consume fewer calories, but I think there are a lot of interactions at play.

[TartanPaint]

johnwilliams77 said:

Why are the kenyan runners not fat then who drink lots of of sugary drinks / lots of sugar in their tea and 95% carbs? Because of calories burned also. Sugar does not = fat.

edit: listened to him for 10mins. He is an idiot, just some journalist with no scientific experience. By your logic, if I eat a lot of sugar I cannot loose weight? That's totally wrong from my personal EXPERIENCE. Not some slides.

Edited by johnwilliams77 on Thursday 24th August 10:14

Fortunately, science doesn't really care what you think.

If you watch the whole thing and come back to me with some relevant points I'll be happy to respond, or point you at further sources. Your Kenyan stuff and personal EXPERIENCE means nothing, as you'd see if you watch the entire video so we're at least discussing the same subject.

[Trophy Husband]

I reached 12 stone at 20 years old and am now 50 and weigh...........12 stone. My grandfather was the same as is my father pretty much. Food is fuel for living, your body needs a certain amount to survive healthily. I eat that amount and no more. Plus I'm very active although I do NO planned exercise whatsoever. Just busy with my young kids and dogs messing about in the woods or on the beach. I just do not get how people get so fat. What is the point at which they say to themselves 'whoops I'm a bit on the porky side'? It strikes me most don't and just keep getting bigger. Walk down your average high street on a Saturday and you will note that fat is the new body shape. Yes there are exceptions who have health problems, thyroid issues etc. but the large proportion just eat too much and don't move enough. Makes me think that Wall-E was a smarter film than first perceived.

[johnwilliams77]

TartanPaint said:

Fortunately, science doesn't really care what you think.

If you watch the whole thing and come back to me with some relevant points I'll be happy to respond, or point you at further sources. Your Kenyan stuff and personal EXPERIENCE means nothing, as you'd see if you watch the entire video so we're at least discussing the same subject.

There is 'science' which 'proves' many things, many of which is conflicting. Surely, even you can understand that.

Lets stick with what you said: "Sugary/starchy things make you fat". Wrong! If that was the case, I would be fat as I eat and drink a lot of things which contain lots of sugar.

[J4CKO]

Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.

Edit, this,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630

Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.

[TartanPaint]

johnwilliams77 said:

There is 'science' which 'proves' many things, many of which is conflicting. Surely, even you can understand that.

Lets stick with what you said: "Sugary/starchy things make you fat". Wrong! If that was the case, I would be fat as I eat and drink a lot of things which contain lots of sugar.

Science doesn't prove anything. That's not what science does. Science allows us to reach consensus which can be challenged, by the scientific process, at any time. That's how we change our views on things collectively. Gary Taubes is presenting a hypothesis that is, by his use of the scientific process, well constructed and very credible. (And trust me, he is a first rate scientist, regardless of his expertise in biology or medicine or anything else)

It's not the complete picture, it's one aspect of health and diet, and it's bloody fascinating. I have no idea why anyone would dismiss it with prejudice. That's just wilful ignorance in my mind.

Your anecdote is still irrelevant, you still haven't watched the video (ask me how I can tell) and so I can't engage with you in any meaningful way. So, watch it so we can discuss it, or stop detracting from the discussion.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

If your idea of gym cardio is walking on a treadmill at 2mph, yes Doing light DIY isn't gonna get you under 1hr30min for a half marathon is it?

Three years ago we bought a project house and as such my free time has been filled with pretty serious DIY. I've spent the last 3 years digging, shifting, sawing, hammering, carrying plasterboard around etc and I'm in the worst shape I can remember for years. My times cycling, running and swimming have nose dived. There is an old adage that gardening, DIY and short walks keeps you fit, but they mean 'fit' as in healthy and normal, not proper gym/sports fit.

In answer to the OP's original question, yes, there are a number of different factors that naturally vary between people (hunger trigger, BMR etc). However, there was a study done once where they locked people in a room and measured everything they ate, sweated, stted etc and it convincingly proved the 'calories in / calories out' argument. The study was discussed in depth in a recent 'Life Scientific' on Radio 4.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 24th August 12:15

Calories in/out is a truism. It is an application of the principle that energy cannot be destroyed but only change form. Absent some failure to digest food and so extract the calories from it, calories in must be turned into something else (including fat - an energy store).

But that doesnt really address some of the complexity - e.g. insulin sensitivity and other things are relevant to whether the body deals with the (at that second) excess blood sugar by laying down more muscle glycogen or depositing more fat or generating more body heat or sending signals to the brain to move about a bit, etc etc etc.

It is because of all these complex things (including metabolic and other responses to exercise) that some diets are much better than others for specific people. I dont know exactly why, but I lose lots of fat when I reduce carbohydrate intake. It might be mostly because I then consume fewer calories, but I think there are a lot of interactions at play.

Absolutely. Every analysis and meta-analysis that I've seen just adds further weight to that.

[Flibble]

TartanPaint said:

Fortunately, science doesn't really care what you think.

If you watch the whole thing and come back to me with some relevant points I'll be happy to respond, or point you at further sources. Your Kenyan stuff and personal EXPERIENCE means nothing, as you'd see if you watch the entire video so we're at least discussing the same subject.

Unfortunately, Gary Taubes doesn't really understand the science. So using him as your "scientific evidence" is pretty weak.

Have a read of this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-jou...

TartanPaint said:

Science doesn't prove anything. That's not what science does. Science allows us to reach consensus which can be challenged, by the scientific process, at any time. That's how we change our views on things collectively. Gary Taubes is presenting a hypothesis that is, by his use of the scientific process, well constructed and very credible. (And trust me, he is a first rate scientist, regardless of his expertise in biology or medicine or anything else)

It's not the complete picture, it's one aspect of health and diet, and it's bloody fascinating. I have no idea why anyone would dismiss it with prejudice. That's just wilful ignorance in my mind.

As compelling and fascinating as it is, it's just not supported by the facts, hence being dismissed.

The fact that you can lose weight and reduce cholesterol while eating a largely sugar based diet, despite Taubes' assertions. The twinkie diet is a class counter-example of his theories.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.d...

I'm not going to say it's a good thing, but it rather flies in the face of the "sugar is pure evil" assertion.

Edited by Flibble on Thursday 24th August 13:52

[RobM77]

J4CKO said:

Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.

Edit, this,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630

Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.

This is the downside of the welfare state - people let themselves fall because they know the state will catch them. What I find depressing and a bit surprising is the large number of people who don't care about their health and how they feel, provided they're alive.

[J4CKO]

RobM77 said:

J4CKO said:

Saw an article this morning saying that a huge percentage of people do no physical activity, at all which is scary for the future of the NHS.

Edit, this,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030630

Four out of ten dont manage a ten minute walk in a month, that is shameful.

This is the downside of the welfare state - people let themselves fall because they know the state will catch them. What I find depressing and a bit surprising is the large number of people who don't care about their health and how they feel, provided they're alive.

I must admit, I let things slide, 18 stone, but I still cycled 14 miles and day and walked the dog, some dont even do that, must feel dreadful and be at the doctors all the time wanting a pill to make it alright, get into a mess and quality of life takes a nosedive, they hear all the diet and exercise stuff but its all a bit hard.

[johnwilliams77]

TartanPaint said:

Science doesn't prove anything. That's not what science does. Science allows us to reach consensus which can be challenged, by the scientific process, at any time. That's how we change our views on things collectively. Gary Taubes is presenting a hypothesis that is, by his use of the scientific process, well constructed and very credible. (And trust me, he is a first rate scientist, regardless of his expertise in biology or medicine or anything else)

It's not the complete picture, it's one aspect of health and diet, and it's bloody fascinating. I have no idea why anyone would dismiss it with prejudice. That's just wilful ignorance in my mind.

Your anecdote is still irrelevant, you still haven't watched the video (ask me how I can tell) and so I can't engage with you in any meaningful way. So, watch it so we can discuss it, or stop detracting from the discussion.

You said sugar makes me fat. I consume a lot of it and I am not fat. Perhaps if you say something with evidence rather than posting an hour long video I might feel compelled to give it more of my time.

[otolith]

RE Taubes - I'm just going to get partisan about physicists and biology