Fat makes you fat? Or not?

[presta]

you never saw as many morbidly obese people about then as you do these days.

Navvies consumed about 8000 calories a day, they weren't morbidly obese because they using all they ate. I get people telling me I eat too much, they can't understand why my BMI is only 17-18 because it doesn't occur to them that if you want to eat lots of calories you have to burn them off.

I don't know why this is so upsetting for some people.

Try reading this paying particular attention to the section on self serving bias:

"Ask a couple to estimate what percentage of the housework they each do, and the answers add up to more than 100%.
Managers seldom hear an employee complain "That's not fair, you're paying me too much". 90% of employees rate themselves above average, as do 90% of managers.
Most drivers who have been hospitalised after an accident rate themselves as safer and more skilled than average.
Compared with average, most people think themselves more intelligent, more attractive, more ethical, and less prejudiced.
Social psychologists, who know about self serving bias, also rate themselves as more ethical than average.
On average, people think they are going to live 10 years longer than their predicted lifespan.
75% of people think they look younger than their peers.
People think they have a better chance of getting to heaven than mother Theresa.
Nobody rates themselves as below average in their ability to get along with others, 25% rate themselves in the top 1%.
People overestimate the number of those who agree with their opinions.
Failings are normal, talents are unique.

Self serving bias is most apparent in relation to socially desirable traits that can't easily be measured objectively."

Like diet.

 

[The Jogger]

The human body hasn't changed in 50,000 years, let alone the last 50.
...and as Mike Gs reference shows, dietary composition is irrelevant.
You need to learn how to be more discriminating in your choice of references. A quack chiropractor blogging on You Tube doesn't trump peer reviewed science published in an academic journal.

Maybe people haven't changed but food certainly has and eating habits. You haven't produced anything to support your point, if you are making one. The science quoted is from the same times as when we were told fat (good fats) clog your arteries. I have linked and stated it's more to do with insulin resisitence and how the body reacts to that than calories in vs calories out.

Oh did you just link something to intuition hmmmm

 

[MikeG]

Maybe people haven't changed but food certainly has and eating habits......

Food categories haven't, though, and the science I linked to showed clearly and categorically that it didn't matter what the balance was between the categories; people in calorie-deficit lost weight. Further, both individually and collectively, the balance of categories made no difference to the rate at which they lost weight.

 

[jefmcg]

People think they have a better chance of getting to heaven than mother Theresa.

I believe that

(Okay, equal chances)

 

[The Jogger]

Oh FFS here

http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

 

[User10119]

Food categories haven't, though, and the science I linked to showed clearly and categorically that it didn't matter what the balance was between the categories; people in calorie-deficit lost weight. Further, both individually and collectively, the balance of categories made no difference to the rate at which they lost weight.

People with normal matabolic funcition in short term calorie-deficit lose weight, at least temporarily, which in and of itself affects what constitutes calorie-deficit. But I reckon it is probably worth a look at the short-term vs long-term 'success' rates of rationing for weight loss regimes such as slimming world and so on.

Some methods of achieving and maintaining a calorie deficit are more sustainable than others.

 

[jefmcg]

Here is a direct explanation of the apparent conflict between reported calorie consumption and weight gain. It's a piece of research which shows that individual and national calorie consumption is vastly under-stated:

That doesn't seem to be from peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is that requirement only for other people?

 

[PK99]

That doesn't seem to be from peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is that requirement only for other people?

http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us/

given a choice between a blogging chiropractor and a body with this pedigree, I know which I would trust.

 

[MikeG]

Oh FFS here View attachment 380092 View attachment 380093

http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

Did you read that? To the end? Because it makes my point for me rather nicely.

People use this to refute that a calorie is a calorie – nope. Sorry. Sure, fat is more calorically dense than carbs and protein, but when total calories are matched for: people lose weight; despite the macronutrient composition of the diet. More on this later.

.....and......

Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize

........and......

calories in and calories out might not be perfect – but it works because it’s good enough.

 

[vickster]

*Snork*

@Dogtrousers did you share your roast piggy with @User as he seems to have started to speak like one

 

[jefmcg]

http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us/

given a choice between a blogging chiropractor and a body with this pedigree, I know which I would trust.

Let's take the chiropractor off the table. That's obviously nonsense, and I haven't bothered watching the video.

I do not know if the composition of the food you eat makes a difference to your weight. But I am not convinced by someone whose evidence consists of a 53 year old study, and PDF from a quango.

The 1964 study is kind of nonsense. People in the real world don't count calories. They eat until they don't want to eat any more. Assuming the study is correct, if the people who are low-fat (for example) are still hungry when they've had their calories for the day and those on low carb are satisfied, then the low carb people are going to lose more weight. Or vise versa.

I.e. even if calories in versus calories out is true, how many calories come in is very dependent on their composition.

 

[MikeG]

Liked it, Dogtrousers, but I have no idea who you are responding to.

 

[vickster]

Personally, and I am no expert, it appears to me that this particular point is a matter of hair-splitting and definitions.

The way we define calorific value of food is not simply the chemical energy content (otherwise petrol or grass would be considered high calorie foodstuffs) but is adjusted according to the human body's ability to digest, use and store it. So if there is an inequality of "calories" from different food sources then I'd suggest it's a case of refining the adjustments that I referred to: Don't abandon the calories in v out model, adjust it, and use it alongside information on satiety and behaviour.

Or just eat what you want, cycle some and enjoy life

 

[jefmcg]

Liked it, Dogtrousers, but I have no idea who you are responding to.

I wonder why @MikeG has me on ignore?

<search... > oh, yeah

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 5011068, member: 10119"]It's not emotive, or at least not intended to be. We tend to have ridiculously simplistic views about weight and health sometimes. It was mostly in response to


I don't think I've ever been thin and at my lightest points in the last 20 years I was probably still clinically obese. There have however been several points in those 20 years that I've been fat but pretty fit. Those times have pretty much all been when I was in a position to prioritise my well-being and give myself the luxury of time or when I was employed in role that involved large amounts of physical labour. I'm unsure myself to what extent that relates to the positive effect on mental health of those things.[/QUOTE]
What I've noticed, and had recorded, is the same weight being underweight, overweight and the correct weight. The thing that's moved is the line on a graph, not the weight.