An Open Apology to All of My Weight Loss Clients (Huffpost)

[notanartmajor]

That's the point though.

Anything is poisonous in large enough quantity and those shiney foil wrappers have proven to be poisonous on a number of occasions.

 

No. Processed food is not and never will be considered poisonous. You can overeat it and get too fat, just as you can with "real, healthy food" and you'll end up with the same problems. In both cases it's your fault, not the inanimate objects you used to get there.

[cline]

As an aside, can we please stop saying "real food" as though people are commonly eating styrofoam fruit or something and calling it real. If you get nutrition (even just calories) and it's not poisonous, it's food.

 

twinkies? tang?  twinkies + tang + diet coke + mentos?

[Waldo]

 

No. Processed food is not and never will be considered poisonous. You can overeat it and get too fat, just as you can with "real, healthy food" and you'll end up with the same problems. In both cases it's your fault, not the inanimate objects you used to get there.

Unfortunately the deep end is in a different pool. There is no swimming back to the shallows where you can touch. A couple sentences are not nearly enough to get people out of the pool.

[whoiwas]

If you want to get lean...you need to learn to adjust calorie deficits...and you need to learn to utilize diet breaks and refeeds strategically to control the bodies' hormonal response to the deficit; lest you tank someone's metabolism and leave them depressed, stressed, losing muscle instead of fat, and ravenously hungry (and likely to binge).

 

Never fail to take away some point of clarity from your posts. It crystalized to me that I am still trying to just get unfat, while maintaining some muscle on the way down. Lean will come later.

 

Does the (truncated) quote above refer to taking breaks from calorie-reduced dieting while trying to get unfat, and if so, how? I am eating about 2,000 per day, which is about 700 less than maintenance for my current weight (according to what I see online) and a little below the maintenance weight of my target weight. I havent gotten depressed or hungry, but decrease seems to have flatlined the past week or so.

[Waldo]

 

Never fail to take away some point of clarity from your posts. It crystalized to me that I am still trying to just get unfat, while maintaining some muscle on the way down. Lean will come later.

 

Does the (truncated) quote above refer to taking breaks from calorie reduced dieting on while trying to get unfat, and if so, how? I am eating about 2,000 per day, which is about approx. 700 less than maintenance for my weight (according to what I see online). I havent gotten depressed or hungry, but decrease seems to have flatlined the past week or so.

Your body produces/fails to produce hormones in response to attempting to lose fat. When you are overweight/obese your fat supply effectively buffers the hormonal response. People do develop hypersensitivity to the hormonal response when overweight/obese (else you would never be hungry if overweight/obese), but in reality is is just magnifying tiny changes and only some of the mental/physiological effects occur, physiologically the effects are usually very minor.

One you start running out of fat, the game changes. As you lose fat, you lose much of your hypersensitity to hormonal changes. At the same time, the hormonal shifts tend to follow an exponential growth trajectory. This tends to maintain a pretty good balance, one effect cancelling the other, until you enter somewhere around the ab zone, or have been cutting hard for a while and entering the not overweight zone, thats when hormone signals start to significantly overpower reduced sensitivity to those signals. At that point you managing the hormonal response becomes the most important thing you do, it will derail your efforts otherwise; you either have to adopt a nonlinear strategy or use drugs, the basic linear prescriptions for the obese to become less fat will not work (due to being virtually impossible to sustain mentally).

[notanartmajor]

twinkies? tang?  twinkies + tang + diet coke + mentos?

 

Well, aside from the foam.

[whoiwas]

 

Your body produces/fails to produce hormones in response to attempting to lose fat. When you are overweight/obese your fat supply effectively buffers the hormonal response. People do develop hypersensitivity to the hormonal response when overweight/obese (else you would never be hungry if overweight/obese), but in reality is is just magnifying tiny changes and only some of the mental/physiological effects occur, physiologically the effects are usually very minor.

One you start running out of fat, the game changes. As you lose fat, you lose much of your hypersensitity to hormonal changes. At the same time, the hormonal shifts tend to follow an exponential growth trajectory. This tends to maintain a pretty good balance, one effect cancelling the other, until you enter somewhere around the ab zone, or have been cutting hard for a while and entering the not overweight zone, thats when hormone signals start to significantly overpower reduced sensitivity to those signals. At that point you managing the hormonal response becomes the most important thing you do, it will derail your efforts otherwise; you either have to adopt a nonlinear strategy or use drugs, the basic linear prescriptions for the obese to become less fat will not work (due to being virtually impossible to sustain mentally).

 

I have only been on this reduced calorie diet since early June and even though I've lost 32 pounds, at 234 I don't think I'm in a "not overweight zone." Obviously I knew the rate would slow so I'm not certain it has stopped. I'm going to give it another week or so to see what happens. That said, assuming my hormonal responses do need to be managed, what do you suggest as a nonlinear strategy?

 

And please, if I ask too much or you dont have time to answer, please let me know. I keep asking you because I am looking for consistency.

[Waldo]

I have only been on this reduced calorie diet since early June and even though I've lost 32 pounds, at 234 I don't think I'm in a "not overweight zone." Obviously I knew the rate would slow so I'm not certain it has stopped. I'm going to give it another week or so to see what happens. That said, assuming my hormonal responses do need to be managed, what do you suggest as a nonlinear strategy?

And please, if I ask too much or you dont have time to answer, please let me know. I keep asking you because I am looking for consistency.

A week is not a plateau. Drop your cals if you think you are losing too slow. Someone your size can maintain a 2-3 lb/wk loss rate with ease.

You are a long ways from worrying about hormones when losing fat. I'm not sure how tall you are, but chances are it won't be an issue until you're well under 200, if not closing in on 150 or less.

The simplest plan that will work for you will always be the most effective. Complexity should never be added unless absolutely needed.

[whoiwas]

A week is not a plateau. Drop your cals if you think you are losing too slow. Someone your size can maintain a 2-3 lb/wk loss rate with ease.

You are a long ways from worrying about hormones when losing fat. I'm not sure how tall you are, but chances are it won't be an issue until you're well under 200, if not closing in on 150 or less.

The simplest plan that will work for you will always be the most effective. Complexity should never be added unless absolutely needed.

 

Thanks. I'm 6'3" with a fairly large frame. I dont think I'm losing too slowly and the current calorie count seems to be meeting my cravings. My goal was 1.5/wk but when I read your post about hormones I wanted to flesh that out a bit. Thanks, as always.

[cline]

Well, aside from the foam.

 

the foam is what you get when you put the mentos in the diet coke!  mystery solved! 

[I-Jo]

if you microwave twinkies- the filling melts- then hardens to an epoxy like substance.

 

WINNING.

[whoiwas]

If you don't love it, and your lifestyle is already reasonable, I don't see what's wrong with rejecting the idea of that infomerical body with "that's too much work" - because maybe it is.  Not in the sense of it being impossible, but just in the sense that it doesn't bring them joy and doesn't give much of a better life.  Because while people should take care of themselves, only part of that is physical, y'know?  Being aware of that isn't rubbish, and it isn't lying to themselves - if anything, it's about knowing themselves and not wasting energy or stress on something that's social pressure rather than a genuine personal goal.

 

Forgive me, but didn't this whole conversation revolve around people who were seeking the better body (if not "beachbody" in particular) by going to this weight loss clinic. Hadn't they already gotten to know themselves, decided that for whatever reason this was a worthwhile goal for them? And can we quantify how much motivation can be attributed to some esoteric idea like "social pressure" as opposed to internal desire based on the individual to be something else - to do something else?

 

Far from a society that looks down on obesity, we embrace it and cater to it. Sure, individuals do it, and some collectives do as well. But by and large, commercial entities makes adjustments to accommodate and promote it, tacitly in some case, overtly in others, and government legislates against discrimination against the inevitable results.

 

What I see in these forums are people who have identified a motivation for wanting to lose weight that does not reflect deep body image issues. Sure there are people who want to lose for their HS reunion, or daughter's wedding, but most on here have some deeper desire to be fit. To be healthier, to set an example for their kids, to do some things their excess weight has prevented them from doing and in some case, uncomfortable in even trying.

 

What was labeled as "rubbish" was not the idea that people could decide that this was simply not a priority for them but that if it was, it would be unattainable - or attainable only through unreasonable effort.

 

I used to be a guy (hence, my name), who thought (and accepted) that this was probably out of my reach, that I was somehow wired to be this way. I wanted to be the guy that everyone knows who eats right without a second thought and who they assume works out regularly. As I wrote in the Woot Room, somewhere along the line it clicked in that in my mind, I became that guy...at 52.

 

I think it's only right and decent to treat everyone with a degree of respect. Many will have to overcome whatever emotional baggage they have before they can even begin to try and get their physical bodies transformed into what they desire. But we do them a disservice if we do not assure them that whatever they desire is within their control.

 

/rant

[Waldo]

As an aside, can we please stop saying "real food" as though people are commonly eating styrofoam fruit or something and calling it real. If you get nutrition (even just calories) and it's not poisonous, it's food.

With the one exception....

I can reasonably argued that alcohol is poison. The way our body responds to it is to eliminate it rapidly at all costs. Even in low concentrations it is a powerful disinfectant. Alcohol does have a caloric value.

Despite being poison, it sure is fun.

[I-Jo]

Amen Waldo... Amen. 

Speaking of- I have some cider calling my name- I had wine yesterday- and the fruit flies got to more of it than I did.

 

Sad panda face.

[hetzer222]

it's not easier for me to do it- it's BECAUSE i make it a priority- it's still hard to do.

 

That's the point.  It's not easy- because it's a priority- that's the thing about priorities- we make it important so we do it- that doesn't mean it's easy.

 

And that's great fine and well and all to make something else a priority- I made my BF the priority yesterday- not the gym- which iswhat i do EVERY wednesday.... and I still look fit and healthy- sure I freely admit- there are people who do not want to be FIT.  They simple want to be "NOT FAT" and tha'ts okay.

But there is no excuse for being fat.  None.  none at all.  again- big difference between being "not fat" and super in shape. we make it seem like it's ONLY black and white- but it's not... that being said- I don't think a single doctor will tell you being completely sedendary and thin- or not fat is healthy- being active in- even in moderation- you know walking a few times a week- is great for you.  no one is going to tell you being completely sedentary and still not fat is a good thing.

 

Being active IS good.

Being NOT fat is good.

 

Being in shape is good.

 

You can be one of those things- or all of those thins and it's it's good.

 

Being none of those things?  Is bad.

 

 

I've talked to a lot of people who think this way. I've spent my entire life hating myself and my body because of.. people who make exactly this argument that you're making.

 

Fitness isn't a moral choice. Just because you have a busy life and make time to work out, doesn't automatically make that possible for everybody.

 

And even if you're not convinced of that -- you think that people who have other priorities higher than fitness, are making a bad choice, and it's "bad" to be like that -- consider this. Shaming people for their bodies does not make people take care of themselves. It makes them stop caring, and it makes them hate themselves for not caring.

 

Come on. There's no need to be judgemental about other people's bodies... I thought this site was against that sort of thing.

[notanartmajor]

With the one exception....

I can reasonably argued that alcohol is poison. The way our body responds to it is to eliminate it rapidly at all costs. Even in low concentrations it is a powerful disinfectant. Alcohol does have a caloric value.

Despite being poison, it sure is fun.

 

Touché.

[I-Jo]

I don't see how taking care of your body is bad.

I'm not saying everyone is gong to make time to be super fit. But that's the point... It doesn't take that much to find a middle ground.

Being not fat is not the same as being in shape or ultra fit. I don't expect everyone to spend the same time in the gym that I do it be as focused and dedicated to measuring and weighing food. I don't judge anyone who doesn't do that. But saying people don't have time to do something is stupid. We all have the same time in a day. My goals aren't everyone else's goals and that's okay. But you'll never convince me is okay to neglect your body... Eat to much and be completely sedentary.

I am not shaming anyone's body. Everyone is different has different goals and physical levels goals and limitations. But i do expect people to take responsibility for their lives.

[Raikas]

Forgive me, but didn't this whole conversation revolve around people who were seeking the better body (if not "beachbody" in particular) by going to this weight loss clinic. Hadn't they already gotten to know themselves, decided that for whatever reason this was a worthwhile goal for them? And can we quantify how much motivation can be attributed to some esoteric idea like "social pressure" as opposed to internal desire based on the individual to be something else - to do something else?

 

 

 

The article mentioned some clients like that - but it also mentioned teenage athletes whose parents or peers thought they should lose weight.  And that's social pressure, not personal desire.

 

I was also responding to the number of comments about "anyone can have beachbody results" - which while true in the sense of being physcially possible, just isn't worth the effort for many people.   That's not in any way saying that people shouldn't make time for exercise (or think about what they eat) - but there's a difference between that and the effort/time for an infomercial body.  If you want it, it's worth it - but if you only want it because of social pressure, then insisting that they could isn't actually doing something positive for them.

[Nuribaby]

 

And even if you're not convinced of that -- you think that people who have other priorities higher than fitness, are making a bad choice, and it's "bad" to be like that -- consider this. Shaming people for their bodies does not make people take care of themselves. It makes them stop caring, and it makes them hate themselves for not caring.

 

Come on. There's no need to be judgemental about other people's bodies... I thought this site was against that sort of thing.

This. So much this. Fitness is important, but kindness is important too.

[Anivair]

As an aside, can we please stop saying "real food" as though people are commonly eating styrofoam fruit or something and calling it real. If you get nutrition (even just calories) and it's not poisonous, it's food.

For the record, I'm not going to stop saying that.  Pixie sticks and twinkies are not real food.  they're treats, maybe.  At best.  

 

the reason this distinction needs to be made is not because things like sugar laden breakfast cereals are not food, it's because there has been a systematic movement undertaken by advertisers for years to teach a whole generation that these things are good healthy foods and that natural real foods are bad for you.  It's great for their bottom line, but it's also killing people.  Sometimes you have to chock back to get yourself back on track. 

[Waldo]

 

I was also responding to the number of comments about "anyone can have beachbody results" - which while true in the sense of being physcially possible, just isn't worth the effort for many people.   That's not in any way saying that people shouldn't make time for exercise (or think about what they eat) - but there's a difference between that and the effort/time for an infomercial body.  If you want it, it's worth it - but if you only want it because of social pressure, then insisting that they could isn't actually doing something positive for them.

I totally disagree, the knowledge of what is possible does do positive things for people.

It directly counteracts the defeatism, "I'll never be ____ so why bother".

So very many people honest to goodness believe that it is not possible for them. That people with infomercial bodies (or however else you want to describe them) are special snowflakes, genetically gifted individuals that they will never be. This is false. Virtually everyone can achieve it with hard enough work, good planning, and consistent effort.

One can almost make a weight loss road map, as so many people follow very similar arcs. Almost nobody starts out trying to look like a god/goddess. You just do a little bit, to get a little healther, but nothing extreme. Walking plus some other low intensity exercise. Sure some improvement is better than none, but I would wager most start out as nonbelievers, that they cannot become ______. Eventually losing gets easy and exercise becomes more enjoyable. Some people achieve their goal, they've made good enough progress and reached their arbitrary weight point and go back to their old life. For others the light bulb goes on and they realize that they actually can achieve that which was once merely an unconscious dream.

[Waldo]

the reason this distinction needs to be made is not because things like sugar laden breakfast cereals are not food, it's because there has been a systematic movement undertaken by advertisers for years to teach a whole generation that these things are good healthy foods and that natural real foods are bad for you. It's great for their bottom line, but it's also killing people. Sometimes you have to chock back to get yourself back on track.

Breakfast cereals are just fine.

Carbs with vitamin/mineral fortification.

Very good fuel for active people. Very much real food.

Killing people, LOL. Da man is gonna get you.

[Raikas]

For the record, I'm not going to stop saying that.  Pixie sticks and twinkies are not real food.  they're treats, maybe.  At best.  

 

the reason this distinction needs to be made is not because things like sugar laden breakfast cereals are not food, it's because there has been a systematic movement undertaken by advertisers for years to teach a whole generation that these things are good healthy foods and that natural real foods are bad for you.  It's great for their bottom line, but it's also killing people.  Sometimes you have to chock back to get yourself back on track. 

 

Meh, treats are still food.  If a person has trouble with moderation or has trouble analyzing advertising, that's hardly an issue with the existence of junk food in and of itself.

 

 

 

 

I totally disagree, the knowledge of what is possible does do positive things for people.

 

Sure, knowledge is power.  I don't disagree with that at all.  What I take issue with is focusing on the "this is possible!" element when  that knowledge is used to pressure people into focusing on something that doesn't necessarily have a personal value for them.  Facts are neutral, but it's how they're presented that I think we need to watch.

 

I think this:

For others the light bulb goes on and they realize that they actually can achieve that which was once merely an unconscious dream.

Is great, but only for those people for whom it was a dream (conscious or unconscious).  For other people a focus on "But you could!" isn't anti-defeatist inspiration, it's just a reminder of a way in which they don't measure up.

[I-Jo]

For the record, I'm not going to stop saying that.  Pixie sticks and twinkies are not real food.  they're treats, maybe.  At best.  

 

the reason this distinction needs to be made is not because things like sugar laden breakfast cereals are not food, it's because there has been a systematic movement undertaken by advertisers for years to teach a whole generation that these things are good healthy foods and that natural real foods are bad for you.  It's great for their bottom line, but it's also killing people.  Sometimes you have to chock back to get yourself back on track. 

you know lucky charms is actually better for you than raisin bran is?  It's got more stuff in there that you can use than the amount of crap they put onto the raisins.  

 

Just a thought. 

 

That being said- I don't eat cereal.  

 

This. So much this. Fitness is important, but kindness is important too.

what's so unkind as to pointing out that people chose the path they chose. Every day is a choice. People assume if you are in good shape and have discipline that its' easy for us. That it's some how intrinsically harder for over weight people- or people who are truly underweight to gain.

 

I'ts not easier because we are this way.. it's just the choices we chose to make.  It's not unkind to point out that clearly other people have other priorities and it reflects on their health.

 

We ALL want people to succeed at their goals.  Whatever those may be.  No one wants to see someone stay the same. We WANT people to grow and be better. 

 

 

[DirtyLittleSecrets]

 

Fitness isn't a moral choice. Just because you have a busy life and make time to work out, doesn't automatically make that possible for everybody.

 

And even if you're not convinced of that -- you think that people who have other priorities higher than fitness, are making a bad choice, and it's "bad" to be like that -- consider this. Shaming people for their bodies does not make people take care of themselves. It makes them stop caring, and it makes them hate themselves for not caring.

 

Come on. There's no need to be judgemental about other people's bodies... I thought this site was against that sort of thing.

This! I love it :-)

The way I see it, the moment I started loving myself and the body I'm in is the moment that I started consciously trying to take better care of it. What I take away from that article is that the author was helping many women lose weight that weren't doing it out of a place of love, they were doing it out of anger or shame or guilt. You can lose weight that way, it can be done in a very scientific and rigorous manner, but that doesn't mean it's right or sustainable.

Everyone has it in their power to become a healthier individual. Everyone can obtain a low body fat percentage and muscular body through diet and exercise. But where is their motivation coming from? Is it a good, emotionally stable place or is it another form of self hate and abuse? Are they more likely to give in to physically harmful behaviours?

I came from losing weight in a bad place and losing weight in a pod place. The difference is astounding and I think the writer regrets helping to perpetuate negative feelings because it's good business.