Read ... Then Just Stay Fat. Online
Authors: Shannon Sorrels,Joel Horn,Kevin Lepp
... Then Just Stay Fat. (7 page)
Why could she eat like that and stay skinny, but I couldn't?
She ate what she wanted
—
skinny people said, "I eat what I want."
I can't eat what I want, or I'd weigh 500 pounds and keep gaining.
It didn't seem fa
ir and it made me mad as hell.
I can't tell you what caused my next thought; it was a flash.
But in
an instant, it all made sense.
Want is a relative term.
When someone says, "I eat what I want," they might “want” one slice of pizza or some steamed broccoli.
When I say, "eat what I want," I mean a whole pizza and a bag of M&Ms.
A
lot of thin people probably do "eat what they want.” The
y just don't want what I want.
That was one of my big moments.
I stopped hearing "eat what I want" and started paying attention to what was actually eaten.
I stopped hating and
starting changing.
And THAT is relativity.
I got to thinking the other day (dangerous, I know)
—
just what the heck doe
s "I'm
gonna
eat healthy" mean?
We all say it, and it usually has something to do with weight loss.
We talk about needing to lose weight and our plan is "eat healthy and exercise more.
"
What exactly does that mean?
No, I haven't lost my mind, nor am I about to inundate you with a laundry list of healthy foods.
I'm asking because I hear it all the time from soon-to-be dieters.
I ask, "What are you going to change?"
They usually say, "I'm going to eat more healthy fo
ods and try to exercise more."
"Eat healthy and exercise more" is a horrible goal statement.
You can't measure any of it and it's not time-bound (among other problems).
But I digress.
I want to focus on this notion of "healthy eating" as a mea
ns to lose weight and get fit.
Weight is all about calories (sorry
,
it is).
If your body needs 2,000 calories per
day to maintain its weight,
those calories can come from j
ust about anything digestible.
Nutrition is all about how you spend those calories.
If you need 2,000 calories but eat 1,300 in only Twinkies, you will lose weight
—
but before you get too excited, know that you might also become malnourished.
You won't be taking in things your body needs to perform its phenomenal functions.
If you take in 1,300 calories in complex carbs, lean proteins, fruits and vegetables, and a little fat, you'll lose weig
ht AND take in good nutrition.
The reverse is true.
If you need 2,000 calories and take in 3,000 via Milky Ways, you will gain weight and lack proper nutrition.
If you take in 3,000 calories from a raw, whole food, vegan diet, you will GAIN weight.
You read that right.
You can eat "healthy foods" and gain weight
—
if you eat too much of it.
So depending on your goal, just aiming for "healthy eating" might not get you where you want to go.
If weight loss is what you're really after, then you've got to keep your calories in check.
In a perfect world, those calories would come from all those foods public-service announcements keep hammering us about.
If you can't be perfect, I say a cookie now and aga
in isn't the end of the world.
Me?
I love an apple fritter.
Ask anyone.
But I also know it's a 400-calorie hit when I cho
o
se to eat it.
Apparently we’ve found a gluttony gene (published online in the journal
Nature Medicine
). For those who
have compulsive needs to eat non-stop, some scientists believe this gene, and its role in sign
aling fullness, is implicated.
A genetic role of the dice could be to blame for our poundage.
Yeah, not.
While any new finding is intriguing on its own merit (knowledge is good), I don’t see the big wh
oop beyond that on this round.
If we
hop
e
findings like this one will be the Holy Grail of weight loss and health, I predict we’ve got another thing coming.
If this gene mutation is “for reals,” then it’s been with us in the gene pool for a while, not just since the
‘
70s when obesity
started to make a nasty climb.
A gene mutation most likely
is
not the root cause of
our current epidemic.
Oh, and at the very bottom of the article touting this finding, I read
,
“
the
gene mutation is
very rare in humans.”
Nice.
Most of us do not compulsively eat beyond
any recognition of “fullness.”
Yeah, a few
of us do, but not MOST of us.
Most people put on weight a few pounds per month to the
tune of 10-15 per year.
We eat an extra 500 calories a day – a burger that could have served two, a mocha-
choca
-lat
te we could have done without.
Most of us are not several hundred pounds overweight, but are solidly landing
in obesity weight categories.
It’s not a gene forcing the bacon milkshakes down the pie hole; it’s just plain old “yum
yum
” and a blind eye.
If you do have this problem – and that’s a big IF – you’re still
gonna
have t
o eat less to lose the weight.
Either you are poking down a pill that tells your brain “I’m full” after eating a carrot, or you are tracking your food and stopping on your own (based on total calories rather than how you “feel
”), you will have to eat less.
There’s n
o way around it.
Even given those talking points, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt this study pricked up
the ears of some heavy folks.
We love
complicated answers, no matter how obscure.
We pursue them – sc
ientists and laypersons alike.
Why do we deeply want some complicated an
swer as to why we are all fat?
Why do research dollars pour into a field where most of us already know we need to ea
t less and move more?
Because “complicated” absolves individuals of responsibility and it creat
es a market to sell solutions.
We also feel like we are doing something about the problem when we make a purchase.
“Simple” doesn’t sell – it isn’t sexy, not to mention Big
Pharm would l-o-v-e to get its
hands on a daily pill (read
“
never-ending consumable
”) to peddle us.
But before I go blaming “them” for hawking their complicated wares and research on us, I think I’d do better to blame “us” for wanting it.
I try not to be a puppet.
I’ve succumb
ed
to some purchases made via shiny, hopeful advertising messages, but I try to own
what’s mine – like overeating. How about you?
How many dollar
s have you spent chasing weight-
loss solutions in the fo
rm of pills, gadgets, equipment or crazy food plans?
Did you lo
se the weight and keep it off?
Yea
for you! Not so much?
Start looking for some puppet strings.
References:
When a purported expert says something incongruent with my common sense, I flip
open
my laptop and s
tart
Googling
. Call it a hobby.
The topic that recently piqued my interest was the supposed dangers of weight cycling, aka yo-yo dieting. I come across it all the time
—
articles in newspapers, famed experts on television, and blogs/tweets. All cite dangerous yo-yo dieting as a reason to not do this or that. And these aren’t just fly-by-night nut jobs saying this stuff. I’ve heard or read it on "The Dr. Oz Show", "Dr. Phil", healthcare newsletters and some reputable news outlets.
The focus usually has something to do with the difficulties of weight loss and how to do it “the right way.” A complicated solution often
is
given, along with a finger-wagging warning: yo-yo dieting has health consequences, it makes fat harder and harder to shed
;
you’ll slow down your metabolism. Some warnings are just frightfully vague. I think I once read “deleterious health consequences” from a university professor. Egad.
My BS detector rang out
. I just can’t, in a million years, see how being obese, and staying obese, is healthier than repeatedly trying to get the danged weight off. I’m not promoting crazy, fad eating plans or exercise prescriptions beyond a person’s current ability. I’m a fan of reasonable eating and activity – all aimed at a daily caloric deficit. And if that means you lose 30 pounds, regain 20, climb back up on that horse and try again – losing another 20 then gaining back 25, then so be it. In a perfect world we’d all lose it once and be done, but chances are it’ll take a few runs at the mountain to pull it off and keep it off. We’ll go a few rounds before we “get it.” But that’s just my common sense – what does it know?
So I do what I always do when I want an answer – I research it. One of the easiest websites for me to get data-driven answers is the handy, tax-paid National Institute
s
of Health website. Within a few minutes of searching for “weight cycling” and “yo-yo diet,” I had several articles to review and
lemme
tell
ya
, science writing
ain’t
exactly spell-binding. The articles either said it’s better to yo-yo diet than to stay fat, or there’s no health danger in yo-yo dieting (Diabetes risk, cardiovascular risk, slowed resting metabolism, or increased morbidity/mortality – you don’t “wreck your metabolism” as I heard from one
TV health guru). One concluded there probably wasn’t any risk, but encouraged more research to be extra sure. NONE of the articles I read concluded it was better to stay fat than yo-yo diet.
If multiple studies say it’s better to
“
weight cycle
”
than stay obese (or at a minimum it’s no greater risk), why do I continually read and hear the opposite? My common sense says two reasons: no one bothers to research it; so-called experts just regurgitate what THEY heard and/or they’ve got some complicated solution to sell you. I know, shame on my jadedness. Over the years, my cynical side has danced one too many
“
neener-neeners
”
in the face of my optimism.
I’m not saying our beloved television gurus are out to pull the wool over our eyes. I am saying it is all too common these
days to repeat
sound bites and news clips, especially when they say what we want to hear: if I deny myself (aka, diet), I’ll slow my metabolism and get fatter. Not true.
If you are obese, keep trying to lose that weight. Every little bit helps, even if you gain some back and lose it again. Keep at it. And my common sense just said “
Neener
neener
.”
References: