weight research

[flydhest]

interesting and on topic for many here, given past threads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/science/a-mathematical-challenge-to-obesity.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[Ken Robb]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[67-59]

Yup. Calories in vs. calories out. People want to claim it's more complicated, but with rare exceptions, it isn't.

I think the interesting point he makes is the time delay for a change in caloric intake to have a real effect - 1 year. For Americans who are programmed to believe 2 minutes is too long to wait for a burger, it isn't surprising to hear that many people won't stick to a diet that long if they aren't seeing the effects yet.

[Louis]

I saw that yesterday and almost posted a link.

Interesting, and I think plausible.

When I moved to the US to go to college ('79) I was shocked by how much food was available all over the place. And the portion sizes - huge.

[hockeybike]

This is an interesting conclusion: "The obesity epidemic may have peaked because of the recession. It’s made food more expensive."

Then again, if food is a form of entertainment, and the cost of fried chicken, sweets, etchasn't gone up as much as other forms of entertainment, it might be the case that people are eating more as a substitute for doing anything else. Easier to eat a slightly larger dinner than it is to have dinner, go to a movie and get popcorn (with the dinner and dessert having more calories than the popcorn). This isn't to say anything of the daily vs monthly commitment of eating more vs joining a gym.

[67-59]

This is an interesting conclusion: "The obesity epidemic may have peaked because of the recession. It’s made food more expensive."

Then again, if food is a form of entertainment, and the cost of fried chicken, sweets, etchasn't gone up as much as other forms of entertainment, it might be the case that people are eating more as a substitute for doing anything else. Easier to eat a slightly larger dinner than it is to have dinner, go to a movie and get popcorn (with the dinner and dessert having more calories than the popcorn). This isn't to say anything of the daily vs monthly commitment of eating more vs joining a gym.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. We've certainly heard that when the economy is bad, people tend to spend even more on "entertainment" to make them feel better. To the extent people view eating as a form of entertainment (and a relatively cheap one), a bad economy could make things even worse. The other factor is that "healthier" foods like fresh fruits and veggies often cost more than less healthy foods like a burger and fries. So even those who truly do spend less on food might end up getting bigger still.:eek:

[weiwentg]

Yup. Calories in vs. calories out. People want to claim it's more complicated, but with rare exceptions, it isn't.

I think the interesting point he makes is the time delay for a change in caloric intake to have a real effect - 1 year. For Americans who are programmed to believe 2 minutes is too long to wait for a burger, it isn't surprising to hear that many people won't stick to a diet that long if they aren't seeing the effects yet.

well, actually, this guy was in fact saying that it IS a bit more complicated than calories in vs out, in that as you get heavier, it's easier to gain even more, and that there's a pretty long lag time between cutting calories/increasing exercise and actually losing weight.

[nmrt]

Just blaming food and the easy of availability of calorically dense food is only a part of the problem. Here I am typing way, sedentary on a desk. That is my lifestyle. And therein lies the rub. Most of us, regardless of what we eat, are sedentary 8hrs during the day at work. Studies have shown that even though you exercise 40 min/day, prolonged sitting can increase risks of heart disease and diabetes. http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/12/834
So, my friends, there are a plethora of reasons contributing to our obesity. And some of it can be contributed to the 21st century work lifestyle. We did not evolve to live this way. And now our body is struggling to cope not only with out new found work lifestyle of sitting stationary for hours on end but also with the brownies and pizzas we gobble up.

[nebraskacycling]

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/nutrition/the-all-you-can-eat-diet.aspx

Personally I prefer to eat what I like to eat (which is typically healthy), but not worry about an extra 1000 calories one day if I want to have a shake. I more than make up for it with my typical day burning 500 calories on my commute alone. Not for everyone though.

[Chance]

well, actually, this guy was in fact saying that it IS a bit more complicated than calories in vs out, in that as you get heavier, it's easier to gain even more, and that there's a pretty long lag time between cutting calories/increasing exercise and actually losing weight.

That is indeed interesting. If their model is correct it implies a small portion of the cut back in calories actually does any good. The example of 100 calories per day taking three years to lose 10 pounds is surprising. If my math is about right, only 1/3 of calories cut back show up in weight reduction. What happens to other 2/3?:confused:

It'd be nice if they addressed why the difference. In any case hopefully this kind of information will clear some of the misunderstandings about quality versus quantity of food. That seems to be the hotter issue surrounding our abuse of food.

[67-59]

well, actually, this guy was in fact saying that it IS a bit more complicated than calories in vs out, in that as you get heavier, it's easier to gain even more, and that there's a pretty long lag time between cutting calories/increasing exercise and actually losing weight.

He doesn't say anything that contradicts the basic calories in vs. calories out comparison. His exact words were:

we also found that the fatter you get, the easier it is to gain weight. An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one.



He doesn't speculate on why those extra 10 calories put more weight on an obese person than a normal weight person -- perhaps because he may not know for sure. But it's quite possible that the answer is simple: Because the obese person is more likely to follow those extra 10 calories with a trip to the couch, whereas the normal weight person is more likely to follow those extra 10 calories with a walk, run, etc. Which would bring us right back to calories in vs. calories out.

[monkeybanana86]

Yup. Calories in vs. calories out. People want to claim it's more complicated, but with rare exceptions, it isn't.

I think the interesting point he makes is the time delay for a change in caloric intake to have a real effect - 1 year. For Americans who are programmed to believe 2 minutes is too long to wait for a burger, it isn't surprising to hear that many people won't stick to a diet that long if they aren't seeing the effects yet.

LOL. And with age the results take even longer.

I think education is key (of course not the ultimate solution) but just watching king corn and all those documentaries keeps me from going off the charts. I do love a good burger and fries once in a while but like the article says people these days just eat out a lot!

[Spinner]

But it's quite possible that the answer is simple: Because the obese person is more likely to follow those extra 10 calories with a trip to the couch, whereas the normal weight person is more likely to follow those extra 10 calories with a walk, run, etc. Which would bring us right back to calories in vs. calories out.[/QUOTE]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that those who regularly engage in exercise burn more calories "at rest" than those who lightly or never exercise.

[67-59]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that those who regularly engage in exercise burn more calories "at rest" than those who lightly or never exercise.

Right. Just another example of calories in vs. calories out...where those who exercise regularly get more calories out, both when actually exercising and when at rest. It's still just calories in vs. calories out.

Edit: This also probably helps to explain the time lag, which I referred to in my first post. Even if the obese person burns just as much in a given exercise session as the normal weight person would, when that session is done, the obese person goes right back to their "low calorie burning at rest" set point. The year might very well represent (at least in part) the time it takes for the resting metabolism to adjust itself.

[nmrt]

it seems that the relation between exercise and higher metabolism (more caloric expenditure) throughout the rest of the day depends largely on the intensity of exercise and not on the duration. For eg., if you exercise at a low intensity, your metabolic rate will quickly (within an hour or so) return to a "normal" rate. Whereas if you exercise at a higher intensity, your metabolism will remain elevate for much of the day.
However, recent research has shown that even this increased levels of metabolic rate for high intensity exercisers is not as high as previously thought. Moreover, this elevated metabolic rate after exercise also drops much quicker that previously thought. I'm trying to find the links to this study but cant find it right away. I'll post it when I do. But it did blow me away. Because it raised the very fundamental question that if it is not the elevated metabolic rate after exercise that makes exercisers lean, then what is it?

[MattTuck]

Well, I am glad we atleast have people TRYING to understand this problem.

I am skeptical though when people start talking about mathematical 'models'. These are the same things that originally caused the policy shift away from fats and eggs (due to cholesterol) without really understanding that the problem was sugar... the resulting behavior of the food industry was less fat and MORE sugar, which has been an absolute disaster.

Models also led to the down fall of Long Term Capital Management, as the spread between on the run bonds and older bonds widened, and the Russian ruple cratered... all their PhD's said it could never happen, but it did.

I am actually all for highly regressive taxes on sugar and sugary packaged foods, with subsidies going to fruit and vegetable producers.

[Earl Gray]

Yup. Calories in vs. calories out. People want to claim it's more complicated, but with rare exceptions, it isn't.



As long as you are considering what we pass as "waste" is almost that simple.

Problem is what you pass as waste and what I pass as waste is not the same and causes of the variance is anything except simple.

[Louis]

I am actually all for highly regressive taxes on sugar and sugary packaged foods, with subsidies going to fruit and vegetable producers.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

[Chance]

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Should we? Shouldn't government educate us and let us do with that knowledge whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting someone else? If someone wants to overdose on sugar or water who are we to tell them they don't have the right? It's a slippery slope. First unhealthy food then bikes are unsafe, and who knows what will kill us next. We are all going to die sooner or later so enjoy sugar if that's what you like.

For what it's worth, the report didn't seem to differentiate between sugar and other calories. So is 100 calories of Coke the same as 100 calories of apples? Or steak?

[1centaur]

I thought the calories in/calories out belief was killed years ago. I've certainly noticed multiple studies in the last five years claiming to undermine that concept.

Food is a combination of chemicals. Your body is a combination of chemicals. Fat storage is a chemical reaction that occurs in conjunction with consumption and expenditure. For the same reason that isolated vitamins do not seem to have the same reaction in one's body as vitamins packaged by nature, I find it hard to believe that a single element in the chemical package of food, the amount of heat measured by a calorimeter, fully explains how each body transforms food to fat when compared to calories expended. That it's a big part of the story appears without question, but I'm going to bet we still have to find out..."the REST of the story."

[MattTuck]

Should we? Shouldn't government educate us and let us do with that knowledge whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting someone else? If someone wants to overdose on sugar or water who are we to tell them they don't have the right? It's a slippery slope. First unhealthy food then bikes are unsafe, and who knows what will kill us next. We are all going to die sooner or later so enjoy sugar if that's what you like.

For what it's worth, the report didn't seem to differentiate between sugar and other calories. So is 100 calories of Coke the same as 100 calories of apples? Or steak?


The health effects of poor diet are an externality, meaning the person eating the food gets the benefit (pleasure, good taste) but society bears the costs (through the eventual medicare bills that the person's chronic diabetes costs).

A universal coverage system would be even worse, in the sense that when you saw a very fat person on the street, you'd know that we were all paying those medical bills.

This article doesn't talk about the sugar. But this video should provide some insight as to why 100 calories of coke is very different than 100 calories of steak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[dustyrider]

This is interesting science to say the least.

On one hand we have a well educated thinker studying a problem that is clearly growing, and making some clever insights that get us thinking all the more.(see what I did there)

On the other hand, we have an Idiocracy theme being played out. "All of the top minds in science were dedicated to increasing hair growth and maintaining erections."(paraphrasing)

It's easy to see what's going on if you just open your eyes, despite the "surplus of food" idea which I believe has its merits, but will most likely be drowned out by consumerism's "moar" mentality.

Today I was administering a test to 40 High School students for 3+ hours.
The students ranged in physical size, as well as their commitment to rigorous activity levels. As one may expect the larger they were the less they did, except for the football player, I have a feeling he does a lot. Enough to justify his weight? I'll leave that up for debate.

These students were provided with a table of food one had peeled ready to eat "cutie" oranges, bananas(not peeled), strawberries, and grapes, as well as bottled water.

Along side of this table was a table with "fruit" gummy things, granola bars(chocolate and s'mores flavor), a variety of Halloween/Easter sized candies, CapriSun juice.

Which table of food had nothing left on it?
(hint: I won't be needing any fruit for awhile!)

That's right the habits you have today are often the same habits you'll have tomorrow!

Good luck us.

[Chance]

This article doesn't talk about the sugar. But this video should provide some insight as to why 100 calories of coke is very different than 100 calories of steak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

That's a lot of video. Will have to watch it when more alert. Hard to follow after the "Coca-Cola Conspiracy" remark.

Of even greater interest (at about 20 minutes in video) is the assertion that HFCS and sucrose (table sugar) are exactly the same at causing harm. This is surprising because for years we've been hearing nothing but how bad HFCS is for us and how Coke and Pepsi (along with other food companies) converted from sugar to HFCS to save money even though it would hurt our health. And now this guy says they are both the same?:confused:

Hard to know who to believe any more.

[slowgoing]

That's right the habits you have today are often the same habits you'll have tomorrow!

So the kids cleaned the good table and overate fruit instead of the higher calorie foods? That's good, I guess, but....;)

[Bob Loblaw]

I have been sort of interested in the concept of "muscle quality" (my term), and muscle quality bears on the concept of metabolic rate. In a nutshell, the higher quality a person's muscle, the more resilient it is and resistant to injury and strain, and the more energy it burns at rest. So even apart from the period of elevated metabolism that follows hard training, an active person's base metabolic rate is higher than a sedentary person's because of the higher quality of muscle.

And don't forget the activity itself. On the bike in a hard group ride, you will fluctuate between 400 and 1000 calories/hour. Over the course of a hard 3 hour ride, a rider can burn a sedentary day's worth of calories.

BL


it seems that the relation between exercise and higher metabolism (more caloric expenditure) throughout the rest of the day depends largely on the intensity of exercise and not on the duration. For eg., if you exercise at a low intensity, your metabolic rate will quickly (within an hour or so) return to a "normal" rate. Whereas if you exercise at a higher intensity, your metabolism will remain elevate for much of the day.
However, recent research has shown that even this increased levels of metabolic rate for high intensity exercisers is not as high as previously thought. Moreover, this elevated metabolic rate after exercise also drops much quicker that previously thought. I'm trying to find the links to this study but cant find it right away. I'll post it when I do. But it did blow me away. Because it raised the very fundamental question that if it is not the elevated metabolic rate after exercise that makes exercisers lean, then what is it?