to think that people's weight is mostly down to how they're made?

[blackwell]

OK, I know there are a few people who either overeat massively or starve, but I think that in general if people are 'heavily built' or 'lightly built' that is just how they are. I would say most of my friends eat roughly the same amount, yet there is quite a big difference in size between us. Some people are just naturally slim and maintain it without effort, and others are naturally bigger and it would take a massive effort for them to maintain a size 8/10 whatever.

It's a massively unscientific theory, I know, mainly based on my personal acquaintance!

Have you ever watched 'The Biggest Loser'?

How big you are is mostly how much you eat. Some people are tall and have faster metabolisms, some are short and square with slower burn off rates.

And totally agree with mosschops, you have no idea what people eat.

people are fat because they et too much, that's why gastric bands work. People mights say 'oh I've tried every diet it doesn't work' but it would work if they actually ate what they were supposed to.

Thats very interesting Eldritch.

I don't think this thread is really about "being fat", it's about being heavier or lighter within an acceptable BMI range, no?

Ok, well of course there will be some variation.
But it's not going to a very fun thread based on that is it?

I lived with a few of the friends I'm talking about at university, so actually I did see most of what they ate, as we had meals together. They haven't really changed size since then. I guess they could be secretly eating loads, but it doesn't seem to fit somehow

I think it's half and half.

I'm never going to have skinny legs or be described as 'willowy' - everyone in my family has stocky, muscular legs and broad shoulders and so on, that is genetic. I don't think we are ever going to produce a model or a ballet dancer - maybe a judo champion or so .

But I have worked out that my wine and biscuit consumption might have something to do with the fact that I can't fit into my size 12 jeans any more.

Well the acceptable BMI range for me is about 2 and a half stone, which is quite a lot.

Well I'm initially inclined to agree with you HOWEVER I have never ever ever seen my naturally thin friends overeat (though they will eat whatever they want to including cake, crisps, pudding, chicken skin, pasta etc etc), whereas the larger 'framed' people I know (including myself) will all admit to sometimes not knowing when to stop and eating too much as it tastes good.

And there has to be something in that.

I don't think it's particularly fun to talk about heavier people lacking "self control" etc, either .

My mother is morbidly obese. My sister is obese. I have a BMI of about 26 at the moment and am heavier than I have ever been but it is coming off.

I think there's a lot of fatty-bashing when it is clear that individual difference has a part to play. I am on weightwatchers at the moment and walking 5 miles a day: I have been on ww (with bfing points) since March and have slowly, painfully lost a stone. I have stuck to the diet religiously. I have a friend who is naturally slim-built who lost masses of weight while bfing.

Some women hold onto weight while feeding, some lose it as though it were water. I hate it when people who are in one or either category assume the other one is clearly lying and purging/downing whole blocks of cheese. It's so... rude.

Most really fat people got that way through dieting. They started out a reasonably normal weight, got bullied by the unhealthily slimming-obsessed culture into going on a restricitve diet, lost weight.... and fucked their metabolism. So when they started to eat normally again, they regained the weight and then gained some more. ANd the cycle repeated.
THe slimming industry is another vicious con trick, nearly as contemptible as religion.

I dunno, I agree with you to a certain extent. I was having this conversation with one of my friends the other day about a mutual friend of ours we have known since school. She has always been overweight, even since she was very little but, apart from not really exercising (and I don't exercise either!), she eats healthily and has a fairly healthy lifestyle. She's been doing this weight loss regime with her mum, her mum has lost almost 5 stone yet despite doing exactly the same things, my friend hasn't lost anything.

She's got PCOS and thyroid problems which she's being treated for but I honestly think that that's just the way she is and that's just the way she will always be.

Unless she's scoffing cake and lard in the middle of the night and keeping it a secret, which is always possible I guess.

Heavily built/lightly built does exist - some people have wider hips/shoulders or deeper ribcages than others. I know a pair of sisters who would never fit into each other's clothes - one could probably fit inside the other's ribcage with room to spare on all sides (disgusting image I know ). But they are both slim. Larger sister could never fit into a size 8 dress, but that mean she is fat, there's hardly any spare flesh on her. You can't use 'heavily built' as an equivalent to being overweight or flabby, it's a totally different thing.

Definitely right dino - that's why I mentioned the Biggest Loser, they are so specific about everything, and the people who go on there lose stones and stones over a couple of months.

I know that show is extreme, but what it proves to me is that weight loss is science pure and simple - put less in, exercise = get thinner.

My eldest daughter is overweight and my middle girl is skinny.The eldest definately eats more,but she always seems hungry,whereas my middle girl can often take it or leave it.I think there might be something going on with her bodies ability to feel full.often after a big meal,when the eldest wants desert,I'll say "don't you feel full',and she'll usually say no.Her body shape is also different;she's always had stronger looking arms and upper body,whereas my middle girl has skinny arms.

I think if you genuinely put all your calorific intake into a diary for a few days, and your fatter mate's, and strapped you both to a heart rate monitor, you z=would find that you burn more calories than she does, and/or consume fewer. It really is that simple. We are disposed to carry weight in certain areas, for example when I was under ten stone I still had massive hips, I dieted away 2 stone but lost 6in round my waist but only 2 round my hips, that's my shape. However, I am 'naturally' at the bigger end of healthy because I natually like to eat a bit more than some folks, I have a naturally big appetite and I'm naturally a bit lazy. I know these are aspects of my personal make up but they are the reason I'm not skinny, not genetics.

It is,isn't it notyummy.

According to the book, clinical studies show that diets (other than low carb diets) do not work. Also, not one clinical study, he claims, has demonstrated what we all assume to be true, namely that you get fat(ter) because the calories taken in are greater than the calories expended. It is claimed to be common sense but has never been scientifically demonstrated.

Low carb diets are higher calorie (as they tend to be higher in fat and fat is calorie rich) but they are the only only clinically demonstrated reliably to lead to weight loss.

Also, the current take on diet, weight gain and the causes of obesity is very modern (post war). Before this, the medial and scientific consensus was that carbohydrates especially sugar and white flour made you fat, and dietary fat didn't.

i suppose that's why babies don't get fat on breast milk (mega high fat).

I think there is an age thing as well i.e some people appear to be able to eat anything when they are younger, without putting on weight - and then pile it ojn when they are older because they have never had to consider their diet. I certainly have a friend like that - she eats the same as she used to, but is a dress size (or 2) larger than she was in early 20s. I have gradually modified my diet to stay the same size (without starving), but because she never had to watch her weight before (when I did) she is finding harder to realise that you can't drink 3/4 nights a week, take sugar in your tea etc etc and stay the same weight as you approach 40,

Why people weight what they do is hugely complex. Levels of appetite vary hugely - it's easy to eat less if you aren't hungry and very difficult if you are hungry. Levels of physical activity seem to be set at birth - some babies are much less active than other (this is from studies) and they tend to get fatter (unsurprisingly). The exercise you take deliberately (gym workouts, playing tennis) has minimal effects on your weight, and won't help you lose weight on their own (or much weight with a diet either), the 'exercise' that counts is your general level of movement - fidgeting, pacing, waving your arms about etc. And this does seem to be inborn. STudies relating to adopted children vary a bit but all show a correlation between the fatness of adoptive children and their birth parents, regardless of the environment they are brought up in - some studies show a stronger correlation than other. And gastric bands don't always work, not by any means!

There is a basic equation that you can't get away from i.e. less energy in + more energy out = losing weight.

People who are morbidly obese but claim they they do not eat too much are deluding themselves.

Of course, they could be genuinely unaware of the calorific values of food and/or incredibly inactive (and as you get bigger and activity becomes more of an effort, you would naturally do less thus compounding the problem)but it doesn't change the science.

However, amongst people who are slightly under/overweight, you do find that some people get away with murder given what they eat/how much exercise they do as metabolisms do vary (I am a case in point, less so as I get older, sadly!)

It's classic nature/nurture - you are dealt a certain genetic hand but you can do a great deal to influence the eventual outcome.