U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2009, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,505 posts, read 3,847,791 times
Reputation: 931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Alterations in metabolism, as in illness, can cause a mis-match between appetite and metab. I"ll take my Nobel Prize. It's the one thing I don't have, LOL!
You haven't proven anything other than people take in more energy than they need. That is hardly a significant discovery. There is almost always a mis-match between appetite and metabolism. The key here is that by controlling in take a person can limit weight gain and maintain a normal weight. And it is as simple as limiting in take to a level equal to or less than ones base metabolic rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 09:09 PM
 
6,662 posts, read 6,840,194 times
Reputation: 10050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidus View Post
You haven't proven anything other than people take in more energy than they need. That is hardly a significant discovery. There is almost always a mis-match between appetite and metabolism. The key here is that by controlling in take a person can limit weight gain and maintain a normal weight. And it is as simple as limiting in take to a level equal to or less than ones base metabolic rate.
So let's do a hypothetical here. Suppose a metabolically challenged person (from disease or medications) needs 800 calories a day, total, for activity and base metabolic rate. It's entirely possible, so don't try to tell me that. At 800 calories a day, a person will suffer malnutrition, as it is impossible to get all the nutrients you need from food at that caloric level.

Here's the question: Do you think it is better for that metabolically challenged person to put themselves into a malnourished state, or for them to carry a few extra pounds?

Second question: Since it has been proven that dieting reduces your metabolic rate, and you would therefore need to eat less to maintain your weight at the new, lower metabolic level, how do you propose that this be addressed in the real world? (Note: the real world does not live in a test tube, and biological calories burned are not the same as burning foods in a test tube.) Also, do you think that, if dieting reduces your metabolic rate, that it is possible, over time, to increase your metabolic rate by not only increased activity, but increased intake of food?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 09:41 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidus View Post
You haven't proven anything other than people take in more energy than they need. That is hardly a significant discovery. There is almost always a mis-match between appetite and metabolism. The key here is that by controlling in take a person can limit weight gain and maintain a normal weight. And it is as simple as limiting in take to a level equal to or less than ones base metabolic rate.
I agree with Emeralmaiden, and I will add, some medications can increase your appetite. You act like weight control is some moral issue and people who can't "control" their weight are immoral. May you never be plauged with these problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,505 posts, read 3,847,791 times
Reputation: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
So let's do a hypothetical here. Suppose a metabolically challenged person (from disease or medications) needs 800 calories a day, total, for activity and base metabolic rate. It's entirely possible, so don't try to tell me that. At 800 calories a day, a person will suffer malnutrition, as it is impossible to get all the nutrients you need from food at that caloric level.
Well nutritional requirements and calorie requirements are related but not exactly the same thing. It is possible to suffer from malnutrition and still be obese. It is also possible to get enough nutrients but have a calorie deficit. For example CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition) diets work on this principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
Here's the question: Do you think it is better for that metabolically challenged person to put themselves into a malnourished state, or for them to carry a few extra pounds?
I think it would be better to carry a few extra pounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
Second question: Since it has been proven that dieting reduces your metabolic rate, and you would therefore need to eat less to maintain your weight at the new, lower metabolic level, how do you propose that this be addressed in the real world? (Note: the real world does not live in a test tube, and biological calories burned are not the same as burning foods in a test tube.)
Yes, it is well documented that as you lose mass your base metabolic rate also decreases, so you require fewer calories. In the real world it means you should reach a plateau in which you stop losing weight. A calorie (actually we are talking about kilo calories here) is a scientific measurement of energy and does not change because of the presence or absence of a test tube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
Also, do you think that, if dieting reduces your metabolic rate, that it is possible, over time, to increase your metabolic rate by not only increased activity, but increased intake of food?
Yes activity increase will certainly raise your metabolic rate, that is the purpose of exercise. Increased intake of food will also raise your base metabolic rate because your body will expend more energy to process it and as you gain mass your body will need more energy to maintain normal body functions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,505 posts, read 3,847,791 times
Reputation: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I agree with Emeralmaiden, and I will add, some medications can increase your appetite. You act like weight control is some moral issue and people who can't "control" their weight are immoral. May you never be plauged with these problems.
Really I just disagree with the idea that people have no control over weight gain. That is just not the case.

Is it a moral issue? That depends I guess. Is being lazy a moral issue? Is being uninterested in learning a moral issue? Is being unable to control urges for sex, drugs, alcohol, or tobacco a moral issue?

Ultimately, I do believe that being unwilling to control one's weight is immoral. But it's not that bad. I would say that smoking is worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,847,271 times
Reputation: 11319
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl View Post
Aaah, personal responsibility. What a concept, huh?

With very few exceptions, being fat IS a choice. But it's not a crime, and while it might not be fun to sit next to a 300-pound person on a bus or plane, or whatever, somebody else's excess adipose tissue isn't actually adversely affecting me. While it's true obese persons cost more in healthcare, I'm not 100% sure I'm the one footing that bill. If that can be proven to me, then I'd be more inclined to force more personal responsibility on fat persons. Until then, I say..."Let them eat cake".
Very few? Thank you for your insight, Dr. FCG.
You seem to know everything.
Is this the topic of your doctorate?
If not, it's just your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,847,271 times
Reputation: 11319
[quote=ecvMatt;9666666]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post

My insurance also covers the triple bypass I'll have if I eat crap all the time, so there is no difference in cost to anyone, cept maybe my food bill.
Yeah, my father died of heart disease and he was rail thin.
Obviously, you're not a proponent of facts.

I have basically excellent health, and I'm not thin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,847,271 times
Reputation: 11319
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz4guy View Post
If (Calories_In > Calories_Spent) then {
gain_pounds();
}
esle {
lose_pounds();
}

It's not rocket science.
It's not necessarily accurate, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidus View Post
Yes metabolism can vary but one can never store more energy than is taken in. In fact, because of the inefficiency of the body one must consume a large surplus of energy in order to store it as fat. This is because of fundamental laws of the universe and if you can prove that it is not true in even one case then you could win a Nobel prize in physics.
When I gained 36 lbs in 6 weeks, I was eating salads and drinking a gallon of water a day. My system was in shut-down.
Yeah, it's anecdotal, but that's better than your generalized assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Texas
587 posts, read 362,198 times
Reputation: 339
Did I miss the information about which line I need to stand in to get the Fat Tat on my forehead to identity me for tax purposes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,505 posts, read 3,847,791 times
Reputation: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
When I gained 36 lbs in 6 weeks, I was eating salads and drinking a gallon of water a day. My system was in shut-down.
Yeah, it's anecdotal, but that's better than your generalized assumption.
No its not. A pound of fat contains 3500 calories, this is not a generalized assumption but a well documented fact. In order to gain 36 pounds in 6 weeks you had to have had a surplus of no less than 126,000 calories in that six weeks assuming all the weight gain was fat. Now not all of your gain was fat, you certainly also gained in other tissues as well, but the fact remains that that energy had to be taken in by you. It cannot just come out of nowhere. If all you ate was salads then you must have eaten enough salad to account for 126,000 calories on top of your daily metabolic needs.

Your system did not shut down. System shut down results in the physiological condition known as death. You said that you were gaining weight, that is evidence that your system was still functioning, although not normally but well enough to continue to store energy.

Last edited by Lucidus; 07-08-2009 at 11:05 PM..
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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 · Bug Bounty

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