U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-10-2015, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Connecticut is my adopted home.
2,276 posts, read 3,057,402 times
Reputation: 7012

Advertisements

A very interesting article. I'm sure all the self appointed experts here that haven't done any more research than opine away endlessly based on outdated and unscientific material will attack the science but here it is.

BTW, there is a way to reset a weight set point range but it is difficult and takes years to accomplish. I've worked 30# off of mine but it took 12 years to accomplish.

Why diets don't work: Nobody has willpower
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2015, 11:39 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,869,360 times
Reputation: 3666
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK-Cathy View Post
A very interesting article. I'm sure all the self appointed experts here that haven't done any more research than opine away endlessly based on outdated and unscientific material will attack the science but here it is.

BTW, there is a way to reset a weight set point range but it is difficult and takes years to accomplish. I've worked 30# off of mine but it took 12 years to accomplish.

Why diets don't work: Nobody has willpower
I wish the interviewer would have asked the following question:

Considering that far more people are obese than ever before, and that many people are morbidly obese, it's safe to say that a lot of people are well-above their set range. How are those people supposed to lose weight?

The researcher in the article seemed to assume that most people are in their set range, as though everyone weighs the amount mother nature wants him or her to weigh. That doesn't seem true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2015, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
22,369 posts, read 23,935,163 times
Reputation: 48356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
I wish the interviewer would have asked the following question:

Considering that far more people are obese than ever before, and that many people are morbidly obese, it's safe to say that a lot of people are well-above their set range. How are those people supposed to lose weight?

The researcher in the article seemed to assume that most people are in their set range, as though everyone weighs the amount mother nature wants him or her to weigh. That doesn't seem true.
The point she was trying to make is that the set range isn't necessarily the ideal range. Someone who's been 50 pounds overweight for 20 years has a body that's used to maintaining that weight, and it's going to be difficult (but not impossible) to change that. Which doesn't mean it can't happen, but understanding that their metabolism and appetite might make it difficult doesn't mean that person is a failure who lacks will power as the diet industry might want them to believe..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2015, 12:14 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,869,360 times
Reputation: 3666
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle View Post
The point she was trying to make is that the set range isn't necessarily the ideal range. Someone who's been 50 pounds overweight for 20 years has a body that's used to maintaining that weight, and it's going to be difficult (but not impossible) to change that. Which doesn't mean it can't happen, but understanding that their metabolism and appetite might make it difficult doesn't mean that person is a failure who lacks will power as the diet industry might want them to believe..
I wish she would have actually articulated that in the article. Did she? I may have missed it. That seems like an unlikely claim to me, but I'd certainly be open to evidence that it is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 10:11 AM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,016,231 times
Reputation: 13168
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK-Cathy View Post
A very interesting article. I'm sure all the self appointed experts here that haven't done any more research than opine away endlessly based on outdated and unscientific material will attack the science but here it is.

BTW, there is a way to reset a weight set point range but it is difficult and takes years to accomplish. I've worked 30# off of mine but it took 12 years to accomplish.

Why diets don't work: Nobody has willpower

Would you mind explaining how you did it?????


I read this, and the woman basically said to give up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Connecticut is my adopted home.
2,276 posts, read 3,057,402 times
Reputation: 7012
Been gone a while no internet services.

First the research was done in Australia and while they are a western society. they don't have the problems that we have in the states.

As for my own set point, after years of failure at dieting always regaining plus an extra 10 to 20#, I just quit dieting. I spent maybe two or three years at my near fattest at detente with my body eating pretty much any crap I wanted in amounts I wanted but like the article noted, I stayed within that set point range regardless and Glory Be! I wasn't getting any fatter. That opened my eyes a whole lot.

I did a lot of reading and I can't recall all the stuff I read but I became my own nutritional expert. I found that my personal system's satiety and my weight responded much better with a sharp reduction in carbs located high on the glycemic index.

I also had to come to terms with my "fear" of hunger. I spent a number of years essentially starving to stay below my natural set point which was somewhere in the neighborhood of 150# for a 5'6" physically fit woman. Unfortunately I messed with mother nature and spent several years seriously hungry and exercising like a fiend at 130# to look "better". What resulted when I "failed" was years of yo-yo dieting that ratcheted me well above 200# after a number of lose-regain cycles. Those years of starving are etched in my memory as misery incarnate but I overreacted to hunger and wolfed down food in response to it completely overriding my natural appetite. Now the first 10 minutes of any meal are really important for me to FOCUS on what I am doing and to mentally and physically slow down so that I taste, experience the act of eating and allow my body to get full on it's own. Additionally I can decide to "delay" or defer eating something to another time giving myself permission to eat full lead real ice-cream, an extra helping or whatever as a treat at another time, not just because it's there. I find that this raincheck as it were, allows me to not feel left out or cheated if I take a pass and I'm not perfect so I sometimes do eat stuff when I'm not hungry, the degree and number of times in a given period being drastically reduced. Mind you after years of dieting my thinking about food had become pretty disordered.

Genetics and my obesity combined to make me a medication controlled diabetic that gradually came on so it's more important than ever that I make wise food choices for the preponderances of my meals. I find that nutritionally dense foods regardless of their calorie content and foods with a lot of flavor last longer in both my mouth and system. My DH and I also eat roughly twice a day, completely out of whack with the "normal" mealtimes commonly accepted here in the US. We eat a larger meal at roughly 10am and a smaller meal at roughly 4pm and that's pretty much it. My DH may snack on something later but I find that I don't need to and I had a huge night eating problem for years.

Note that other than making better choices for the majority of my food intake over time and reordering my thinking and behavior that contributed to my weight problem I have done very little food management. I am a very busy person and always have been so I'm quite active and that of course helps.

I used to ride much higher on the scale than I do now. Over time my mean weight has come down about 30 pounds. I'm not dieting. I'm not chronically hungry. I'm not exercising like an athlete to keep weight off. When I say mean as it regards weight, I have bad months and I might ride higher by 10 pounds or so from stress eating, poor planning, bad choices and mindlessness but I never ever get back up there where I was when I quit dieting, not even close. I suppose as the years roll on, there is potential to reach my natural set point again but I'd be glad of reasonable proximity. That's it in a big old nutshell.

Last edited by AK-Cathy; 05-13-2015 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 02:59 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,869,360 times
Reputation: 3666
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK-Cathy View Post
Been gone a while no internet services.

First the research was done in Australia and while they are a western society. they don't have the problems that we have in the states.

As for my own set point, after years of failure at dieting always regaining plus an extra 10 to 20#, I just quit dieting. I spent maybe two or three years at my near fattest at detente with my body eating pretty much any crap I wanted in amounts I wanted but like the article noted, I stayed within that set point range regardless and Glory Be! I wasn't getting any fatter. That opened my eyes a whole lot.

I did a lot of reading and I can't recall all the stuff I read but I became my own nutritional expert. I found that my personal system's satiety and my weight responded much better with a sharp reduction in carbs located high on the glycemic index.

I also had to come to terms with my "fear" of hunger. I spent a number of years essentially starving to stay below my natural set point which was somewhere in the neighborhood of 150# for a 5'6" physically fit woman. Unfortunately I messed with mother nature and spent several years seriously hungry and exercising like a fiend at 130# to look "better". What resulted when I "failed" was years of yo-yo dieting that ratcheted me well above 200# after a number of lose-regain cycles. Those years of starving are etched in my memory as misery incarnate but I overreacted to hunger and wolfed down food in response to it completely overriding my natural appetite. Now the first 10 minutes of any meal are really important for me to FOCUS on what I am doing and to mentally and physically slow down so that I taste, experience the act of eating and allow my body to get full on it's own. Additionally I can decide to "delay" or defer eating something to another time giving myself permission to eat full lead real ice-cream, an extra helping or whatever as a treat at another time, not just because it's there. I find that this raincheck as it were, allows me to not feel left out or cheated if I take a pass and I'm not perfect so I sometimes do eat stuff when I'm not hungry, the degree and number of times in a given period being drastically reduced. Mind you after years of dieting my thinking about food had become pretty disordered.

Genetics and my obesity combined to make me a medication controlled diabetic that gradually came on so it's more important than ever that I make wise food choices for the preponderances of my meals. I find that nutritionally dense foods regardless of their calorie content and foods with a lot of flavor last longer in both my mouth and system. My DH and I also eat roughly twice a day, completely out of whack with the "normal" mealtimes commonly accepted here in the US. We eat a larger meal at roughly 10am and a smaller meal at roughly 4pm and that's pretty much it. My DH may snack on something later but I find that I don't need to and I had a huge night eating problem.

Note that other than making better choices for the majority of my food intake over time and reordering my thinking and behavior that contributed to my weight problem I have done very little food management. I am a very busy person and always have been so I'm quite active and that of course helps.

I used to ride much higher on the scale than I do now. Over time my mean weight has come down about 30 pounds. I'm not dieting. I'm not hungry. I'm not exercising like an athlete to keep weight off. When I say mean as it regards weight, I have bad months and I might ride higher by 10 pounds or so from stress eating, poor planning, bad choices and mindlessness but I never ever get back up there where I was when I quit dieting, not even close. I suppose as the years roll on, there is potential to reach my natural set point again but I'd be glad of reasonable proximity. That's it in a big old nutshell.
What do your blood pressure and cholesterol numbers look like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Connecticut is my adopted home.
2,276 posts, read 3,057,402 times
Reputation: 7012
My doctor has me on prophylactic meds for BP but it's bargain basement numbers. Last check 96/65ish. My total cholesterol ranges 150s-168 but my HDL is lower than ideal. Otherwise decent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
7,233 posts, read 6,401,646 times
Reputation: 8271
MSG makes things really addicting. Those snack crackers that are tomato basal, ranch, or whatever flavored, even if they claim to be multigrain or 'baked' , tend to be loaded with MSG which gives them such a satisfying, almost meaty like flavor. You know which ones they are when you could go through a whole box of them.

"Chicken in a Biskit" chicken flavored crackers are one such example. I don't buy them, I only eat them when I visit my mother who does buy them. I could eat the whole box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: IN
20,767 posts, read 35,754,837 times
Reputation: 13177
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
MSG makes things really addicting. Those snack crackers that are tomato basal, ranch, or whatever flavored, even if they claim to be multigrain or 'baked' , tend to be loaded with MSG which gives them such a satisfying, almost meaty like flavor. You know which ones they are when you could go through a whole box of them.

"Chicken in a Biskit" chicken flavored crackers are one such example. I don't buy them, I only eat them when I visit my mother who does buy them. I could eat the whole box.
That has more to do with many people craving the wheat all the time with its gluten and gliadin components. You didn't see widespread snacking 30-40 years ago before modern high yield durum wheat hit the store shelves starting in the mid 1980s. I am on a strict gluten free diet and never snack between meals most of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top