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.
So here's what I'm curious about. I don't think this has ever been tested, due to the obvious reasons.
But, would it be possible for an overweight person to die of starvation before he goes down to a skeletal, dangerously low weight?
It certainly has been tested, on numerous occasions, but perhaps the best records were kept during WWII, both at the death camps and POW concentration camps.
The answer is yes. Long before an overweight or obese person died of starvation though, many (depending on age and general health at the outset) would succumb to cardiac abnormalities - from fatal arrhythmias to heart attacks and heart failure - primarily due to mineral depletion, rather than caloric restriction. The body's electrical system would soon go awry without an adequate supply of calcium, magnesium, potassium, sea salt, and a number of other important minerals, oils, and vitamins. Even today, amongst the general population, over 80% are deficient in these minerals and end up on (unnecessary) beta blockers and other meds (really just a form of chemotherapy - chemical therapy), which only serve to exacerbate the problem(s). More people die of cardiac complications because of these deficiencies than any other reason, and that has nothing to do with caloric restriction.
So say a overweight person could just stop eating. Full stop.
If their body works the way it's expected to, what should technically happen is that they should start burning fat to fuel their bodily functions and keep them alive; and that should continue until there is no more tissues to burn.
Again, insufficient water, minerals, vitamins, and the proper oils will kill the body faster than a lack of other foods.
Now, would that actually be what happens?
Or would the person, especially one whose metabolism doesn't quite function as it should, die of malnutrition long before they get to that stage?
It would also be interesting to see what happens to people of different metabolisms. For example someone with a more healthy one may be able to stay alive longer because their body is more efficient at burning fat to fuel them.
Hmm...
Any caloric restriction will result in an escalation of fuel being taken from fat reserves, but heavier people do tend to fare better in survival situations (starvation situations), but the rate at which they burn fat for fuel will, of course, depend on one's individual metabolic rate.
Actually, some of the research on gut microbes does point to the fact that some biological differences and ancestral heritage may explain why some nations are naturally slimmer than others. The guts of people in different conditions have evolved to process food differently. There are also some studies that point out that, for example, the successors of people who have lived through a famine were more likely to be obese.
Here's another article that talks about some of this. Fascinating stuff, much as some people are for some reason bent on denying it...
Even if two people were to somehow eat the same sweet potato cooked the same way they would not get the same number of calories. Carmody and colleagues studied a single strain of heavily inbred lab mice such that their mice were as similar to each other as possible. Yet the mice still varied in terms of how much they grew or shrank on a given diet, thanks presumably to subtle differences in their behavior or bodies. Humans vary in nearly all traits, whether height, skin color, or our guts. Back when it was the craze to measure such variety European scientists discovered that Russian intestines are about five feet longer than those of, say, Italians. This means that those Russians eating the same amount of food as the Italians likely get more out of it. Just why the Russians had (or have) longer intestines is an open question. Surely other peoples differ in their intestines too; intestines need more study, though I am not going to volunteer to do the dirty work. We also vary in terms of how much of particular enzymes we produce; the descendents of peoples who consumed lots of starchy food tend to produce more amylase, the enzyme that breaks down starch. Then there is the enzyme our bodies use to digest the lactose in milk, lactase. Many (some say most) adults are lactose deficient; they do not produce lactase and so do not break down the lactose in milk. As a result, even if they drink milk they receive far fewer calories from doing so than do individuals who produce lactase. Each of us gets a different number of calories out of identical foods because of who we are and who our ancestors were.
Morning Evil Cookie!
I don't have the research at my fingertips anymore, but you ought to be able to track it down fairly quickly, as there have been numerous studies done.
It isn't just Russians who have long intestinal tracts; all people from the coldest climates do. The reason we've evolved this way (I'm from the North of Scotland) is to lengthen the transit time of food (not great for cancer prospects but wonderful for efficiency), to enable people to extract more nutrients from their (scarce) food and to help to withstand the frigid weather. More food in the intestines generates more heat, just as lighter diets and lots of liquid, cool us down.
Ah, I see. So, we disqualify any information from the Bible because *you* deem it unreliable? What are your credentials please? (Rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious.)
Ah, I see. So, we disqualify any information from the Bible because *you* deem it unreliable? What are your credentials please? (Rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious.)
That's the entire point. Unlike science, there is no such thing as 'credentials' which those who believe chapter and verse, would ever accept. The entire system is based on "Because God said so," and nothing will ever be sufficient to change any of it. Therefore, information based solely on this system has no place in this or any other scientific discussion.
Just a couple of quick examples from my immediate family to back up the assertion, put forth by many on this thread, that those who struggle with weight loss do so for reasons they were born with.
I've had nine children; four are still living. When my kids were small I fed them a vegetarian diet chock full of veggies, a little fruit, nuts, and various legumes etc. I myself have been a vegetarian (with a few minor departures) since I was thirteen. I'm now 60. I'm also diabetic, as is my skinny husband, but that's another thread.
Three of my children are very much like I am when it comes to their eating habits. They like food well enough but don't eat much. One of our daughters, however, was different. Even as a baby of about nine months old, she would cry hard after every meal was over - real tears - not spoiled ones. I knew that she'd had enough to eat so I comforted her in other ways (holding her, distracting her, dancing with her in my arms and so on), but when her behavior continued, I became concerned.
I took her to our doctor and had her tested for deficiencies, diabetes, and everything else I could think of, but the results all came back negative for any physical abnormalities. She was, in fact, "Beautifully healthy." She wasn't overweight as a child because I would not overfeed her, but as a young woman, once she had left home, her weight skyrocketed to over 300 lbs - and yes, she ate her way up there. She kept that weight on for circa twenty years. Now, just in the past two years, she has slimmed down dramatically and has a lovely figure, despite being a single mother of two young sons. She'll still tell you to this day though, that she's 'Never been full'! She's always hungry, but chooses that over being overweight. While she's the only one of our kids to have a problem with her appetite, she isn't the only one in our immediate family.
My grandmother (may she rest in peace) lived to just a couple of months shy of her 99th birthday. She was forty-two years older than I, and for the first ten years of my life I remember her as a fattie. As the story goes, she gained a great deal of weight with her third child, and it took her years to lose it. She gained it all back though, and more, and carried that weight until I was around ten years old. She did eat her way up there the second time around. She worked in a candy store and couldn't resist the chocolates. I'm guessing here, but I'd say she weighted about 200 lbs, an awful lot for her 5' frame. Then she changed.
For the remainder of her life (about 47 years) she ate next to nothing, as that's what it took for her to get to and maintain her 98 lbs, which she did for the rest of her life. When visiting (anyone), and mealtimes rolled around, she'd always say, "I just like a taste." And that's exactly what she ate - permanently. She'd have a small piece of cheese in the morning, along with an plain Scottish oatcake, while she was still working part-time (NOT in the candy store, LOL!), but she didn't bother with breakfast after she retired. She liked a bit of dry toast daily, copious amounts of black tea, and she sipped on brandy throughout the day - but only a little. Apart from the raw egg she ate without fail, 'real' food wasn't part of her reality.
Unfortunately, I'm finding out that I'm like her insofar as what I can get away with, which didn't become clear to me until relatively recently (after menopause). I gained my excess weight because of several medical conditions and the pharmaceutical drugs I was given to help to manage them. I've tossed most of the meds now (in favor of natural therapies), but withdrawal is hell, so I'll likely need another few months for my system to settle down. Meanwhile, I'm committed to eating 'Just a taste,' as my grandmother did. I expect it'll take me a year or more to get back to my comfortable weight of 104 lbs., but I don't mind. I know that if I'm spared, I'll get there.
That's the entire point. Unlike science, there is no such thing as 'credentials' which those who believe chapter and verse, would ever accept. The entire system is based on "Because God said so," and nothing will ever be sufficient to change any of it. Therefore, information based solely on this system has no place in this or any other scientific discussion.
Umm.... because *you* said so, right? See the logic?
I never claimed anything to be fact or true just because I said so. That's what *you* do when you present Bible verses as evidence or proof.
"Nothing is true just because someone said it is" is literally a core scientific principle, and pretty much the opposite of what you just said.
So no - I don't see the logic in your statement, because it's illogical.
I didn't present Bible verses at all; someone else did. I simply defended their right to quote the Source material. After all, posters are quoting The New York Times and The Huffington Post etc., so why not the Bible? You don't really believe the six o'clock news, do you?
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.
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.
