[jhangesse]

It makes your brain feel better to gain weight. Your brain craves carbs. Saying its easier to lose weight than gain it is like saying its easier to not have sex than to have sex.

[jjthomson]

	Originally Posted by karenann33 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've done both. When I was young I had a hard time gaining weight. When I got older and had kids I had to go on a diet. My personal experience is yes it's easier to lose weight than it was to gain it. I can always find something else to do besides eat but forcing myself to eat when I wasn't hungry was hard.

That is exactly my point.

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who's this "we", paleface? Unless you live in a cave, you realize that many of the recommended diets in recent times have failed because people have been told to cut caloric intake. And, well, it doesn't work for long. Your parroting of discredited diet guidelines does nothing to improve your case.

This "we" is humans. As in anyone who gets hungry. You think overweight people deserve their own category or something?

I haven't referenced any diets of any kind. I'm stating a fact of how the human body works. Everyone has a certain daily calorie intake which is amount of energy they use up during their daily activities. If you go over, your body has excess calories which it will store in some form for later, resulting in weight gain. If you go under this intake, your body will require more calories and breakdown parts of your body to use for energy. Are you disputing this FACT?

[katatonic]

To loose weight you need to burn more calories than you take in. Gaining weight you need to take in more calories than you burn. That's just how it works. Fat, sugar, carbs and all the other things only matter in terms of calories.

This is the practice I've gone by for the past 6 months and I've lost a significant amount of weight.

[Causa Mortis]

Being unable to set boundaries, or having a narcissist in your life, is the core psychological problem that causes obesity. Sugars are just the poison most people pick.

I was morbidly obese until I moved away from my highly narcissistic father's home. 360 to 280 just by moving out. 280 to 235 was a struggle. 235 to 228 while adding a ton of muscle has been an experience of joy, as my body looks a little more like what I want it to look every day, and new sinews and definition emerge daily. Its a wonderful experience.

---------- Post added 08-10-2012 at 11:00 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by katatonic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To loose weight you need to burn more calories than you take in. Gaining weight you need to take in more calories than you burn. That's just how it works. Fat, sugar, carbs and all the other things only matter in terms of calories.

Yes and no. GI seems to have a significant impact, particularly if you eat high GI right before bed. Slow carb and ketosis diets trash fat unlike anything else.

---------- Post added 08-10-2012 at 11:02 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by jhangesse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It makes your brain feel better to gain weight. Your brain craves carbs. Saying its easier to lose weight than gain it is like saying its easier to not have sex than to have sex.

Bollox. When I was fat I felt like shit all.the.time. Never mind the fact that I got almost no sex while I was fat.

[Silverity]

I don't think sweeping generalizations on either side are particularly helpful. Where you start, weight-wise is a factor, your genetics are a factor, your environment, your mental health... all are going to play a role in either weight loss or weight gain. Narrowing it down to biology is great but not realistic, as we don't live in vacuums.

I can't for the life of me gain weight, a friend of mine can't for the life of her lose it. Lifestyle factors play heavily into this, as do our genetics (metabolic rates). I don't think you can say one route is easier than the other, it's dependent on too many other factors to be so black and white.

[Magda]

I'm curious how many of the folks talking about how easy it is to lose weight are men. Statistically, it's much easier for men to lose weight than women (we're biologically programmed to fatten up so we can bear and nurse children even during a famine).

You're also discounting the fact that it takes more time and money to eat in a healthy fashion. Most of the quick convenient and cheap foods are mostly carbs. Eating a more healthy diet requires more time at the grocery store, more time cooking, and more time planning meals. For someone who works long hours and has many other responsibilities, this can be an issue. And eating a lot of carbs makes you crave more, so you end up consuming more calories than if you were eating something else.

Exercise also takes extra time out of a busy schedule which is hard for some people to find. And I know from personal experience that if I try to diet without also exercising, my metabolism just cranks itself down to accommodate the lower intake.

I can remember looking at fat people when I was younger and thinking that I would never let that happen to myself. Then I had major bouts of depression, along with undiagnosed severe sleep apnea and a sedentary job with long hours, and gained 100 pounds in about 5 years.

I've tried various things to lose weight since then. Simply cutting calories left me always hungry, crabby as hell, and generally miserable. I plateaued for 6 months after losing just 15 pounds, since my metabolism just shut down to compensate. Felt like I had no energy at all.

Cutting down on carbs was much more helpful, even if I consumed more calories, since I had fewer blood sugar spikes and cravings, and wasn't hungry all the time so I could function much better. I was able to lose 50 pounds before plateauing on that diet, while consuming more calories than on the previous one.

So no, it's not as simple as taking in fewer calories, contrary to popular belief. Metabolism is a very complex process (and I say that as a molecular biologist with a Biochemistry degree) and differs from person to person.

[leslissocool]

Well for me it's the opposite. after giving birth to twins, I gained 81lb and it took me 2 years to get rid of it.

I have insulin resistance and hypertension. I was 21 and on blood pressure meds, so I had to lose the weight to get off the meds. All I can say is that calorie restriction did not work for me, while a low GI diet with no simple carbs (grains, starches) worked. Not only did I lose the weight slowly but I also have way more energy than I've ever had.

I'm no guru or anything, but I was there and I have pictures. Before I had kids, I ate bread and pasta and had a higher body fat % even though I worked out more than I do now. I developed an eating disorder, and I struggled with weight for a very long time (went to rehab for it and all) and it wasn't until I reinvented my eating that I actually lost and kept the weight off. It's not about calorie intake, it's about quality of food, timing of the food, and your overall nutritional needs.

Carbs are NOT brain food, eat a bunch of carbs without fat and protein and you have spikes in your blood sugar, and then it drops.Your mind becomes clouded, you lose focus. You need to pair the carbs with fats an protein so that it feeds your brain steadily. Google "brain food" and you can find all kinds of actual information about it. It's also important to know the difference between protein (fast acting/slow acting) and simple and complex carbs.

Eating this way has helped my ADHD immensely, along with allowing me to have a stable weight. I also learned that I needed to ditch the treadmill, all the cardio I was doing was pointless. Now that I do weightlifting I am a size 2 at the same weight i was back in high school when i was a size 7.

[Ferbguy101]

Does this sound wrong? yes. But I honestly hoped diabeties would be more leathal, or if you get too fat you'd die, I mean then natural selection would've solved the problem along time ago, not eating so much you become lethargic, but having food availible in society when you need it

[Purgatid]

The argument is knocked down by reality. There are more overweight than underweight people in western society, where both may occur, and underweight is considered beauty where overweight is considered fugly. In effect - being overweight is undesireable, where underweight is desireable, yet there are more overweight than underweight. If it was easier to lose weight than to gain it, we would see more underweight people as this is what one "aught to" strive for, and most people do what they "aught" to be doing. We don't see these underweight people, so it's not easier to lose weight.

Why is another question, but clearly, the results speak for themselves.

[Sk8ordude]

Excess calories are what make you fat, protien and carbs contain 4 calories per gram while fat contians 9, no type of food makes you fat. Unhealthy foods are foods that hold little nutritional value aside from their calorie count. They wont make you any fatter then other foods as long as you use the calories quick enough. The thing is these empty foods tend to be more calorie dense, so people eat more before it registers that they are full, which is something that our bodies have not adapted to.

Food+Couch Surfing=Accumulation of Reserves(Fat)
Food+Doing Shit=Stasis
No Food+Couch Surfing=Stasis
No Food+Doing Shit=Depletion of Reserves(Fat Loss)

Easier depends on what you prefer to be doing and harder is what you would rather not be doing. I like to do alot in a day, most of it cant be done while eating, I also only really eat whole foods most of which being plants, which limits just how many calories I can fit in my gut. Therefore its harder for me to accumulate fat.

[Magda]

Nope, it's not that simple.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sk8ordude]

It can be as complex as going into every chemical and molecule that any given food can be broken down into and from there how every chemical and molecule interacts with an individuals genetic blueprint.

It may not be that simple, but as a general rule if you are putting in the work that it takes x calories to do, in the time they are available for utilization, they will either be used for repair or energy, and whats left over will go to waste or be stored.

[jjthomson]

	Originally Posted by Silverity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think sweeping generalizations on either side are particularly helpful. ...I don't think you can say one route is easier than the other, it's dependent on too many other factors to be so black and white.

Well this is the most reasonable solution, but thats just no fun is it?

Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm curious how many of the folks talking about how easy it is to lose weight are men. Statistically, it's much easier for men to lose weight than women (we're biologically programmed to fatten up so we can bear and nurse children even during a famine). You're also discounting the fact that it takes more time and money to eat in a healthy fashion. Exercise also takes extra time Metabolism is a very complex process (and I say that as a molecular biologist with a Biochemistry degree) and differs from person to person.

You're right I never considered gender differences. But no I didn't discount the time it takes to eat healthy. People building muscle must spend just as much time and money planning meals, buying foods and lots of it, and eating healthy. They also have to exercise. And they also have metabolisms which can be complicated. Just as your metabolism turned down when you dieted, some peoples metabolisms turn up when they start to eat more.

Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The argument is knocked down by reality. There are more overweight than underweight people in western society, where both may occur, and underweight is considered beauty where overweight is considered fugly. In effect - being overweight is undesireable, where underweight is desireable, yet there are more overweight than underweight. If it was easier to lose weight than to gain it, we would see more underweight people as this is what one "aught to" strive for, and most people do what they "aught" to be doing. We don't see these underweight people, so it's not easier to lose weight. Why is another question, but clearly, the results speak for themselves.

Interesting, but something in this argument doesn't seem right. Maybe its 'the people do what they ought to do' premise. I could use your own logic to break it down. I could say if people did what they ought to do then their would be no overweight people, but there are overweight people, therefore people don't do what they ought to do. Or maybe its that you only use western culture as your sample. Other countries have populations that lean closer to the underweight side, example Japan. I think people in western society choose convenience over health a lot of the time, which certainly isn't what they ought to do.

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Easier depends on what you prefer to be doing and harder is what you would rather not be doing. I like to do alot in a day, most of it cant be done while eating, I also only really eat whole foods most of which being plants, which limits just how many calories I can fit in my gut. Therefore its harder for me to accumulate fat.

Same here, I would prefer to be doing other things (which I can't eat during), and would rather not be eating for 3 hours a day.

	Originally Posted by Magda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope, it's not that simple. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From 1st link: "According to the calories in vs out argument if I ate 100 less calories per day for a whole year I would lose 36500 calories or approx 4 kilos of fat." C'mon seriously? What kind of fail logic is that. Obvious hole: at a certain point your daily caloric needs would drop by 100 calories, so unless you dropped by another 100 calories, you would just be consuming the required calories to maintain, and stop losing weight. Really can't trust an article written with irrational arguments like that.
Didn't read the second link

[topquark]

Depends on your body. If I overeat, my body responds by pushing the food through my gut faster and digesting it less thoroughly. The effect is exacerbated by eating high-fat meals, making weight gain practically impossible. However, the fact that we are facing an obesity crisis suggests that most people do in fact find it quite easy to put on weight and not so easy to lose it.

[mieu]

If you are taking time out of your day to do something you hate, I will gladly come and take some of that food off your hands

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 10:32 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who's this "we", paleface? Unless you live in a cave, you realize that many of the recommended diets in recent times have failed because people have been told to cut caloric intake. And, well, it doesn't work for long. Your parroting of discredited diet guidelines does nothing to improve your case.

What.

[Purgatid]

[QUOTE=jjthomson]I could say if people did what they ought to do then their would be no overweight people, but there are overweight people, therefore people don't do what they ought to do.[QUOTE]

Quite right, they don't do what they ought to be doing. They're trying to do what they ought to be doing, but fail. They try to go on diets, then fuck it up because it's hard. They try to exercise, then give up after two weeks, because it's hard. The whole argument that it's easier to drop weight suggests that it's easier to fight an addiction )or behavior in general) than it is to fuel it. If it was, there'd be no addicts, you'd have to really try hard to keep being one. Addiction suggests this very slanted situation - one who is addicted will consider it easier to fuel the additction, one who is lazy (there's no proof of this, but I call it sloth-addiction) will find it easier not to do something. In general, when I think of addiction, I don't think of chemical addicton, but addiction to a behavior. What first is an exception (yay, cake, we neve have cake) quickley transforms into a habit (oh, cake again, well, we usually have cake after we've done X) and then to a behavior (no fucking cake today??? But I have X!!). It's expectation and routines. If you're used to eating a certain amount, eating less will cause you discomfort. If you then have expended energy (or think you have expended energy) you will think that you fucking deserve to eat more, because you have done more. You are entitled to it.

	Originally Posted by jjthomson
	Or maybe its that you only use western culture as your sample. Other countries have populations that lean closer to the underweight side, example Japan.

Indeed, their behavior is different from ours. I highly doubt that they're thin because it's easier, but rather because the things they eat, the times they eat it, the amounts they eat it, tend to be a certain way. I live in Sweden, and we're nowhere near as fat as the US (but we're getting there, it's been steadily increasing the last decade or so!!). Why is that? Do we starve ourselves? Are Americans pigs and Swedes health freaks?

I don't think so. I think out habits are changing. In the past, it was considered pretty disgusting to glarf down too much. "Lagom´" is a word that can't really be translated into english, but it sort of means "as much as is custom" or "as much as would make one content" and it was important to be lagom in what you do. This has changed the last two decades or so, and child obesity is now at an alarming rate.

So, I do think it's an addiction. I do not believe it's a chemical addiction, but I am quite sure it's an addiction to a habit. Furthermore, I still think reality disproves it.

OP seems to suggest:
________
X is easier to obtain than Y.
We want X.
We do not want Y.

Therefore we strive for Y.
_________

Que?
We can be sure of two things, we want to be thin, and we fail at becoming thin.
That is reality saying that it's easier to get fat than thin.

[Pipedown]

Originally Posted by jjthomson To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

At least that's what I think. This is why: When people want to gain weight they have to increase calorie intake. This means forcing themselves to eat more. They have to take time out of their day to do something they hate, when they could be doing anything else in the world with that time, but no, they are at the table forcing down food til they feel sick. This takes conscious effort. When people want to lose weight they have to consume less calories. This means eating less or eating healthier. So they will have to give up a certain food or pass up a meal. But now instead of eating that meal, they can use that time to do anything else. Even if eating is their favourite thing to do in the world, they can still go do their second favourite activity in the world. They can occupy themselves with that activity to take their mind off of eating. With losing weight you give up something you love but you gain free time to use however you like. With gaining weight you are forced to do something you hate, while losing time that you could be using to do something you love. Thoughts? Critiques? I'm open to debate

This argument is crafted incorrectly from the start. Your opening statement starts with the assumption that all people hate eating food in excess, and that all people would relish their 2nd favorite activities as alternatives to eating.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by jjthomson To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thoughts? Critiques? I'm open to debate

My thoughts is that theoretical jibber jabber like that mostly proves practical ignorance.

[s4nder]

The most important thing necessary to gain or lose weight is willpower. Sadly that's also what many people lack.

[Human]

	Originally Posted by deconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have a really really hard time gaining weight. I imagine I have just as hard a time putting it on as others have taking it off. But this will work, if you want to pick some up: drink a gallon of whole milk a day for a month. Obviously, you need to work out too, but easily putting 10 lbs on is not out of the question. You'll probably bloat a little but after you stop drinking it will go away.

ok i spent a week *trying* this.
1 gallon = 3.5 or 4L
Was this a joke? If not, I now know why I will be eternally skinny! That is just too much volume!

Would it still count if I could boil off the water content and eat the concentrated remains?
What if I just ate a block of butter each day?

[s4nder]

That gallon of milk a day thing is what Mark Rippetoe preaches. No wonder his disciples just get fat on it.

[applemacfolife]

Like Apple's lawyers, the OP appears to be on crack cocaine. Its appetite suppressing effects explain why he has no problem not eating, and it explains why he believes that it is easier to lose weight than gain it.

While it is an interesting premise, it completely ignores all available evidence. Humans naturally tend to want to eat a lot of food (similar to how other animals like eating a lot of food). Modern society both limits the amount of excercise in our lifestyle and makes it extremely easy to take in huge amounts of calories. Drinka bottle of soda and you get 260 calories. A Dunkin' Donuts Coffee Coolatta has 850 calories. Those are two examples of extremely easy ways to pack on the pounds. In order to not gain weight, we have to spend exorbinant amounts of time going to the gym running for the sake of running or doing some other mindless activity.

In short, you would be correct if A: Everyone was constantly high on crack. B: Everyone took appetite suppressing medication or C: There was a global famine that forced westerners to not eat anything.

[ummon]

It's much worse than this. If you eat fewer calories, your body still has to burn calories to stay alive, which means it will have to take them from fat reserves, causing you to lose weight. On the other hand if you eat more calories and you have an overactive metabolism (*ahem*) then your body will simply burn those calories as waste heat without bothering to store them as fat.