Rethinking Thin

[nancylebov]

Rethinking Thin by Gina Kolata, the health writer for the New York Times, is a overview of beliefs about weight loss and the actual science which contradicts them.

A lot of it is about the evidence for a genetic basis for what people weigh--a study of children adopted at between one month and one year found that the kids' weights tracked their biological parents weights, not their adopted parents' weights.

There's plenty about efforts at weight loss making people miserable, and the beliefs that lead to trying one diet after another.

An interesting thing about Atkins: It was popular in the 70s, and when it came back more recently, no one seemed to ask whether the people who tried it back then were able to stay on it. Mostly they didn't.

There also isn't evidence that being fat is strikingly bad for your health. Being unusually light or heavy carries some risk, but being overweight implies more longevity than being at a "normal" weight. Kolata suggests that rather than a "fat epidemic", the human race is metamorphosing into a variant which is taller, fatter, and longer-lived.

There's a fair amount about the hormones and genes associated with hunger and satiety, but apparently the subject gets more complex the more it's studied. Some of this knowledge took animal experiments which almost make me want to join PETA.

Fat people who are dieting are metabolically and psychologically a lot like starving thin people.

Fat people aren't more neurotic than thin people, and eating for comfort or out of habit appears at all weight levels.

A very few people have genetic damage which makes them ravenously hungry *all* the time. Sometimes hormone therapy solves the problem completely.

Read the book. It's only 220 pages, and this is major stuff.

Comments

[atomicat.livejournal.com]

I heard a very interesting program on the whole weight thing on Quirks and Quarks recently. One of the things that caught my attention was a study they did on over-eating. Basically they got a group of people to over-eat to the extreme for half a year. Healthy food (not the Super-Size me kind of thing) but just way too much of it. At the end of the study, the endomorphs had gained far less weight than the people who were hefty at the start. A clear indication of how weight is determined by genetic predisposition. I've been 115 lbs all my life and have over-eaten quite a bit being a big fan of food in general. Only recently I gained almost 20 lbs though, because I've been on testosterone steroid boosters. Yay for modern chemistry!

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

I think it's a lot more about metabolism than anything. (Yes, they used to mock us for saying that, but it's true, really, really true). Part is lifestyle--if I contrast the work I do (sitting at a desk all day) with what my grandmothers and great-grandmothers did--and we aren't just talking about keeping house in a pre-modern environment without electricity, when even labor saving devices like washing machines involved hand-cranking, but also running a general store, doing some farm chores like working with dairy cows and making butter etc, dealing with poultry, handling a large vegetable garden, and preserving food and so on; they were more active, even at "seated" tasks (foot-pedal powered sewing machine, anyone?). They had more muscle, and they needed it, too--and muscle at rest burns more calories than fat at rest.
Also, we're adapted to be able to lower our metabolic rate--it's part of how the ancestors survived famine, and especially how our female ancestors managed to survive multiple pregnancies in dicey circumstances. The female metabolism is especially designed to adjust down to super-low levels.

I do accept that it's a lot easier to eat unhealthily these days--there's so much more sugar and processed foods out there, and so much food that is too high in things like fat and sodium. However, metabolism really does play a big role--I can say that the only way I lose much weight is to really pile on the physical activity, especially the type that builds muscle, because I don't eat that much. I gained my weight slowly, perhaps 3 pounds of so a year, on average, working at a desk job for 23 years. That rate of weight gain isn't a sign of constant gross overindulgence.

[madfilkentist]

"Dieting" doesn't work, and generally results in cycles which are worse than keeping a steady weight. Diet is a different matter from "going on a diet." The way I've started looking at diet is as a form of applied economics -- a kind of "Midas plague" economics where consumption means expenditure of a scarce resource, capacity for food while staying healthy.

For instance, I just had ice cream today. That means I've made an unusually large expenditure in my eating budget. I now need to economize to make up for it; to some extent I already have, by having a low-calorie lunch, but I'll continue to economize for the rest of the day. This approach seems to help me. My weight varies very little, but there's a difference in which belt notch I use. (And here I suppose there should be a pun on economics and belt-tightening.)

Here's the deal, though

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

I gained a lot of weight at one point. I went gradually from about 130 to as high as 190. Over the past three years, I've managed to lose that weight, and it's now staying off. It seems that I got bunion problems and knee problems about 10 years earlier than I might have otherwise if I hadn't gained the weight. Sigh. I was a thin child, adolescent and young woman, and I think I'm reverting to my natural state, however. I don't think that I was meant to be fat. I've managed to lose the bad eating habits (out-of-control snacking, for instance) that put the weight on me, and that has helped me immeasurably. That information doesn't apply to everyone.

Re: Here's the deal, though

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

You're right, it doesn't apply to everybody. I wonder if there's a decent method of estimating whether weight loss is worth pursuing or not. I suspect that one's build as a child is only a fair to middling clue. Body types in your immediate family might be a better clue.

Re: Here's the deal, though

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

I had a thin Dad, a thin Mom, and both sisters were thin until well into middle age. Now that my middle sister's found out about her celiac disease, she's lost her little pot belly and is doing well. My diabetic grandmother was fat, but my grandfathers were thin. My nieces and nephews are thin.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

The author is right that dieting isn't a solution since the results say they do not work. I take issue with the idea that it is okay to just go along with fat though. I'm not thin 100% because that is my body type, though it certainly helps. I also keep down my food intake so that I can keep from developing a pot belly, eat more veg because it seems to be healthier (and I like them), and exercise for health.

A person can be rubenesque, pudgy, or large and still be healthy. But the exercise and eating more vegetables has to be in there. Thin or portly, doing nothing but sitting on a couch watching TV and eating mostly steak will lead to disease and earlier death.

And I am also an advocate for people who want to try to change what they look like to be happier, within limits. It has to be realistic, after all the 6'2" guy who dreams of being a petite 5'6" woman can't get to that with the techniques available, but if he's going to be happier as the woman he could become I think that's just fine. It is no different with body type in my opinion. There is a limited range that a person can reasonably get to given genetics, but if a person is willing to put in the work and will be happier with result he/she can realistically achieve I applaud the attempt.

Also looking at children today it does seem to me that a number of them are overweight. Too much television, video games, and not enough time running around in fresh air. This isn't a one generation genetic change, this is simply bad habits being formed because it is easy to let a kid be anesthetized by television.