Forum menu
alright, i'm not hungry. I just like eating pom-bears.
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
so I eat them. if there wasn't, i'd probably find something else to snack on.
I don't need to eat them, I want to eat them. and I can, because I'm not an elite athlete and frankly being 5-10kg over my ideal weight doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the world.
I'll add to ledger on Molgrips side.
My GF can put away food like she's been starved for weeks, when in reality she's probably eaten a couple of hours beforehand, she can quite happily eat a volume of food that is frankly disturbing given her size. She's Gluten intolerant, so no wheat, but as she perhaps rightly says, that just frees up space for the nicer stuff. She's also ridiculously skinny, but gives off heat like a radiator turned fully up, and yet says she feels constantly cold. She walks about 10 miles a day to and from her work, but the only other form of exercise she does is a yoga class once a week.
If you told her that Obesity didn't have a genetic component, she'd probably laugh at you.
if there wasn’t, i’d probably find something else to snack on.
Ok, but not everyone does this. Some people just don't bother snacking. Some people just love food more than others. Wonder why...
But that’s just it – what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go? Are you radiating heat all the time? Or does it come out of your arse? If either of those two things – then why?
Contrary to what I posted previously, I also find it hard to lose weight. I'm hardly a fatty at 188cm & 86kg, but I would be more comfortable at my usual 80. My gain has been due to a long period of injury, not being able to exercise as much & not watching what i'm eating.
Having 'invested' a bit of time into understanding where the tipping point is for me, it comes out at approximately 2000 calories a day. If I consistently eat over this, I put weight on. If I consistently eat under this, I lose weight. It really is as simple as that.
As someone who in the past, who could literally eat & drink anything & everything I wanted & be 80kg I don't believe for one second my genes have 'changed'.
Also, reading it back, she's talking about people with a BMI of less than 18. That's 2% of the population apparently. 60%+ are overweight of varying degrees.
I’ve managed to overcome my genetics to become the fine specimen I am today.
For many years, I was burdened by being naturally skinny and attractive. No matter how much I ate, I stubbornly retained a body like an Ethiopian Racing Snake.
A concerted effort of needless gluttony over the last ten years or so have finally made me into the chunky biffa I always wanted to be.
Wasn’t easy though. I had to work hard and make a lot of sacrifices.
But that’s just it – what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go?
It's been posted here before, but this:
Nah, that looks fun but it's not the whole story at all. Tells us nothing.
I don’t believe for one second my genes have ‘changed’.
No, but gene expression changes, and (what's probably more significant) your gut biome can also change.
Just to be clear, in case anyone is having trouble - I'm not saying the amount you eat has NO effect (obviously) I'm saying that there is a strong genetic and environmental component which both drives what you eat and what effect it has.
i'm not really sure what you are trying to prove. its not your fault you are fat? (i don't actually believe you are fat anyway), its not fair that others aren't fat?
i have no issue there may be some genetically influenced variability on how hungry you may feel, how efficiently your body processes/absorbs calories etc. but you cannot get away from the fact that if you exert more energy than take in, you will lose weight.
It’s been posted here before, but this:
" ... eat less, move more and keep breathing ..."
Plus strong determination as people like to stuff their face ... 😀
i’m not really sure what you are trying to prove.
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
Nah, that looks fun but it’s not the whole story at all. Tells us nothing.
Well let me just throw this back at you...
"let’s see your credentials".
The study doesnt say what the different alleles do so it could be fatties eat more or burn it slower but the energy in energy out equation is very simple and true.
So "fattie bashing" isn't a euphemism?
I thought this thread was going to be about this : proper fatty bashing :
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
how much harder? 1%? 10% 50%
far more likely that people underestimate how many calories they take in.
the energy in energy out equation is very simple and true.
It's not simple. No-one's been able to give an answer as to how the calories might leave your body.
If it were true, if you ate even slightly more than you exercised you'd get gradually fatter all the time and as old people most of us would be gigantic immobile blobs. This is clearly not happening.
Food doesn't magically turn into fat inside your body. There are a load of processes driven by hormones that cause fat cells to take up energy. There's a feedback loop that tends to stabilise our weight. So if the food you eat doesn't end up as fat and you don't burn it off, where does it go? Out of your arse. So yes, it's calories out, but not in the form of smug self-righteous exercise.
It's more complicated than you think. It just is.
Well let me just throw this back at you…
“let’s see your credentials”.
I have none beyond an appreciation of the scientific method, but that's why I started the thread because the highly qualified scientist in the article does in fact agree with me. As do most of the scientists who I've read about, which is why I have the opinion I do.
how much harder? 1%? 10% 50%
far more likely that people underestimate how many calories they take in.
I'm sure many of them do. But then again some people don't give a shit how many calories they take in, have no need for any kind of will power and they stay thin. Then they have the cheek to criticise fat people.
what defines calories out? All that stuff you eat, where does it go? Are you radiating heat all the time? Or does it come out of your arse? If either of those two things – then why?
Well looking at it from a purely engineering standpoint it seems pretty straightforward. As an animal there is only one source of energy and that is food. The calories you burn will pretty much come out of your mouth (in the form of CO2). Some water will also be formed and be excreted in the normal way (breath, sweat, urine, faeces. Any excess calories will either be stored by the body in various forms or excreted. Any deficit will be made up from the bodies stores.
One thing that is "interesting" about the article is that people who have the "thin gene" (for want of a better expression) are lucky, but this is only the case recently. In evolutionary terms people with the ability to store food on their bodies had the evolutionary advantage.
If it were true, if you ate even slightly more than you exercised you’d get gradually fatter all the time and as old people most of us would be gigantic immobile blobs. This is clearly not happening.
This is a miss representation of what people actually say. For example Hob Nob said that were he in calorie deficit he would lose weight. This is correct. He did NOT say that if he were in calorie surplus he would gain weight (although that is what happens albeit at different rates for different people) as there is another "exit" from the body.
So yes, it’s calories out, but not in the form of smug self-righteous exercise.
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the "energy out" part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
No-one’s been able to give an answer as to how the calories might leave your body.
Heat? Fatties are better insulated
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the “energy out” part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
I have none beyond an appreciation of the scientific method, but that’s why I started the thread because the highly qualified scientist in the article does in fact agree with me
I'm not sure she does - assuming Prof Tom Sanders is correct the study "[confirms] that precocious severe obesity is often genetically determined and showing convincingly that those who are very thin are genetically different from the general population". This study doesn't cover the vast majority of us.
That it is harder for some people than others (which has been denied and scorned on here as excuse-making) and that is backed up by science. And that it is NOT a simple equation.
This. But that doesn't mean you should give up trying. Some people find it harder to give up smoking than others, doesn't mean they should just carry on smoking.
To be clear are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the “energy out” part of the equation also includes the stuff you excrete is some sort of revelation?
No, I'm saying that fattie bashers need to realise that there is a lot more going on than they assume. Many people seem to think that they're thin because they have more willpower and are consequently better than fat people. When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don't have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day. And being nasty to those people is just shit.
This. But that doesn’t mean you should give up trying. Some people find it harder to give up smoking than others, doesn’t mean they should just carry on smoking.
Of course.
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Even Sweetcorn?
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Of course it's got calorific value. Flies don't eat it just because it's delicious.
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes.
That's not a fact, it's a factor.
If you are excreting stuff with calorific value you should see a Dr
Poop has calorific value, so be careful with that. Not eating mind, but you can burn it and, if you are eating a lot of fat, then you will be getting rid of that as well, which also has [useful] calorific value. Whether you would want to try and re-use it is another matter.
I do agree that, for something like hyperproteinurea or peeing glucose tainted urine you should be seeing the doctor. Mind you, it's probably that you would be told of both of these whilst having a medical, so that's pretty redundant.
Back to the main topic though, I think it is safe to say that weight gain in humans can be best summarised as 'complicated'. I think that a lot of obesity and T2 diabetes _is_ environmental/lifestyle (as a nation, food is easier to get hold of and our lifestyle _are_ less active), but that there will be a small proportion of the population that will be genetically predisposed to weight gain outside the norm (think hypothyroidism). I also think that, because of the way that evolution is and genes work, this will become _more_ normal. People have generally become taller over time, so maybe humans will respond to this change in lifestyle by becoming fatter. Who knows?
Credentials: BSc Applied Biochemistry. Not that it makes much difference any more.
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don’t have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day.
Just to re-iterate, it specifically states in the article the 'skinny' genes was aimed at the people with a BMI of less than 18. Which is less than 2% of the UK population.
Are we suggesting genes have evolved/mutated (I don't know what the scientific term is) in (very) recent times which is why obesity rates have soared?
Just to re-iterate, it specifically states in the article the ‘skinny’ genes was aimed at the people with a BMI of less than 18. Which is less than 2% of the UK population.
Well, it seems to me that by taking the extreme ends and the middle of the spectrum and comparing the rate of incidence of certain genes they are extrapolating a relationship that affects all of us.
Are we suggesting genes have evolved/mutated (I don’t know what the scientific term is) in (very) recent times which is why obesity rates have soared?
No. I am stating that it is harder for some people to gain and lose weight than others, because their genes affect the feedback mechanisms that control the creation of fat. This has always been the case. When the population starts eating more, on average they will get fatter, but some more so than others.
However I have also read other articles that say that gut biome has a significant affect on weight, and other articles again that say that our gut biomes have changed a lot in recent years since that is affected by how and what we eat and even how we live.
Poop has calorific value, so be careful with that.
Poop is not excreted its egested, if sweetcorn is coming out of the hole you wee through...GO STRAIGHT TO HOSPITAL!!
Want another perspective? I used to be slim but my weight has increased by nearly 50% and am now close to obesity. I was in any case under the tragedy that is UK Endocrinology and both consultants were joint head of endocrinology. These two ****ers, despite my proving photographic evidence and detailing my decades of outdoor sports, showed zero intellectual curiosity. They've both been called out and one had the cheek to tell me that he wasn't concerned about my symptoms. I am not the only female to have experienced this.
#EndocrinologyDustbinOfTheNHS
I used to be slim but my weight has increased by nearly 50% and am now close to obesity.
Did you start by losing 50% of your will power? Guessing not.. like I say, not as simple as some people make out.
When in fact, how difficult or easy it is to stay thin is an accident of genes. Some people don’t have to try, some only a little bit, and some have a mountain to climb every day.
Exactly. If 2 people ate exactly the same and did exactly the same amount of exercise yet only one gained weight it simply means the person who gained weight cannot eat as much as the person who didn't.
We are not all the same and our thresholds are different. Makes it harder to resist urges for the person who puts the weight on.
This doesn't cover the ridiculously thin but eat like a horse people. I know a family where the mother, father and all 3 children look like sticks. They can eat as much as they like but never put on weight and even though they are now in their 40's they are still like sticks.
alright, i’m not hungry. I just like eating pom-bears.
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
Virtual high five 🖐
I’m a monster. I stole my four year old child’s last bag of Pom Bears yesterday. Those things are so tasty and my brain seems to think they are calorie free, just like those pink wafer biscuits and prawn crackers.
this is a good read if you are interested in the science of calories
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/what-does-a-calorie-measure/427089/
and there are pom bears in the cupboard.
there arent pom bears in the cupboard any more...
the problem is, it comes across as 'wah, its not fair, its not my fault...'
in my experience, of myself and pretty much everyone in life that i have lived with, worked with, cycled with, surfed with. if you are overweight, its because of choices you have made.
I chose to eat the pom bears and I'll run 10k later but that'll put me pretty much back where I started. not sure where the two slices of nutella on toast will end up though...
Those who are skinny and claim they eat loads - i'd be willing to bet good money they are all vastly overestimating how much they're eating.
In the same way overweight people underestimate how much they eat ('I've been dieting and not lost any weight!'), those who are skinny do the same in reverse.
I used to be the same - I was 6 foot and 9.5 stone. Clinically underweight. I always thought 'I can eat and eat and never gain weight', but in reality I was eating nowhere near enough calories to gain any meaningful weight.
I learnt about nutrition and the science behind building muscle and to this day am absolutely amazed how much I have to eat to gain muscle mass. I'm now 13.8 stone which is perhaps on the portly size but it is bulking season so what do you expect. Last time I went on a cut I lost half a stone in a matter of weeks - it's easily done, you just stop eating - or in my case, go back to old eating habits from before I started to gain weight.
The flip side to this is those who are genuinely overweight must have to eat so much food to maintain their fat reserves it genuinely boggles my mind. Genetics or not, you need to get the energy from somewhere in the first place.
As someone who in the past, who could literally eat & drink anything & everything I wanted & be 80kg I don’t believe for one second my genes have ‘changed
your epigenetics can/will change though.
if you are overweight, its because of choices you have made.
Such as choosing to take steroids to treat a brain tumour?
My father gained a shit load of weight after being diagnosed coeliac.
He had been eating loads and it was passing straight through his body.
Once he modified his diet to suit coeliac and his body was able to process food again- and didn't cut the food to reflect his new found ability to process it
So yes I'd agree that people process foods in different ways....
But he just modified his diet to suit and all was good
Such as choosing to take steroids to treat a brain tumour?
Yeah, that's exactly why obesity rates are increasing.
Yeah, that’s exactly why obesity rates are increasing.
Well you learn something every day.