electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I just finished watching an interesting BBC documentary entitled "Why Are Thin People Not Fat?", which followed the course of an experiment on thin people. The experiment was based on one conduced in the 1960's at Vermont's State Prison, and it goes something like this... What happens if you take "naturally" skinny people and dramatically increase their caloric intake over the course of 4 weeks? The results are rather interesting. Some people put on more weight than others, and there was also significant variation in the muscle/fat distribution of the weight they did gain. It's important to remember the basic laws of thermodynamics are assumed in these experiments, and it's also assumed people extract roughly the same percentage of energy out of their food (a good assumption). One of the first results was that some participants simply couldn't eat the target amount of calories. Their gag reflexes literally kicked in and caused them to vomit. Among those that did eat the target amount, some burned considerable energy in fidgeting and other "nervous" activities, and others basal metabolic rate went up (this is roughly your metabolic rate minus any activity you do). The reason for the increase in the basal metabolic rate was they had gained a substantial amount of muscle. Whether your body distributes excess calories to muscle or fat, in the absence of environmental influences (lifting weights, e.g.) is largely genetic. It may have something to do with the amount of fat cells you have, which is partly genetic itself. There are other ways your fat cell count can increase too, such as (amazingly) by catching a virus called the adenovirus. Also, if you've ever been over weight before (particularly in childhood or adolescence), your body likely created more fat cells in an attempt to handle all the excess calories, and once these fat cells have been created they are with you for life. So, on the biochemical and thermodynamic front it's clear that different peoples bodies react differently (nobody can take "credit" for how their body distributes calories to fat/muscle, or for subconscious things like fidgeting, or a gag reflex). How about the psychological and "behavioral" front? Studies on 4-5 year old children have shown there is a great deal of variation in how they behave in the presence of treats after they are already full. Some ignore the treats all together, and at the other extreme some will eat everything on the plate. These differences are mostly carried into adulthood. The question is whether the variation is learned or inherited. Like virtually all these issues, the answer is probably both, and in fact they have actually linked a gene (the FTO gene) to a tendency to overeat. Essentially, people lacking this gene don't have to exercise nearly the amount of will power or self-control in the presence of food as those who do. It's interesting to consider the implications of this on such ideas as will power, discipline, and indeed even free will itself. What seems trivially easy to one person may be tremendously difficult for another. To further drive home the point, another experimenter took overweight volunteers and reduced their caloric intake until their body weight had decreased by 10%. He then gave them just enough calories to maintain this new body weight. Almost all of the volunteers reported feeling hungry. The researcher concludes that our bodies have an "ideal" weight which they attempt to "enforce", via psychological mechanisms such as urges, desires, and hunger. Once again, this raises interesting questions about free will. Just how much of our behavior is really under our control, and how much decision making occurs "behind the scenes". So, considering our physical bodies response to caloric surplus/deficit vary (within the constraints of thermodynamics, of course), and the psychological mechanisms behind impulses, drives, and desires are different for all of us, it seems completely unwarranted to attach any stigma to being overweight at all. Thankfully I've always been very skinny, but apparently this is more an accident of my genetic inheritance and environmental past than due to some personally admirable trait I might possess. I don't believe the above implies that lifestyle has no role to play. To be human is to be involved in the complicated mix of genetics, environment, and personal agency we call life, and the interactions between them are puzzling indeed. The genetics part of the equation can't be changed much (yet), but it can still be worth while to push and nudge at the edges of environment and lifestyle. At least I hope so!
Moose Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 It's in my "Genes"..... Mrs. Moose and I eat Constantly! Never gaining weight....blessed I say.....VERY blessed!!
fral945 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 electric_sheep, I could talk all day about nutrition, it is an area I'm become very interested in over the past few years. I am a strong believer that a healthy weight for most people is far less genetic and much more lifestyle and diet based on my life experience. Some people are naturally thin, granted, but I don't think most people are naturally fat (even though most people nowadays are). I was somewhat overweight in my late teens (I was up to 195 lbs on my 5'9" frame at one time). I have since lost 20 lbs., decreased my waist size 3 inches (from 34 to 31), and lost all of my belly fat (which is where most of my extra weight was). I have been able to maintain this for the last 9 years. In my case it is a direct result of major lifestyle and dietary changes I made over a 3-4 yr period in my early 20s. I do not come from a heritage of thin people. In fact, all the older men in my family have huge bellies. Even some of my cousins my age and younger do as well. There are a lot of factors that contribute to overeating and hunger pangs. I would say the top 3 for me are: 1) Lack of sleep 2) Stress 3) Glycemic load of food eaten I've done my own research and learned quite a bit about nutrition. If you are not already familiar with it, you should read up on the glycemic load of foods. There are certain foods that tend to be more satiating and filling than others (namely whole, unprocessed foods in their most natural states). It's no surprise that people overeat and are constantly hungry when most of the foods we eat today are calorically dense and not satiating (namely, processed foods). I was eating those exact foods about 10 years ago. I was constantly hungry and never could quite figure out why I could not get the 6-pack abs, even though I was working out everyday and doing lots of abdominal exercises. I eventually starting reading books on nutrition and discovered my diet was the culprit. It took about 2 years, but I gradually transformed my body and mindset. Now I eat better and am almost never hungry. I have come to the conclusion that I am probably an average American in that I have the potential to be fat like anyone else if I adopt the standard Western diet and lifestyle (which I did until my early 20s). I live a lifestyle very different from that, and that to me is the main reason I do not have weight issues while most people spend their lives battling weight issues.
lovestruck818 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 stop b*tching about being fat, stop going to mcdonalds and start working out and you WILL lose weight. genetics, my @$$!
Trialbyfire Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 To further drive home the point, another experimenter took overweight volunteers and reduced their caloric intake until their body weight had decreased by 10%. He then gave them just enough calories to maintain this new body weight. Almost all of the volunteers reported feeling hungry. The researcher concludes that our bodies have an "ideal" weight which they attempt to "enforce", via psychological mechanisms such as urges, desires, and hunger. Once again, this raises interesting questions about free will. Just how much of our behavior is really under our control, and how much decision making occurs "behind the scenes". I don't disagree with most of what you posted but I'd be interested if an entire desired lifestyle change happened and if so or not, when he gave them the maintenance program. If you don't entirely change your mindset for a reasonable duration, you will crave a previous lifestyle, therefore I'm wondering if he's taken a HUGE leap of faith by drawing his conclusions.
Author electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 Well, every single one of the subjects said something similar at the beginning of the experiment, and they all had to recant their words to one degree or another. The experiment didn't invalidate thermodynamics. The extra energy they consumed DID go somewhere, it's just the "where" that varied. Some got burned off through "nervous" activity. Some got burned off due to an increase in the subjects basal metabolism rate, which in turn increased due to an increase in muscle mass. Why these subjects put on muscle instead of fat is somewhat of a mystery. It's a persistent myth that some people are somehow in violation of thermodynamics, or that their bodies somehow burn more energy "naturally" than others (basal metabolic rate is more or less dependent on lean muscle mass). If someone eats a tremendous amount of food and is still thin then... either they lead a very active life, are very "nervous", they are very muscular, or some combination of the three. In short, that energy is going "somewhere". I think the most interesting thing about the studies is how genes are involved with the psychological aspect of weight gain.
2sunny Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 i eat anything i want! i am slim. i only eat when i'm hungry though. if there's dessert - i eat it - but i eat half as much as i would WANT to. i also stay away from fast food - i only crave that and indulge once every 2-3 months. when i need a boost and strengthening for muscle i lean towards pilates or an hour of walking on the beach several days per week. works for me. when i am nervous - i lose weight. that really doesn't count, rarely happens. empathy plays a big role here. when it kicks in full force i can literally lose 5-10 pounds in a day. that is not a good thing for me.
Touche Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 i eat anything i want! i am slim. i only eat when i'm hungry though. if there's dessert - i eat it - but i eat half as much as i would WANT to. i also stay away from fast food - i only crave that and indulge once every 2-3 months. when i need a boost and strengthening for muscle i lean towards pilates or an hour of walking on the beach several days per week. works for me. when i am nervous - i lose weight. that really doesn't count, rarely happens. empathy plays a big role here. when it kicks in full force i can literally lose 5-10 pounds in a day. that is not a good thing for me. You contradict yourself above. You're not eating everything you want to if you're eating HALF as much as you want to. As for me, I really do eat everything and anything I want to and still struggle with being underweight. I'm on a weight gain diet now as a matter of fact. For me that means eating calorie dense foods. I just can't eat a LOT of food and tend to choose low-cal foods like seafood and vegetables. Anyway, interesting thread Electric Sheep!
2sunny Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 i only said i eat half as much DESSERT as would normally want. i could load up on way too much sugar if i let myself. everything else i eat as much as i want. i am like you. i try to gain. but i try not to do too much sugar.
Author electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 I have come to the conclusion that I am probably an average American in that I have the potential to be fat like anyone else if I adopt the standard Western diet and lifestyle (which I did until my early 20s). Cases like yours are certainly encouraging. There is one serious limitation to the genetic argument, and that is it doesn't explain why obesity has become an "epidemic". There is little doubt that Americans have been getting fatter and fatter since the 50's. I think what's happened is cultural norms and attitudes have changed (high pressure jobs, less time to enjoy "authentic" home cooking, etc...), as well as our environment (abundance of bad food choices), in such a way that more and more people are "susceptible" to gain weight, if they already have the genetic disposition. stop b*tching about being fat, stop going to mcdonalds and start working out and you WILL lose weight. genetics, my @$$! Ha! I've been skinny all my life. I don't disagree with most of what you posted but I'd be interested if an entire desired lifestyle change happened and if so or not, when he gave them the maintenance program. If you don't entirely change your mindset for a reasonable duration, you will crave a previous lifestyle, therefore I'm wondering if he's taken a HUGE leap of faith by drawing his conclusions. Of all the experiments discussed, this was the one I had the most trouble with too. "Urges", cravings, etc... are at least partially psychological phenomenon and hence subject to ones belief systems and attitudes. It might be possible to learn to "manage" them in some fashion, and in so doing they may eventually go away or become less powerful. I think there will inevitably be a tension between the genetic/inheritance/determined side of the argument and the will power/lifestyle side. Any one person may fall anywhere on the spectrum. Perhaps for some people (say they were born with an unusually high fat cell count, plus the FTO gene, and then were unfortunate enough to contract the adenovirus!) it may be a loosing battle. Others may get a lot more milage out of lifestyle changes. The point I took from this was... it doesn't really seem reasonable to "blame" people for their body type, or to attach stigma to one type or another. After all, we don't know what's the deciding factor for them individually (genes or environment). At the same time, if one is trying to loose weight, it certainly doesn't make sense to just ASSUME you have the genetic deck stacked against you, and that it's hopeless. You might as well give it the ole college try, as they say, particularly considering the health issues.
Author electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 Sorry, my post #6 above was in response to Moose's post #2 above.
sunshinegirl Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 So, considering our physical bodies response to caloric surplus/deficit vary (within the constraints of thermodynamics, of course), and the psychological mechanisms behind impulses, drives, and desires are different for all of us, it seems completely unwarranted to attach any stigma to being overweight at all. Thankfully I've always been very skinny, but apparently this is more an accident of my genetic inheritance and environmental past than due to some personally admirable trait I might possess. Interesting research findings. I suspect that the emerging 'fat acceptance' movement on the web would agree with these findings. That said, there's a bit of contradiction in that paragraph because of your use of the word "thankfully": "There's nothing wrong or bad about being overweight but THANK GOD I'm not!"
Touche Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Interesting research findings. I suspect that the emerging 'fat acceptance' movement on the web would agree with these findings. That said, there's a bit of contradiction in that paragraph because of your use of the word "thankfully": "There's nothing wrong or bad about being overweight but THANK GOD I'm not!" Good point! Speaking of contradictions..it's STILL a contradiction to say on the one hand I eat everything I want and on the other hand I eat half as much DESSERT as I want. Nope. Still a contradiction. The second point contradicts and cancels out the first. You DON'T eat everything you want if you're eating half the DESSERT even though you WANT all of it. Me? I eat the whole dessert. I really do eat everything I want...no exceptions. The thing is is that I don't crave desserts very often.
fral945 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Cases like yours are certainly encouraging. There is one serious limitation to the genetic argument, and that is it doesn't explain why obesity has become an "epidemic". There is little doubt that Americans have been getting fatter and fatter since the 50's. I think what's happened is cultural norms and attitudes have changed (high pressure jobs, less time to enjoy "authentic" home cooking, etc...), as well as our environment (abundance of bad food choices), in such a way that more and more people are "susceptible" to gain weight, if they already have the genetic disposition. I agree. I think if you live like the average American most people will have difficulty maintaining a healthy weight. Only the few genetically blessed will stay within a healthy range. I'm not sure how easy it would be to change cultural attitudes, though, to make them more conducive to maintaining a healthy weight. No question in my mind that I could easily gain weight if I went back to my old ways (though I don't even want to try). My favorite is when people I meet or know (that didn't know me when I was heavier) comment that my weight is attributable to my age, genetics, or exercise (because I am still in my 20s). I usually then share with them the fact that I had a bigger waist and was heavier in my teens than I am in my late 20s, and the only thing I have changed is my diet. My exercise level and intensity is about the same or slightly less than it was at that time. They usually have no comment after that.
blondesmiler Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 From what I have read and heard, thin people don't think about food as much as non thin people do. Non thin people are always thinking about their next meal or snack even if on a healthy eating plan. I am not naturally thin, I work at it to maintain my weight with eating well most of the time and exercise. But I do always think about what will I be having for lunch, for dinner and when will that be, its like a survival thing. That said, alot of people are overweight because they eat too much and do not savour what they are eating just shoveling down, and also not moving enough. Our lives are less physical now than in earlier years, so we have to make our lives more physical with exercise. If we still had to hand wash all our clothes, walk everywhere, prepare our food from stratch, even farm and grow our own food, then we wouldn't have such a need to exercise. But our lives have just become more sedentary with technology etc so we have to adapt to maintain a balance of still being active.
kashmir Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I eat a ton and I love food. For breakfast alone I'll have a bacon, peppers, ham, and cheese omelet, 5 hard boiled egg whites, a waffle covered in butter and syrup, about 6 glasses of juices, 2 bananas, a big bowl of grapes, and 3-4 big cantaloupe slices. Maybe sometimes a donut and hot chocolate. I also exercise a ton and love exercise. Before breakfast I do different workouts, but the most endurance-based and calorie burning is 100 minutes of straight high heart rate cardio, either erging, running, biking, or doing an ab/chest/legs circuit. It balances out. I used to have 33% body fat when I was 14, and let me tell you, I didn't eat much, not like you think someone of my size would. I genetically had a very slow metabolism. I started to exercise and became thin within a few months.
Author electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 That said, there's a bit of contradiction in that paragraph because of your use of the word "thankfully": "There's nothing wrong or bad about being overweight but THANK GOD I'm not!" You definitely got me there. If medical science can be believed there are definite disadvantages to being over weight, or at least obese. I mean, I'll come right out and admit it too... I'm more attracted to "fit" girls than I am to overweight girls. This is a personal preference (and a cultural one). I'm sure the two are related. Anyway, I think there is a difference between preference and stigma though. This quote perfectly highlights the "stigma" and it's accompanying attitude: stop b*tching about being fat, stop going to mcdonalds and start working out and you WILL lose weight. genetics, my @$$! The stigma stems from ideas of responsibility and "blame", which I think all these studies really start to undermine. First off we assume over weight people lack will power or discipline. I think it's pretty clear that the psychological inner dimensions of all of us vary widely. The inner "hurdle" is different, if you will. So, thin people might say (as they are prone to do)... I eat as much as I want. The key word is "want". Their brains, working in tandem with hormones released in the stomach and elsewhere, are such that they simply don't "want" as much. The urge simply isn't there. It's not that they are exercising some tremendous feat of will power, it's just the "hurdle" is a low one. If you have the FTO gene however, the hurdle is probably a very high one. Our internal and personal experiences are different, so we can't really judge and compare are so called "will power". It's not a fair match. Secondly, assume two different people do eat a caloric surplus. The fact of the matter is, their bodies will likely respond differently. One might put on lots of muscle and all the chicks will think he is hot. The other poor guy may have a high fat cell count, however, and end up just looking frumpy and over weight. Still another may work it all off in nervous energy. I just think, when you consider both of these factors, that it would be wise of us all to refrain from passing personal judgments. And I'm talking judgments about someone's character, of course. There is nothing wrong with having an impersonal "preference", if that makes sense?
sunshinegirl Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 WHOA - that is NOT my quote about the McDonalds thing!!!
Author electric_sheep Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 Whoops! That's what happens when you copy/paste. Sorry sunshinegirl, you are absolved of all guilt.
norajane Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I'm more attracted to "fit" girls than I am to overweight girls. You're making a common error, which this study should have educated you about. Thin does not mean "fit". If she can eat anything she wants - and does - even though her body burns it off naturally, that does not mean she is getting vitamins and minerals, nor that she doesn't have a sedentary lifestyle. You just can't tell that she's stuffing her face with fast food and cookies in front of the tv all night, because her body burns it off. That does not make her healthy or "fit".
blondesmiler Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 You're making a common error, which this study should have educated you about. Thin does not mean "fit". If she can eat anything she wants - and does - even though her body burns it off naturally, that does not mean she is getting vitamins and minerals, nor that she doesn't have a sedentary lifestyle. You just can't tell that she's stuffing her face with fast food and cookies in front of the tv all night, because her body burns it off. That does not make her healthy or "fit". oooh well said norajane
sunshinegirl Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Thanks e_c. I'll own my own comments on here but not other peoples'. Didn't you at one point have a girlfriend who had gained weight or was inactive (or something of that nature) and you were struggling with how to deal? What ever happened with that?
Isolde Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Genetics are really, really complex. My figure used to be like my maternal grandmother's--slim, yet curvy. Towards the end of college I went through a period of extreme stress and lost a lot of weight. Now my figure is more like my mom's--skinny, still somewhat curvy but a bra size smaller than I used to be and with no butt. I'm trying to gain weight and will probably achieve my old figure in a couple years. But gaining is harder than it sounds, as Touche has attested to. Incidentally, I'm convinced the main reason I don't put on weight like I used to is because I have lost most of my taste for sweets. I'm a firm believer that no one really has a set weight as much of a set range of shapes and sizes that they can attain. Because both my parents have always been very slim, it would be difficult for me to be fat--BUT, if I suddenly started eating a lot, my shape would change considerably.
Author electric_sheep Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 You're making a common error, which this study should have educated you about. Thin does not mean "fit". If she can eat anything she wants - and does - even though her body burns it off naturally, that does not mean she is getting vitamins and minerals, nor that she doesn't have a sedentary lifestyle. You just can't tell that she's stuffing her face with fast food and cookies in front of the tv all night, because her body burns it off. That does not make her healthy or "fit". Yeah, that's true. Weight and fitness are not necessarily related (within reason). What I really meant was... I'd like a partner that is into health and has an active lifestyle, and I'd also like her to be relatively trim. One is a liftestyle preference and the other purely aesthetic. A fellow long distance runner would probably make an ideal partner for me. We could even go on runs together. How romantic.
Mr. Lucky Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 There are always exceptions, but isn't activity level the other half of the equation? Having been involved in sports and fitness all my life, the weight profile of people that participate in those activities is certainly different than the population at large. There are overweight athletes and fitness buffs, but in general you see a different body type at Sports Authority than you do at Home Town Buffet... Mr. Lucky
Recommended Posts