Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

[Deckerd]

Venardhi wrote:

---

You don't have reality on your side in this.

I can't really improve on this comment.

[Pingfah]

stj wrote:

---

No, you also needed protein to build muscle. You probably increased your caloric intake to do this.

I didn't say I didn't use protein, of course I have protein shakes, and eat a lot of chicken and tuna and things like that. The point being though, that it is the process of damaging and repairing your muscles that helps them build, and fat is not a part of that equation.

This site, http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htmur, estimates that a 205 lb. person vigously rowing an exercise machine will burn 791 calories. Per hour. This site, http://www.fitwatch.com/phpscripts/v...egetable%20oil, estimates that a large french fries is 578 calories.

An hour of vigorous rowing 3/4ths undone by one fast food side? This numerical disparity between calories burned by exercise and intake is why exercise plays no important role in losing weight.

This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.

If that's not enough to make a difference then you very possibly could be eating far too much, and not eating healthy food.

[Retu]

Venardhi wrote:

---

Losing fat generally also generally means losing muscle mass unless you had comparatively little to begin with.

Good thing fat people usually have some extra muscle too, unless they spend all their time lying in bed.

[Retu]

Pingfah wrote:

---

I didn't say I didn't use protein, of course I have protein shakes, and eat a lot of chicken and tuna and things like that. The point being though, that it is the process of damaging and repairing your muscles that helps them build, and fat is not a part of that equation.

This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.

If that's not enough to make a difference then you very possibly could be eating far too much, and not eating healthy food.

If they were eating sensibly, they probably wouldn't be fat in the first place, would they?

[Pingfah]

My point being that if you don't alter your diet, but add exercise that burns 4000 of the calories you have eaten, most people with some fat to burn would lose over a pound a week like that. Or not put on a pound, depending on how much they are eating.

How anybody can say that is not worth it is beyond me. The numbers seem to add up fine. Nobody ever said that losing weight was a cakewalk, but if 5 hours of exercise a week is too much for someone to bother with, then they are just plain lazy, assuming of course that they are physically capable of doing 5 hours exercise a week.

[Venardhi]

The trick is this: An average first-world person is probably burning between 1500-2000 calories a day just to keep their body functioning as they go about their day, assuming they're not entirely sedentary. If they burn an average of an extra 750 a day from activity beyond that, they can then consume that much more food without it being stored as energy. If they're using that activity to build muscle, their body will be consuming more energy at rest in addition to that extra caloric consumption from exercise.

The thing about a 400 calorie serving of fries (or an 800 calorie burger) is that if you ate a healthy alternative you are likely still consuming several hundred calories in that meal. So if I stay at home and have a turkey(150 calories) and cheese(100 calories) sandwich(200 calories from bread, 50 from mayo, etc.), a small salad (with dressing: 150 calories) and a glass of skim milk (100 calories), I'm eating say, 750 calories. If I replace that meal with the fast food equivalent, I'm nearly doubling my caloric intake from that meal to a ridiculous 1400, but that 1400 really only comes to an extra 650 calories. Now that is like an extra meal, and certainly not recommended, but going back to our original numbers, if you eat that 1400 calorie dinner, but had a 400 calorie breakfast and a 500 calorie lunch then your intake for the day is 2300, most or all of which will be burned off by simply existing if you're a fairly large person.

In short: as long as you're balanced in your approach to your overall diet, eating things like a basket of fries a couple times a week alone really wont have that much impact on your overall caloric intake and, in turn, your weight.

[Infern0]

For the people above arguing about exercise and french fires, sure you can eat those fries and burn off the calories (but not all the sodium from the half a pot of salt on those suckers) to negate it, but the easier option is don't eat the damn french fries, it's a nutritionally redundant food, mcdonalds is a once every 6 month deal for me, on cheat day i'll go to a real restaurant and get a properly cooked hamburger and fries, at least it's not processed garbage.

If you want to be "in shape" you are better served eating nutritionally quality foods as without adequate lean protein combined with lifting weights you will not have enough muscle on your body to be aesthetic and will become the dreaded "skinny-fat"

[stj]

Venardhi wrote:

---

Under your theory, people without fat on them cannot gain muscle. There is some truth to that, but not in the way you think....

You've misrepresented what I think.

Fat barely plays into it, except as an additional energy source if necessary.

This is what I've been saying! A concern for accuracy forced a concession that fat-burning could occasionally play a minor role in weight lost.

You don't have reality on your side in this.

How embarrassing for you, since you only disagree with a caricature of my position.

Deckerd wrote:

---

I can't really improve on this comment.

Really embarrassing for you: This post is semiliterate, vacuous and petty.

Pingfah wrote:

---

This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.

If that's not enough to make a difference then you very possibly could be eating far too much, and not eating healthy food...This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.

Thank you Venardhi, thanks to your sowing confusion, we're right back to laying all of it, every ounce, to character flaws, such as laziness and lack of willpower, a la Pingfah and Deckerd. An hour of vigorous rowing on a machine is not a simple matter. That is a demanding workout. Also, lots of people don't have a rowing machine, or a boat, or a gym membership, for monetary reasons. Nor does the exercise time merely include the full hour on the rowing machine in the hypothetical example. It includes any travel time etc. too. Also, the notion that a day's increase of calories can somehow be balanced by exercise on previous or subsequent days is really peculiar.

The numbers don't add up. Exercise as a weight loss method is just impractical, requiring more than an hour's simple exercise. If anyone had troubled to look, I deliberately picked a high-value exercise. Most hour's exercise burn much less.

Retu wrote:

---

If they were eating sensibly, they probably wouldn't be fat in the first place, would they?

Not that simple, which is the real point to be grasped. Intense hunger is probably the number one cause of overeating, not overeating the inevitable result of moral weakness. Making up reasons to despise people doesn't really help someone in daily life.

Venardhi wrote:

---

...In short: as long as you're balanced in your approach to your overall diet, eating things like a basket of fries a couple times a week alone really wont have that much impact on your overall caloric intake and, in turn, your weight.

The wrong thinking is the insistence on exercise for weight loss, as compensation for that side of fries. Where did "basket" come from? Trying to imply gluttony without actually saying it obviously?

Infern0 wrote:

---

If you want to be "in shape" you are better served eating nutritionally quality foods as without adequate lean protein combined with lifting weights you will not have enough muscle on your body to be aesthetic and will become the dreaded "skinny-fat"

At last, a post that honestly connects exercise with esthetics!

[Deckerd]

Pompousness doesn't equate being right. There are enough people here saying you're mistaken for you to at least step back and reconsider what you're saying.

[farmkid]

Some new research has been published that supports this notion that gut bacteria are responsible for at least some obesity. What the authors did is described in the article, but the Cliff notes version is this: In both mice and humans, there is a difference in the gut bacteria of the lean and obese. After gastric bypass surgery, the gut bacteria changes to more closely match that of lean people. To see if that is a cause or effect of weight loss, the authors did gastric bypass surgery on some obese mice and the mice lost weight as expected. Then they transferred gut bacteria from those mice to other obese mice that didn't have the surgery and they too lost weight. Their conclusion is that weight loss after gastric bypass surgery is not due solely to the anatomical changes, but are also due to physiological changes induced by a change in gut bacteria.

[thestrangequark]

^I just read the Science Daily article on that, very interesting!

[gturner]

Now we'll have to deride obese people as being big sacks of fat, lazy bacteria.

[farmkid]

On the contrary; one hypothesis to explain this is that the gut bacteria of obese people extract more calories from food that that of lean people. It's the lean people who have the fat, lazy bacteria.

[Scout101]

so, where do we get some of this sweet, sweet skinny bacteria?

[farmkid]

I guess from the intestines (or toilet) of a skinny person. On that thought, maybe I don't mind being fat after all.