Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Months Renewed - We are good until October 2020. Paypal Donation Link Here

Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14165
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Enough » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:06 pm

This was a pretty interesting read.
A leading fitness and nutrition expert at Louisiana State University, she has a theory that the tide of obesity that has swept the nation in the past two decades had its roots in what young mothers did, or didn't do, in the postwar, suburban-sprouting 1950s.

If she's right — and evidence is stacking up on her side — reproductive-age women may become the central focus of efforts to reverse America's fat problem.

The obesity epidemic has multiple causes, Sothern acknowledges. Food has changed in the past five decades. Americans have become much more sedentary. But she thinks that obesity rates soared just when they did — in the 1980s — because a generation of young women decades earlier smoked, spurned breast-feeding and restricted their weight during numerous, closely spaced pregnancies.

"It was the evil '50s. A perfect recipe for obesity," she says.

Read more: 1950s women may have triggered obesity epidemic - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/style/ci_1965 ... z1lFV7KtS5" target="_blank
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse" target="_blank
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
KKBlue
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:07 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by KKBlue » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:27 pm

If only I was sitting in front of my computer with a full sized keyboard, this response would be longer.
(as it is, that one sentance took 8 minutes to submit cause of deleting words in order to settle for one sentance, thank God I wasn't texting in my answer, it would of sounded like 12 O'Clock)
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding!" - Betty White

User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 21159
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by dbt1949 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:43 pm

I really don't understand women.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949

User avatar
KKBlue
Posts: 3884
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:07 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by KKBlue » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:51 pm

We redirect "you" and get you to look somewhere else so we can poison you food. Noting more to understand.
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding!" - Betty White

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by silverjon » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:01 pm

Mind, we are talking about women who were only doing what their doctors told them to do.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14165
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Enough » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:21 pm

silverjon wrote:Mind, we are talking about women who were only doing what their doctors told them to do.
A very fair point, apologies for the bombastic title.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by silverjon » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:32 pm

Enough wrote:
silverjon wrote:Mind, we are talking about women who were only doing what their doctors told them to do.
A very fair point, apologies for the bombastic title.
You're only echoing the sentiments of the article's author, and the experts consulted. Somehow, it's the mother's fault, not her obstetrician. Kind of insidious.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
Odin
Posts: 20728
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Odin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:47 pm

Even if we take the blame-game out of it, it's interesting to correlate historic behaviours from 50+ years ago to this epidemic that's been afflicting Americans for the last 30 years.

I read a different article that I also thought was interesting and tangentially related to this subject. Pasta, Not Bacon, Makes You Fat. But How?

This article attempts to demonstrate, scientifically, how various types of carbs cause cells (and people) to get fat, while fats do not.

I kind of struggle a bit with both articles. It looks to me like the article Enough shared offers plenty of alternate/additional reasons why obesity skyrocketed, which for me kind of undermines the whole "holy trinity" thing she was talking about.

For the article I linked, I just can't help wondering how "daily bread" could be a staple of humans around the world for thousands of years and suddenly we're finding out it's bad for us?? Granted, they weren't eating bleached, white flour-based breads prior to 50 years ago, so maybe that's the difference, I don't know.

Trying to eat well is incredibly hard and frequently pisses me off.

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by silverjon » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:59 pm

Nutrition itself isn't all that complicated, but any fad that tries to tell you that one single aspect of food causes all woes is suspect.

Basically, you body needs some fat, some protein, some carbohydrates, some of lots of different things. We have moved away from whole grains that are packed with vitamins, minerals, and fiber that our bodies also need, towards white flour and refined sugars in everything, and those are junk-carbs. It gets a bit more complicated when you get into how the body prioritizes what to burn first, storing excess as fat, but the lesson that even the most unversed can take away is to avoid foods with no nutritional value at all, and not eat too much of anything.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23357
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:11 pm

Calories in - Calories out = fat storage/consumption.

I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40721
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Smoove_B » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote:I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
If everyone had equal access to the same exact types of food for free, yes, that analysis would work.

This also doesn't help, if true:
Babies born close together can have inferior nutrition during gestation, which can permanently program their metabolism toward becoming overweight.

User avatar
Odin
Posts: 20728
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Odin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:24 pm

noxiousdog wrote:I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
It is. What those calories consist of is important, too.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39480
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by hepcat » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:54 pm

When my mother breast fed me, it wasn't milk...it was gravy, baby.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Grundbegriff
Posts: 22276
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 am
Location: http://baroquepotion.com
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Grundbegriff » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:17 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Calories in - Calories out = fat storage/consumption.
I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Maybe a little more complicated.

User avatar
Odin
Posts: 20728
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Odin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:19 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Calories in - Calories out = fat storage/consumption.
I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Maybe a little more complicated.
Oh great. Now I have to go eat some skinny mouse vomit or something, don't I? Can I get that in a gelcap?

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40721
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Smoove_B » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:30 pm

Actually I saw some research last year suggesting that some doctors were considering intestinal bacteria transplants. Here's the best part - we already have a really easy way to get "good" bacteria from one person's intestines to another.
Spoiler:
Poop transplant!
Seriously. That's what they're doing in some cases.

User avatar
tgb
Posts: 30678
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by tgb » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:10 pm

hepcat wrote:When my mother breast fed me, it wasn't milk...it was gravy,
baby.
Wait. That was your mother I boinked?

Actually I was going to blame Jack In The Box, but blaming my mother sounds better.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.

User avatar
ericb
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by ericb » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:16 pm

Odin wrote:Even if we take the blame-game out of it, it's interesting to correlate historic behaviours from 50+ years ago to this epidemic that's been afflicting Americans for the last 30 years.

I read a different article that I also thought was interesting and tangentially related to this subject. Pasta, Not Bacon, Makes You Fat. But How?

This article attempts to demonstrate, scientifically, how various types of carbs cause cells (and people) to get fat, while fats do not.

I kind of struggle a bit with both articles. It looks to me like the article Enough shared offers plenty of alternate/additional reasons why obesity skyrocketed, which for me kind of undermines the whole "holy trinity" thing she was talking about.

For the article I linked, I just can't help wondering how "daily bread" could be a staple of humans around the world for thousands of years and suddenly we're finding out it's bad for us?? Granted, they weren't eating bleached, white flour-based breads prior to 50 years ago, so maybe that's the difference, I don't know.

Trying to eat well is incredibly hard and frequently pisses me off.
Actually I would doubt bread was a daily staple for the majority of humans until recently. It was hard to make (right), wasn't refined and honestly wasn't near as good. There's also the problem of lack of calories and much, much more daily exercise for the majority of people until recently.

Now everything seems to either come in a flour wrap, a flour bun or is breaded.

I think it's a combination of too many calories, too little exercise and way too many bad choices (that tend to also be much cheaper than healthy food).
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

User avatar
Odin
Posts: 20728
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Odin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:35 pm

ericb wrote:Actually I would doubt bread was a daily staple for the majority of humans until recently. It was hard to make (right), wasn't refined and honestly wasn't near as good. There's also the problem of lack of calories and much, much more daily exercise for the majority of people until recently.
No it's definitely been around and quite common for many many hundreds of years. Hell, it's in the Bible - "Give us this day, our daily bread." The Jews have a celebration of unleavened bread, too. Bread ovens have been found in archeological digs in ancient Egypt, and not just for the wealthy or anything. No, bread (again, presumably whole grain stuff, not what we eat today) has been a staple for much of many's history since he settled down and started farming.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 35030
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Online

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Kraken » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:56 pm

Yes, as Odin said bread has been a staple food for all of human history. Something changed quite recently, just within the past few decades, to make overweight the rule rather than the exception. There are all kinds of theories about what that might have been, and the report in the OP is an interesting new angle on it. I'm a little skeptical but it's at least plausible and testable.

Gluttony and sloth are undoubtedly involved, but they aren't the whole story.

The two most obvious factors are the invention of craft beer and the antismoking movement, both of which got their starts in the 1980s. But I'd rather blame my mother. :wink:

User avatar
Eightball
Posts: 9969
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: In a fog.

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Eightball » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:04 pm

Doesn't help that portion sizes are much larger than they used to be. We're also a lot more sedentary. Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Stupid & lazy

User avatar
ericb
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by ericb » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:05 pm

Odin wrote:
ericb wrote:Actually I would doubt bread was a daily staple for the majority of humans until recently. It was hard to make (right), wasn't refined and honestly wasn't near as good. There's also the problem of lack of calories and much, much more daily exercise for the majority of people until recently.
No it's definitely been around and quite common for many many hundreds of years. Hell, it's in the Bible - "Give us this day, our daily bread." The Jews have a celebration of unleavened bread, too. Bread ovens have been found in archeological digs in ancient Egypt, and not just for the wealthy or anything. No, bread (again, presumably whole grain stuff, not what we eat today) has been a staple for much of many's history since he settled down and started farming.
I have no doubt that bread played an important role in development since pretty much the beginning of human culture. I just wonder if it was truly a staple for the majority of people and not just for the wealthy or those that could afford to eat in a tavern, thought bread was only for the poor, etc. Also have to consider the bread in the past 100 years really didn't exist in the prior 30,000 for better or worse (sawdust seems to be a common additive in the middle ages and many areas didn't even use flour). It's really a semi-pointless argument :twisted: because while bread has been a staple for most cultures as far back as anyone knows there's probably no one here that would consider what they ate as our common available bread except for maybe the shape. And that could prove to be the distinction when looking at possible causes (trying to vear back to the original topic).

Personally I love bread and would have it every meal but a mild to moderate gluten reaction (and being too lazy to find/make gluten free bread) rules that out most of the time.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:59 am

Well, if we assume meat was extremely expensive, and we exclude bread/grains...what did people eat?

You'd be hard pressed to find something that grows in as much abundance as wheat, which is practically weed-like.

I don't actually know, and haven't done any reading on this, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of options once man decided to settle down in large groups.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23357
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by noxiousdog » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:22 am

The more I was thinking about this the more implausible it sounds. I work with a LOT of Indians. It's anecdotal, but typically (80%) they come over skinny, and then gain a significant amount of weight. Some trim back down. Some don't. I don't see how the mother theory can account for this when portion size and caloric density work just fine.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23357
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by noxiousdog » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:32 am

Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:36 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
Yeah, I'm left scratching my head over this as well. Conservation of mass pretty much requires it be calories/mass in - calories/mass out = +/- weight.

I've yet to read grunds/smooves articles on magic microbes, but I will, eventually.

I recall Meal closely tracking his numbers when he was trying to lose weight. He claimed his data showed that "something else" was going on, as calories in - calories out could not account for his weight loss.

I never pursued it, but that's an odd thing for an engineer to say, even if the data reflects it. :D I would have started looking for problems with the data.

As to myself, I do not watch my numbers closely enough to have an opinion, although in a general way it seems to be true that calories in - calories out = +/- weight. At least I haven't seen any anomalies that made me look closer.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61541
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by LordMortis » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:50 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
calories in - calories out is more complex than we are led to believe though. Metabolism is not only not a one size fits all categories but it changes within the individual. And then there's the whole question of how many calories your body absorbs versus just letting them pass through your body.

On the other hand when I am in weight control mode, the generic template for calories in - calories out is the one I go by. I tend to burn up a little more than is predicted which is good.

Man, I would love to eat like I ate when I was teenage. Although I don't think I can afford to. I might spend $30-$50 a week on groceries now and I have to worry about eating too much. When I was a teenager, I could have happily quadrupled that and not put on weight. In hindsight I feel bad for parents. Feeding me must have horrible. It was not uncommon for me to drink two gallons of milk in a day as well as two or three two liters of pop. Eating was non stop enterprise. I think I worked for the primary purpose of supplementing my eating habits. It's a good thing we had a garden.

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 10736
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Paingod » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:09 am

I've personally always blamed cars, not women, for being fat.

I used to bike everywhere, until I got a car, then I got fat. If everyone had to bike, walk, run, or ride on horseback there'd be no fat folks. We'd also have other issues, but that's beside the point.

Cars are evil. Beautiful, wonderful, evil.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: Elite: Dangerous, Darkest Dungeon

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61541
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by LordMortis » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:19 am

Paingod wrote:I've personally always blamed cars, not women, for being fat.

I used to bike everywhere, until I got a car, then I got fat. If everyone had to bike, walk, run, or ride on horseback there'd be no fat folks. We'd also have other issues, but that's beside the point.

Cars are evil. Beautiful, wonderful, evil.
Not me. I blame getting fat on turning 25. I had been driving nearly 10 years by then. But what did change at 25 was 1) my metabolism slowed down. 2) I moved in with someone where we put TV in the bedroom. 3) I started to work jobs where I was stationary and that required more of my mental focus when I wasn't at work. 4) I had started eating as part of a normalized and ritualized lifestyle rather than eating because I was hungry. I went from 175 to almost 250 in less than six months. The weight gain was actually painful.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:30 am

LordMortis wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
calories in - calories out is more complex than we are led to believe though. Metabolism is not only not a one size fits all categories but it changes within the individual. And then there's the whole question of how many calories your body absorbs versus just letting them pass through your body.
But metabolism is just calories out. The fact that people burn different amounts of calories at rest doesn't change the equation.

Your second point is valid though. Absolutely if you don't absorb the calories in the food you eat you'll gain less weight. I'd just exclude the calories from the "in" part of the equation then. "In" means into the body, not necessarily the digestive system.

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 16382
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by coopasonic » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:06 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
calories in - calories out is more complex than we are led to believe though. Metabolism is not only not a one size fits all categories but it changes within the individual. And then there's the whole question of how many calories your body absorbs versus just letting them pass through your body.
But metabolism is just calories out. The fact that people burn different amounts of calories at rest doesn't change the equation.

Your second point is valid though. Absolutely if you don't absorb the calories in the food you eat you'll gain less weight. I'd just exclude the calories from the "in" part of the equation then. "In" means into the body, not necessarily the digestive system.
those calories come out... just not in an expended by the body for movement sort of way... well not that kind of movement anyhow.
-Coop

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:14 pm

coopasonic wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
calories in - calories out is more complex than we are led to believe though. Metabolism is not only not a one size fits all categories but it changes within the individual. And then there's the whole question of how many calories your body absorbs versus just letting them pass through your body.
But metabolism is just calories out. The fact that people burn different amounts of calories at rest doesn't change the equation.

Your second point is valid though. Absolutely if you don't absorb the calories in the food you eat you'll gain less weight. I'd just exclude the calories from the "in" part of the equation then. "In" means into the body, not necessarily the digestive system.
those calories come out... just not in an expended by the body for movement sort of way... well not that kind of movement anyhow.
Agreed, but when it's the exact same calories ( mean this literally. Identical caloric material) going in as going out, you cross them off both sides of the equation. They're moot. Both from a practical standpoint and a mathematical standpoint. They never enter the "system" and so are irrelevant.

And on that note, anyone know how many calories it takes to "move" calories, as it were?

User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
the_meal’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by The Meal » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:21 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I recall Meal closely tracking his numbers when he was trying to lose weight. He claimed his data showed that "something else" was going on, as calories in - calories out could not account for his weight loss.
Um, no. Calories In alone was fairly accurate. Trying to get Calories In - Calories Burned was trickier, but since Calories Burned was a lower order effect on the final measurable (my weight), it wasn't nearly as important.

Eat fewer calories = lose weight.
Eat fewer calories and burn more calories = lose weight as well. But it also had some gain muscle to it. So it was more of a lose weight and gain metabolism (which theoretically meant an increase to the weight loss rate). Difficult stuff to calculate from my data based on the way I was burning calories.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:36 pm

The Meal wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I recall Meal closely tracking his numbers when he was trying to lose weight. He claimed his data showed that "something else" was going on, as calories in - calories out could not account for his weight loss.
Um, no. Calories In alone was fairly accurate. Trying to get Calories In - Calories Burned was trickier, but since Calories Burned was a lower order effect on the final measurable (my weight), it wasn't nearly as important.

Eat fewer calories = lose weight.
Eat fewer calories and burn more calories = lose weight as well. But it also had some gain muscle to it. So it was more of a lose weight and gain metabolism (which theoretically meant an increase to the weight loss rate). Difficult stuff to calculate from my data based on the way I was burning calories.
Heh. Don't make me do a search. Perhaps I misintepreted what you said. It's definitely difficult to come up with an accurate in or out number, give the variables involved. Which is partly why I don't try to nail it down too much and just look at it in a general way, philosophically, even though I write down specific numbers.

User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
the_meal’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by The Meal » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:43 pm

The important "In" number (as discussed earlier) is calories absorbed. That's trickier than calories ingested, but one can still get a good quantification of that number (for reasonable definitions of "good.")

Calories out is much trickier. It involves metabolism (which typically has to be an estimated number in the best of times) along with calories burned (which also ends up being an estimated number).

I totally agree that for most folks trying to lose weight (or maybe more accurately lose fat), THE quantity to reduce is Calories In.

I'm with noxiousdog on this one.

Dietitians and other experts on how the body operates can come up with magic about proportions of various types of food may lead to some sort of mystical chemical processes which lead to more efficient caloric burning of certain types of calories (I'm thinking in terms of folks pushing for things like a South Beach or Paleo types of diets), but to me these types of things are down in the noise of the data. Putting fewer calories down your esophagus is the easiest measurable to control when it comes to accomplishing the goal of losing fat. Everything else would be, in the strictest of engineering terms, "mice nuts."

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23357
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by noxiousdog » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:48 pm

It's pretty well established that South Beach and Paleo diets lead to a significantly reduced calorie intake.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
the_meal’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by The Meal » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:53 pm

noxiousdog wrote:It's pretty well established that South Beach and Paleo diets lead to a significantly reduced calorie intake.
Is that all they are shorthand for, then? My bad. I was trying to conjure up a diet fad that claims something more mystical than simply "eat less food." But if these two are simply ways to make you feel full on fewer calories than the traditional not-dieting diet, then I grabbed bad examples.

User avatar
Eightball
Posts: 9969
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: In a fog.

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by Eightball » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:54 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Eightball wrote:Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.
Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.
Couple off the top of my head. Note I think exercise and food intake are by far the most important contributors, but they're not the only.

1) Types of food eaten. Depending upon the chemical composition of the food you eat, it can require more or less energy to convert to fat. For example, simple sugars are the easiest to process (requiring less bond energy expenditure to convert), whereas proteins are relatively difficult to convert to fat (as it has to be converted to glucose first). See for a real basic description. Basic biochemistry; wish I had my Voet and Voet textbook here as I could give a much better description with concrete examples of energy it takes for conversion. Likely in ATPs, going way down the nerd rabbithole.

2) Genetics. We now have a lifestyle that allows for more fatasses, so that gene isn't perhaps the selector it used to be. This one's theoretical.

3) Finally, it's not all about just actively spending energy. For example, exercise not only is about the energy you're actively burning, but also has a positive effect on your metabolism (burning calories while sleeping, for instance). Yes, this is still technically calories out, but most people don't understand that if you don't exercise, your baseline caloric expenditure will be lower as well...not only are you not burning calories when exercising, you're burning less when sleeping.

I also didn't go the insulin route (we're bombarded far more frequently by food that causes insulin release, leading to insulin resistance), because I just don't really want to head down that pathway. For example, there's highly conflicting evidence, but it appears that foods/drinks with zero calories that are enhanced with artificial sweeteners (i.e., aspartame) cause a transient insulin spike. And they should not...because insulin should only be released in response to carbohydrate presence.
Last edited by Eightball on Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stupid & lazy

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23357
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by noxiousdog » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:58 pm

The Meal wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:It's pretty well established that South Beach and Paleo diets lead to a significantly reduced calorie intake.
Is that all they are shorthand for, then? My bad. I was trying to conjure up a diet fad that claims something more mystical than simply "eat less food." But if these two are simply ways to make you feel full on fewer calories than the traditional not-dieting diet, then I grabbed bad examples.
No, you're right. They claim to. But in reality the reason it works is that you consume less calories. At least that's the overriding factor, imo.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
the_meal’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

Post by The Meal » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:58 pm

Hey, look at that — I'm with Eightball, too! (Though I would assume that #2 involves "when does a person feel hungry," as opposed to something about how calories are converted to fat stores in the body.)

Post Reply