Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

[GalaxyX]

There is nothing "normal" about my weight at that point if the only way I can keep it off is if I'm measuring out my diet with a scoop and a scale and spending 2-3 hours a day (sometimes more) at the gym. That isn't a normal lifestyle for anyone except athletes, models and body builders, and even a lot of them have more leeway.

You look pretty lean in those pics dude. If you are like me and put on fat easily, then yes it would be a struggle to keep the weight off, even with a lot of muscle.

I've never had to do more than 45mins at the gym though, but I do have to hit the cardio every day to keep bodyfat low.

[Robert Maxwell]

GalaxyX wrote:

---

As soon as I spouted "Endomorph" you considered what I'm saying quackery?

How about you educate yourself? Here's a start:

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...endomorph.html

I actually fit that description quite well. As an endomorph, I've found it extremely difficult to get below 14% body fat, and like Vernardhi was saying, at that stage of the game I was not willing to do what it would take to get lower. As you can see from my pic, I didn't really have definition, I'm just bulky, and my legs are very strong compared to the rest of my body.

If you want to get scientific, it's a simple formula. You eat less than you burn, and you lose weight. What you eat helps make the weight loss faster because it helps your body manage different hormones to allow the body to burn more calories.

Exercise does the same. Cardio uses your leg muscles primarily to burn calories, as does weightlifting. weightlifting has the advantage that it will lead to muscle gain, and the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn.

What's quackery about that?

The "three basic body types" stuff is quackery, as it has no basis in science or medicine.

[RoJoHen]

What does that even mean? These terms are just descriptors. Some people are skinny and have a hard time putting on weight. Some people are large and put on weight very easily. Other people are of average build and their body's respond in a manner somewhere in between the other two. That's all those terms mean.

[Robert Maxwell]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

What does that even mean? These terms are just descriptors. Some people are skinny and have a hard time putting on weight. Some people are large and put on weight very easily. Other people are of average build and their body's respond in a manner somewhere in between the other two. That's all those terms mean.

Look up William Herbert Sheldon sometime.

Frankly, it astonishes me that people would use those terms yet be totally oblivious to how they originated and the quack science that surrounds them.

[GalaxyX]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Look up William Herbert Sheldon sometime.

Frankly, it astonishes me that people would use those terms yet be totally oblivious to how they originated and the quack science that surrounds them.

Oh brother.

I don't use the terms scientifically. I simply use them as a basis in which to understand how diet and exercise will affect different individuals.

It's kind of like the "4 humors", in psychology. The original meaning no longer has any value, but as a starting point to understand someone's psychological profile they help a little.

Like it's been said above, no one is going to fit perfectly into those 3 molds, but most people will find a lot in common with them.

[stj]

For some obese people, cutting food intake merely hikes up the amount of food being digested. To be indelicate, instead of a lot of food passing out as turds, bowel movements diminish drastically because almost all is being digested.

Worse, sometimes dramatic cuts in food intake can lower blood sugar to the point of weakness, yet stored body fat is still untouched. The problem seems to be not just that obese people have to eat a lot to support the weight, and if they don't their blood sugar drops too low, before fat reserves can be converted. It seems to be the case that fat cells may not give up the reserves till the equivalent of starvation sets in.

Dieting is one thing, but practically starving yourself is another. I'm not so sure we can redcue this to a simple lack of will power. Perhaps the people whose fat cells are less stubborn are more fortunate than strong-willed?

I've read that the body can even start absorbing protein from muscle before it can access some fat reserves, particularly the kind called "brown fat." This seems rather extreme and I don't know if this is reliably confirmed.

One early report I read said that obese people often had a more varied suite of intestinal bacteria. Since these bacteria play a role in digestion, the implication is that the food they ate was more efficiently digested, providing a surplus of energy than others with a more impoverished intestinal flora. The result is that the same, normal seeming diet results in weight gain. It's not really a secret that weight gain has a ratchet effect, where it's harder to lose than to gain. How much harder, again, seems to have more to do wtih physiological factors than will power.

There is a very high noise-to-signal ratio in nutrition, which historically has been a paradise of cranks and cultists. As such, it is remarkably easy to incorporate social prejudices about personal responsibility, which usually means an imputation of personal inferiority. I think it would be wiser to be cautious. Is weight gain while aging truly a sign of degeneration of character? Or is it a side effect of slowing metabolism?

[GalaxyX]

There is a very high noise-to-signal ratio in nutrition, which historically has been a paradise of cranks and cultists. As such, it is remarkably easy to incorporate social prejudices about personal responsibility, which usually means an imputation of personal inferiority. I think it would be wiser to be cautious. Is weight gain while aging truly a sign of degeneration of character? Or is it a side effect of slowing metabolism?

Stj, you make some really good points, and it's unfortunate that the fitness industry is in fact full of quacks and scammers.

However, there are a lot of knowledgeable people out there, and a lot of true information.
I remember this thing called Body For Life that started being advertised back in the late 90's, and I was a fat kid back then as I had been all my life. I decided to try it and I went down from 190lbs and a 38" waist to 173lbs and a 32" waist in around 3 months.

It was a lot of hard work and I learned the basics of what it takes to be fit. I wanted to build more muscle, so eventually I started reading more advanced training and dieting information. A really good site back then was called www.t-mag.com, now I think it's called www.t-nation.com.

I haven't been there in a while, but if you look at the archives from 2005 and earlier, you will find a treasure trove of information. I probably gained about 30lbs of muscle from 2000 to 2005, and went from 15" arms to 18" arms.

None of this is easy. You have to plan your workouts and your meals. You have to eat exactly what your body needs to do what you want. You have to supplement with good multivitamins, and some other useful stuff.

People who are truly obese hardly have a metabolism, and this is why they gain so easily. The main reason is because they don't strain their muscles at all, except for the weight they carry, which the body gets used to. I remember the first time I walked into a gym and I couldn't even do bench press with one 25lb wheel on each side. I was embarrased at being so weak, but I put up with it, and my best bench ended up being 4 reps of 315lbs.

The same for cardio. The first time I hopped on a cardio bike, I had to set it at its lowest setting, and even then I'd be dying after 5 mins of pedaling. I ended up being able to to 1hr at the highest setting, sweating buckets but with enough energy to continue.

I think only a very small percentage of people who are obese (I would be willing to bet less than 1%) would not be able to lose a significant amount of the weight they carry in a few months if they made the effort to do it, and found someone to help them (like the nearest meathead at the gym. They aren't a shredded 5% bodyfat just for showing up, it take knowledge and discipline even with good genetics to do that)

[T'Bonz]

And what if they can't? I'm overweight, not obese but I can do very limited exercise due to my spine. I can walk (but < 2 miles) or ride my bike (< 2 miles). It's not stamina or lack of willingness as I love to walk and double that for riding my bike, but my spinal issues. Any fuck-ups = herniated disc at worst or bad headache at best.

I lost weight (13% of my body weight) but I can't lose more, and I'm having a hell of a time keeping it from coming back, even though I changed how I eat (not back to bad eating habits - I figure that the eating changes must be permanent.)

So it's not all lack of willpower or effort, sometimes your middle-aged body just screws you.

[stj]

Remember the "simple physics?" As in, more calories in than calories out means weight gain? And more calories out than calories in means weight loss? That's all there is to it, right?

Except....practically everyone here talking about how they lost weight is also talking about their exercise regimen. Well, the simple physics also shows that exercise has nothing to do with weight loss. Exercise simply does not burn up enough calories. Maybe exercise keeps away from the dinner table, but in my skinny days, my only exercise was in a bar and the sack, never a gym. My anecdote trumps yours, because it was a hell of a lot more fun!

Seriously, though, the stunningly obvious self-contradiction in the arguments presented conclusively show that deep-seated notions about body image, sexual desirability, the plasticity of the self, the power of the will, hell the freedom of the will, and many more are still at work, despite the supposed recent availability of scientific literature.

For a little perspective, remember there was a vast and varied literature about the causes of ulcers, much focused on personality traits rather than heliobacter pylori. Similarly, hypertension is attributed to temperament (or just plain temper.) Anxiety is attributed to cowardice or neurosis rather than cardiac rhythm. Stress as a cause of disease still is overlooked, probably because the conclusion that modern (capitalist) society is stressful is unwelcome news for apologists.

Again, it just seems wiser, as well as more humane, to quit making easy assumptions about personal inferiority.

[RAMA]

Ive read about Sheldon before, his work breaks down because he tied it to personality and character types, though the physical body typing he used has been adapted elsewhere as a loose description of genetic shape. No one person will likely have 100% of the characteristics but it's the dominanat characteristic that is used to make the determination. It is useful in the sense that science has had a tough time describing genetic differences and predispositions, add to this that it's a touchy subject for most people with a spotty history of genetic views people have held over the years. Ultimately, though body typing is a good guide, it's not something to adhere to 100%, and results are more important than typing.

There are also attempts to make other body typing classifications systems, but so far none have become widely used.

Edit: It is "scientific" in the sense that there was an effort to quantify these physical body types in a complex formula, and this is the information that is still useful, even if the psychological pseudoscience isn't. The likelihood anyone is put through such classification these days when they are assessed is unlikely, but a general survey can be made.

RAMA

[GalaxyX]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

And what if they can't? I'm overweight, not obese but I can do very limited exercise due to my spine. I can walk (but < 2 miles) or ride my bike (< 2 miles). It's not stamina or lack of willingness as I love to walk and double that for riding my bike, but my spinal issues. Any fuck-ups = herniated disc at worst or bad headache at best.

I lost weight (13% of my body weight) but I can't lose more, and I'm having a hell of a time keeping it from coming back, even though I changed how I eat (not back to bad eating habits - I figure that the eating changes must be permanent.)

So it's not all lack of willpower or effort, sometimes your middle-aged body just screws you.

Believe me when I say I understand that.

I myself have a herniated disc in the lumbar region.

I also had my tricep tendon tear off the bone, for which I had to get surgery. I got the surgery pretty late, so I can't recover 100% of my strength previous to my injury. I'm at about 70% which is astounding, and more than I expected. What it took to get there could write a book.

So between those two injuries, I've been cut out of doing a lot of what I used to do before, but I've basically just decided to work around my injuries as best as possible.

Glad you are making a change though.

[gturner]

I'm back after an absence due to TrekBBS's hosting service doing some sort of IP block (probably on my subnet). For a week I thought Trek's entire hosting service had crashed and burned. ^_^ It's working for me again.

Anyway, in other strange but somehwat similar news, Fox had a little story about a study to help treat autism with parasitic worms, which might reduce an inflamation. It mentions maternal auto-immune reactions in the womb, along with the parasitic worm angle on Western auto-immune and allergy issues. It was kind of interesting, and made me wonder if perhaps the massive rise in diagnosed attention-deficit disorder might be similar to the rise in allergy problems, or whether giving iPhones to four-year olds might better explain it.

[GalaxyX]

gturner wrote:

---

I'm back after an absence due to TrekBBS's hosting service doing some sort of IP block (probably on my subnet). For a week I thought Trek's entire hosting service had crashed and burned. ^_^ It's working for me again.

Anyway, in other strange but somehwat similar news, Fox had a little story about a study to help treat autism with parasitic worms, which might reduce an inflamation. It mentions maternal auto-immune reactions in the womb, along with the parasitic worm angle on Western auto-immune and allergy issues. It was kind of interesting, and made me wonder if perhaps the massive rise in diagnosed attention-deficit disorder might be similar to the rise in allergy problems, or whether giving iPhones to four-year olds might better explain it.

I would explain it more as "Boys can't be boys anymore and must be drugged".

Man am I glad I'm long out of the public education system.

[gturner]

Yeah, they should just rename Aderall "Soma" and drop the pretense.

[Robert Maxwell]

gturner wrote:

---

Yeah, they should just rename Aderall "Soma" and drop the pretense.

That would infringe on the existing trademark used for carisoprodol.