Comments on: What If We Don't Put Down The Donuts?

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:02:40 +0000

Actually, the number of calories you burn at rest maintaining your body (which is hugely influenced by your metabolism) is very different from the energy it takes to move mass over distance. This is why, for example, you can study everyone from the greenest tyro on a bike to Lance Armstrong and, based on their mass, aerodynamics, and drivetrain losses, predict almost perfectly how much energy they’ll burn per mile (on the order of 33 on a decent bike and a flat road). Its the same with running and walking – minor varience based on your gait, almost all based on mass * distance. Speed, of course, is a different story.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:26:05 +0000

The thing is, the effectivity of calorie burning doesn’t only apply to one’s “natural” bodily functions, as you seem to imply. If one burns less calories, they burn less calories, period. Also calories burned when exercising. Actually, that would be a phenomenon in itself, if someone had slow metabolism (e.g. body burning calories at a lower rate) and then suddenly was burning an average number of calories when exercising. It would mean, that their organisms suddenly shift from slow to normal and back.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:58:05 +0000

Mainly because a slow metabolism — or a fast one — can easily change the number of calories that people burn “naturally.” Totally, 100% agree. What it doesn’t do is change the basic calculations of how much energy it takes to move a certain mass a certain distance – something that has nothing whatsoever to do with metabolism and everything to do with not being a perpetual motion machine, capable of putting out more energy than is taken in. That’s all.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:37:27 +0000

No, Richard, it’s not. I am well aware how things looked back then and how they look now. I just have an extremely slow metabolism – very low blood pressure, very low body temperature and I “process” food really slowly. My already slow metabolism was made even slower through the years of starving myself. As you said before – you admit that there are people, whose metabolism burns calories much more efficiently than the average, thus allowing them to overeat, rarely exercise and yet remain thin, even skinny (hell, my husband is one of those – he eats lots of starches, carbs, fast foods, gulps soda as if it’s going out of style tomorrow, and rarely exercises – and is still underweight. And I’ve known a lot others who also “enjoy” this type of metabolism). How come you don’t accept the opposite can be true – that some people have much slower metabolisms than the average that you quote?

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:40 +0000

Pauli,

I admit curiosity about one thing. Walking burns about 100 calories per mile for a 180 pound person (nice round number). That puts 20 miles of walking at a caloric cost of around 2,000 calories (sounds reasonable for what would be around 7 hours of exercise a day). You say that you ate 800 calories a day.

Obviously something is off here, since no matter how efficient your metabolism is, it can’t generate the additional 1,200 calories out of thin air. To me that means that one of four things is true:

1) You actually walked less than 20 miles some days
2) You actually ate more than 800 calories some days
3) Your muscles are actually more than 3 times as efficient at using energy than those ever studied before in humans
or
4) The laws of thermodynamics no longer apply.

I’m just asking, isn’t it possible that choices 1 or 2 are more likely?

By: Pauli

Pauli — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:06:14 +0000

Oh, and while I agree that sometimes it’s really overeating, sure, I knew people who gained by eating too much. But the thing is, not every fat person eats much (even though, every bite of food they take seems to be too much for some people). And it’s false to claim something like that. And anyway, the portrayal of fat people in the media is dehumanizing, not only accusing them of too much of an appetite. And that is just wrong.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:00:15 +0000

With some people’s metabolism, sometimes, what is too much in opinion of folks like Richard, is actually too little to be healthy.
For years, I’ve maintained an anorexic lifestyle. I ate about 800 calories a day, I exercised for hours, walked for 20 miles everyday – I had the time to do it, as I was still in school. Guess what – I was still overweight. But in addition I lost half of my hair, was severely anemic, my skin was so dry that it was almost flaking off my body. I developed depression and probably reduced my fertility forever.
What’s more – now, I eat a healthy diet (really, it’s possible for fat people, too) – lots of vegetables, only home-made meals, I won’t say I never eat sweets or eat out, but those are not things I do on a daily basis. I run a food journal – I rarely eat more than 1500 calories a day. I work out daily, do aerobics twice a week, walk a lot – it also helps me deal with my sedentary job, which I find very physically tiring – I really like moving my body.
Anyhoo, the point is, I’m still fat. Maybe it is calories in calories out, but in some cases the metabolism causes the “required” calories in to be so ridiculously few, that it actually wouldn’t be healthy to consume that quantity.
And I refuse to agree to being scorned, hated, because of my weight. I will never be a tiny person (I’m about a size 16 now, but I’m fairly short) and I don’t see why I should torment myself and starve – that’s what would be unhealthy, not my current diet. I don’t ask for people to love me or find me attractive (that’s what my husband is for ;)), I just ask for respect and not trying to impose your arbitral views on me, how I should look.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:56:50 +0000

As the original commenter, I apologize SO much for missing this entire post and discussion when it first posted!

Thank you for highlighting my concerns. I have been on vacation for the past few days and just now am diving back into my blogs!

I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughts as well, what a great discussion. I found myself nodding vigorously to some things and frowning at others, because again I remain concerned that some in the FA movement just seem to totally reject the idea of serious overeating and serious weight gain (and I’m talking more than the 10-20 pounds quoted here).

I’m about 285 right now, the heaviest I’ve ever been. The lightest I’ve been in my adult life was about 175, but I think my set point is about 200, or a healthy size 16. I would be fine with this.

I firmly and totally believe that I weight 85 pounds above my set point now because I eat far, far too much on a regular basis and am sporadic about exercise.

I don’t think I’ve been brainwashed to think that. I think I have a snail’s metabolism, and this is why I’ll never wear single digit pants, but I also think the reason I’m not a 16/18 anymore has nothing to do with my crappy genes and everything to do with the entire tubs of ice cream I regularly eat, and to deny that is ridiculous.

Anyhow, I’m a week late to the discussion, but thanks again MoPie for making this its own post, I think we can all agree by the responses that this is a lively topic!

By: D

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:15:31 +0000

When I was a size 24 I was horribly offended by such portrayals, especially since I felt personally attacked. When the media plants ideas in the minds of viewers that fat people do little besides gorge themselves 24/7, it’s only logical that people would assume you’re doing the same. But then I took a good, hard look at myself and my diet and realized that I really was overeating. For years I convinced myself that my body was just meant to be fat, especially since I come from a fat family and have PCOS, but the reality was that my body was fat because it got more calories than it needed. I started eating less and lost 140 pounds over the course of 2-3 years.

Turthfully, even though I’m aware that there are a number of factors that contribute to both our motivation to eat and the efficiency with which our bodies use energy from food, I can no longer support the argument that obesity isn’t related to food intake. If you eat more than your body uses, you store fat. If you eat less, you lose it. And realizing and accepting that has changed my attitude a little bit about the media. Of course, I don’t think fat people should be portrayed as greedy, gluttonous villains, but I don’t get angry when I see a fat character eat a lot. Eating a lot is what made me obese, and eating a loss less is what made me thin.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:06:53 +0000

Ah, but its still calories in – calories out. Calories in is easy to measure (but hard to estimate). Calories out includes the calories that your metabolism burns naturally (hard to estimate) and those burned by exercise. Still simple math. He’s burning more calories than you are, on activities such as growing.