Quantitative obesity research

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 pm

Useful presentation.

Image

User avatar
SubClaw
Top
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:01 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by SubClaw » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:41 am

Image

User avatar
Kenny X
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:00 pm
Location: Down on the bayou.

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Kenny X » Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:20 pm

We met up with a photographer the other day for maternity pictures. As we strolled across the park, Mrs. Kenny X, who's been measuring at ful-term since a month ago, and I, lead the way. The photographer, who happened to be an obese woman, was struggling to keep up. She had to stop and catch her breath once we got to the trees where she wanted to photograph us. She was out of breath, from walking 100 yards in the grass.

Your body doesn't work optimally when you're a fatty.
WildGorillaMan wrote:$4000 bicycle. $300 shoes. $400 spandex.

35% bodyfat.

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5643
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by syaigh » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:14 pm

I watched most of this. Most interesting conclusion (and one we probably all suspected anyway) is not that fatties have a lower metabolic rate, its that they simply under report how much they consume, either by an inability to accurately estimate how much they eat or outright denial. I have an obese family member who constantly tells me, "I only ate this much!", but if you watch her prepare her food, she eats about twice that much as she's spooning various things out of containers to reheat. Example, spooning out stuffing from thanksgiving, it was like, "one for my plate, one for my mouth". She was almost oblivious to the fact that she had just eaten the same amount she put on her plate to reheat.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21061
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:20 pm

Lyle McDonald has posted the research for years that under reporting calories was rampant among the obese and overweight.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:00 pm

Pretty much every obese patient I come across eats almost nothing.
Image

User avatar
Kenny X
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:00 pm
Location: Down on the bayou.

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Kenny X » Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:34 pm

syaigh wrote:I watched most of this. Most interesting conclusion (and one we probably all suspected anyway) is not that fatties have a lower metabolic rate, its that they simply under report how much they consume, either by an inability to accurately estimate how much they eat or outright denial. I have an obese family member who constantly tells me, "I only ate this much!", but if you watch her prepare her food, she eats about twice that much as she's spooning various things out of containers to reheat. Example, spooning out stuffing from thanksgiving, it was like, "one for my plate, one for my mouth". She was almost oblivious to the fact that she had just eaten the same amount she put on her plate to reheat.
Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Lyle McDonald has posted the research for years that under reporting calories was rampant among the obese and overweight.
When I first started working with Shaggy, he told me "Eat only this many calories per day, and measure and Log all your food. You magically lose weight when you do that."

The measuring and logging your food is where the magic happens. Especially for me because I was a textbook example of not seeing the enormity of my intake. There's no way I would've been able to stick to my calorie number had I not measured, and logged all my food.
WildGorillaMan wrote:$4000 bicycle. $300 shoes. $400 spandex.

35% bodyfat.

User avatar
Kenny X
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:00 pm
Location: Down on the bayou.

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Kenny X » Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:35 pm

Sangoma wrote:Pretty much every obese patient I come across eats almost nothing.
Like being a prison chaplain. Every inmate you meet "didn't do it."
WildGorillaMan wrote:$4000 bicycle. $300 shoes. $400 spandex.

35% bodyfat.

Protobuilder
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5022
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Protobuilder » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:14 am

Years ago, I used to run dietary analysis for people in a university gym and figured that obese referrals were lying when they handed over their ~2k caloric reports but then decided that it was probably simply from needing to write down everything they stuffed in their mouths that they regulated their behavior in some manner.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.

DikTracy6000
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2675
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:35 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by DikTracy6000 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:45 pm

Had a woman friend years ago, who swore she ate 700-1000 cals a day and gained 5 lbs. for the month. But she was not truly obese. Then menopause hit and it was boom, +30 lbs.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:06 pm

syaigh wrote:Most interesting conclusion (and one we probably all suspected anyway) is not that fatties have a lower metabolic rate, its that they simply under report how much they consume, either by an inability to accurately estimate how much they eat or outright denial.
In the presentation there is a graph of estimated food intake based on the weight dynamics in the obesity clinics. In short, those who are trying to lose weight significantly reduce their calorie intake for the initial period and lose significant amount of weight. Shortly after that intake goes up fairly quickly, but the weight gain lags behind. This lag has been known to bodybuilders for a while, hence the concept of reverse dieting. Basically at the end of fat loss you gradually increase your calories, mostly from carbs, and for a while you actually get leaner. The physiology of this is not clear - something to do with the hormonal response to calorie restriction.

Here is the T-Nation article on reverse dieting for those who are interested: Reverse Dieting for Leanness & Gains. How to Bulk and Keep Your Abs

There is no doubt that bodybuilding is the king of vanity in sports. However, you cannot help but admire the discipline these guys go through to get the physique they need for the stage.
Image

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by buckethead » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:54 am

Sangoma wrote:[ Basically at the end of fat loss you gradually increase your calories, mostly from carbs, and for a while you actually get leaner. The physiology of this is not clear - something to do with the hormonal response to calorie restriction.

LOL CICO

chi
Top
Posts: 1493
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:57 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by chi » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:09 am

Sangoma wrote:. The physiology of this is not clear - something to do with the hormonal response to calorie restriction.
oh do fuck off with that shit
I'd say on the bottom of that self-actualisation pyramid shit, proper decent coffee is in there with wifi, tits, food and shelter

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:51 am

buckethead wrote:
Sangoma wrote:[ Basically at the end of fat loss you gradually increase your calories, mostly from carbs, and for a while you actually get leaner. The physiology of this is not clear - something to do with the hormonal response to calorie restriction.

LOL CICO
Are we back to the sarcastic one-liners? Just guessing what you mean - CICO works in a meaningful time frame. You don't gain 1 kg of bodyweight if you eat 3 kg of food over one weekend. Neither you lose 1 kg if you fast for one day. Everywhere you look at in life there is a lag. and it fools a lot of people. You seem to be one of them. Yet, if you pay attention and listen there are plenty of lag observations. Back to the topic - every bodybuilder will tel you that it take about a week to see the scale moving when you start dieting. Delayed muscle adaptation courtesy Dr Verkhoshansky is another example. The world is not linear, there is a tipping point for everything. Everything.

Reverse dieting works for a short time, 2 - 4 weeks. After that it catches up with you and you gain the usual proportion of muscle and fat. Curiously, there is a clear hysteresis: when you lose weight dietary protein has muscle preserving quality, but when you reverse dieting it is carbs that have muscle gaining action. As I said, the physiology of this is not understood. Being a practitioner though I don't even think it is even necessary to understand - you can just apply it as a black box. Nutrient partitioning is different depending on lean mass/fat ratios and calorie surplus size. Bro science (including serious BB coaches) has known about it for a while. Every bro over the age of twenty knows that you have to count calories if you want to get to the contest in meaningful shape.

And I wholeheartedly welcome you to show me evidence that there is something more fundamental than CICO that determines gaining or losing weight. The combination of Zolpidem and whisky is pushing my eloquence, but the guy on my right shoulder tells me I should rather shut up and go to bed. Good night and good luck.
Image

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by buckethead » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:06 pm

I’ll be a dick initially, then soften up considerably. I’ve never seen any source that says energy extraction from ingested food takes longer than maybe 8 hours tops. So, in your example where someone eats 3Kg of food on a weekend (and, let’s say, sits on the couch), a few valid explanations, at least, come to mind:

1. All of the extra energy gets stored as fat. This is what the average joe believes when people tell them CICO. I agree that this doesn’t happen
2. They shit out a decent portion of the calories which kills (but isn’t accounted for) the CI part of CICO. I think this is huge on binge weekends
3. Their BMR increases significantly which is messing with the CO. This also is significant
4. They retain/lose water. This is one of the most significant factors in any short-term weight data collection/comparison.

The one scenario that CANNOT happen, is the one you seem to allude to. That some how that weekend’s extra energy can “catch up” with the person causing weight gain later. I don’t know of any massless energy that can hang around and become mass later.

If you remember, my first actual post on this said that CICO is obviously one hundred percent true and at the heart of weight loss / gain. I just said I felt it was useless as a mantra or a philosophy because its nuances do more harm than good. You just did a wonderful job of highlighting a few of those nuances. The bigger, more fundamental nuance is that the CI equation and the CO equation can change daily/hourly dependent on many other factors. As well, as I’ve said, the water retention is extremely significant for any local measurement.

Thus, I avoid CICO altogether. My position was and still is to find the right type of food for your health and begin eating that for a majority of your meals. Just that alone will usually find you eating less. Then adjust the amount if you have to, once you’ve mastered the habit of eating well. Actually, that’s a better way of summarizing my position. “Eat well, then if needed, eat less”.

However, I began to see that you and Blaidd were talking about < 10% bodyfat so I don’t think we’re even talking the same conversation. I’m talking about the other 95% of over-30 humanity.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:12 pm

buckethead wrote:However, I began to see that you and Blaidd were talking about < 10% bodyfat so I don’t think we’re even talking the same conversation. I’m talking about the other 95% of over-30 humanity.
I'm most definitely not talking about that cohort of sub 10%. I've been that lean once in my life and it came at the hands of 400 plus miles weeks on the bike and very strict eating and a lifestyle no one would consider sustainable over the long haul.

I'm specifically concerned with the 99% of Americans (da fatties) I know who think that some sort of a"strategy" for eating will enable them to drop chubbage when the only known useful strategy is the one which restricts kcal below expenditure over the long haul.

I didnt arrive at this lightly, Ive tried all manner of wacky bullshit include the fuckin disaster of a diet that DJ was on. (It works..the cost is high) I've had the benefits of using all manner of compounds which tweak the underlying hormonal mess including two of the most powerful lipolytic agents available, DNP and Trenbolone....even with those powerful tools on board, the tool that worked for me...every damn time, is knowing the kcal value of what goes in and understanding your burn rate. That knowledge is power. Whatever B16 is shilling is ignorance and failure.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:34 pm

Bucket, it's not just about the digestion of food and its immediate effects. I am sure you heard about metabolic adaptation. Just to make sure we are on the same page, it is the observation that when people lose weight their BMR is actually lower than what be expected given their new body weight. The difference is small, 3-5%, but in the long run it can make a difference. What it signifies is the efficiency at which individuals use energy. It is the same with activity: you spend less energy as you become more skilled at it. And yes, when you binge you probably shit most of the excess food, but itty no means kills the CI. It is a very short lived effect, and after a short period of time CICO will work like a clock.

The corollary of this is that irregularity of intake can be helpful to those trying to lose weight. It is easier psychologically - avoids the monotony of eating the same amount every day, allows for some indulgences - and seems to have some physiological benefits in terms of repartitioning.
Last edited by Sangoma on Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:41 pm

As far as eat better and the total intake will take of itself - it probably will work for the majority of the truly overweight people, at least in the initial stages of their efforts to lose weight. But the relapse is very likely. There is research has demonstrates increasing intake in a lot of such tactics. Atkins is a good example: the majority lose weight for the first six months and then slowly gain it back later, even though they stick to the diet. I personally think that without continuous conscious effort permanent weight loss is not going to work in most individuals. And while under 10% body fat is a different ball game the degree of effort is only slightly different for those trying to get below 30%. Body weight set point is damn difficult parameter to change. I just think - believe it or not - that counting calories makes dieting easier.

Off topic. Some of the obese should follow the same tactic as chemical addicts, complete avoidance. You wouldn't tell an alcoholic - have a drink once in a while, just to not feel deprived. Yet I hear similar adage all the time when nurses give advice to obese diabetics.
Image

climber511
Gunny
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by climber511 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:50 pm

I'm one of those natural 10 - 12% people so I know I'm not the guy to listen to but it's always been a quantity thing for me. If I see I'm gaining weight or getting softer - I simply eat less and/or exercise more. If I wanted to gain (never really tried to get "swole") I ate more. My diet is "sorta clean" - meaning I do great until I don't and go on some kind of binge for a couple days and eat horrible amounts of everything in sight - much junk included. I ended up with a BS kind of theory that I have come to actually believe in. If you binge - go absolutely bat shit crazy and shoot for 10,000 calories or something ridiculous. My thought is that you'll crap out most of it and only a little more than average will actually get absorbed into the system. The problem I see is that most people think they can do that a few times a week instead of the once every couple months I do. Over the last year or so I decided to return to "climbing shape" meaning lose about 15 to 25 pounds - fully realizing that means muscle loss as well. I did the Velocity Diet - easiest thing I ever did - no thought involved - and it worked just fine - lost about 15 and returned to regular food - stabilized and gained a few back - then did a protein shake for lunch only and dropped another 5 - and am just about where I want to be now but will bounce again with the return to real food for all meals. Looks like to be stable at my goal weight I'll have to lose around 5# below where I want to be - then I should settle in where I want. I may do the Velocity Diet again - not very fun but easy to follow and it works. Stupid diet obviously but I'd rather be miserable for a few weeks than unhappy for months at a time. So pretty much just what you guys are saying.

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by buckethead » Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:05 am

So we all agree it's advertising

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:36 am

buckethead wrote:So we all agree it's advertising
=D> Clearly...
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6529
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Sangoma » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:56 am

It is clearly a conspiracy. I blame Trump (and Putin, by proxy).
Image

chi
Top
Posts: 1493
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:57 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by chi » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:44 pm

Sangoma wrote:Reverse dieting works for a short time, 2 - 4 weeks. After that it catches up with you and you gain the usual proportion of muscle and fat.
holy fuck.

ITS CICO!

reverse dieting only seems to "work" is because you are still in a deficit.

Seriously, once your diet is over, the first week can be half way between diet calories and maintenance but from week two just get straight back to expected maintenance for your new weight and bodyfat levels.
I'd say on the bottom of that self-actualisation pyramid shit, proper decent coffee is in there with wifi, tits, food and shelter

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by buckethead » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:48 am

Again, chi, where would this energy go until it manifest as weight? You are violating basic physics

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Quantitative obesity research

Post by Beer Jew » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:46 pm

Surely it needs to be more complex than that Bucket.

Presumably;

1. Your body doesn't account for CICO on a strict 24 hour basis. I don't know digestive timescales etc. but it would seem like CICO works over a period of time. Therefore if you come off a diet, for the first week you may still be in a deficit?

2. Your body isn't a simple mechanical machine whereby calories go in and perfect waste/energy/fat comes out. If this was the case then a 10k calorie binge weekend would see you come out several pounds of fat heavier? In reality, once you've taken a nice shit, and allowed your body to recover, you may not actually have put much weight on.

3. Following on from point 2, presumably something happens in your body whereby calories and nutrients are partitioned somehow. If you get better at doing this when in a deficit or when leaner, then in the week you come out of a diet, even if you're eating more calories, you may shit more out, and partition more into muscle instead of fat.

All guesswork, probably all wrong!

Post Reply