>> ^conan:

incredibly stupid tabloid science. i'm amazed that there're still people who can differentiate between cause and correlation. fat parents are having fat kids, is it genetics? no, it's because whatever the reason for your bad eating habits, you pass them down to your kids. what to you expect from your kids when you only eat junk? they'll eat it too. either because they mimic you or because you're the one who feeds them! congratulations, now you have perfect excuses: what once were "heavy bones" now are "hunger hormones" and genetics. this "documentation" didn't provide any hard facts, just hormones with names in quotation marks and similar snake oil stuff.
Step 1: stop doing sports, eat more junk and surprise! you'll become overweight. Step 2: catch up on exercising and change your diet and surprise again! your weight will drop. it's common sense. and this comes from someone who's still perfecting step 1... ;-)


I think you're misunderstanding the point of it. Everything you say is correct to a degree. I didn't hear them say that the sole cause of obesity is hormonal, not once. I'd be surprised if you watched it all the way through. The way you feed your children and the habits you give them is absolutely the root cause, at least I would say so. Then society/culture, marketing, advertising fast food. The cheapest foods are junk, that also plays a part.

But what they're saying here, is that the reason some people end up getting wildy overweight and not just a bit chunky is because there isn't the same hormone to tell them they're full. The amount some fat people eat would make a regular sized person sick, in just one meal.

I don't believe obesity is genetic either, I am one of those people who inherited my mothers shitty eating habits, was overweight as a child and now have to suffer the consequences of that. However my sister was fed the same way, offered the same things, but was always skinny because she ate like a bird (one years she would only eat bread rolls, haha). My children are two very different types, too. My daughter can eat more than the average adult, you know that old saying, hollow legs? But she puts weight on if I let her eat the wrong things or every time she feels hungry, so over the years I've had to very much restrict her. Now she tends to make the right choices so hopefully that will go through to adult life with her and I've not passed down the same bad habits, however she would eat every half hour if she listened to her belly. My son is just the opposite. If he's not hungry I could offer him his favourite anything and he'd turn it down. Lucky bugger!

Then there's the thing where my sister all of a sudden in her late teens became overweight. That didn't make much sense. But her eating habits had very much changed. The bit in this doc where they were testing identical twins where one was overweight and one wasn't was fascinating and tied things up much neater.


>> ^snoozedoctor:

Getting fat is like filling a bathtub with water. If you run the spigot faster than the drain, it fills up. Now THAT is heavy science. Burn more calories than you eat = weight loss.


You're talking about how to lose weight, a science we all understand This is talking about the reasons some of us gain. It's always pissed me off when bigger people rather than just admit they stuff their faces, try and pass it off as big bones (eh?) or genetics. I'm even rather cynical of people who say they love their weight and being big is beautiful and they want to be like that. I think rather they know how bloody difficult dieting is, not just the losing weight but keeping it off, also I think those people, and bless them for it, accept that they don't want to go through the endless bullshit of dieting and gaining and embrace it. Or they've got some chubby chasers paying them top dollar to watch them eat and balloon to 400 lbs. Food is very very addictive once you've learnt the pleasures of it, just like a drug. It's very hard for anyone who doesn't have a weight issue to understand it, especially since you've been listening to people make endless excuses for it over the years. I think that's what is putting the blinkers on you now when you watch anything with alternative reasons for obesity, you just see it as an excuse.

This is exciting, because what they're saying is if they can recreate these hormones they will be able to find a way of replacing them, which will make the whole dieting process much much easier.

Getting fat is like filling a bathtub with water. If you run the spigot faster than the drain, it fills up. Now THAT is heavy science. Burn more calories than you eat = weight loss.

Weight Lost Plans - Lost Mass Confusion with Planned Weight 1.Weight loss confusion about what is best for yourself and your body. http://youtu.be/URd2PqpJZuc follow link to continue reading.

The most successful program is best developed by someone who has been through the experience of continual struggle, this way you feel you can succeed too. Expert fitness instructors and nutritional specialist are excellent, but the problem is that we have to be at a certain level to keep up with them, where's the baby steps? for people like me...and you who have a fair chunk to carry around and never seem to be able to develop drive and motivation.

Programs today are definitely planning to take steps back.....to read more follow this link http://weightlostplans.net/364/planning_for_weight_lost-using_fatburning_furnace

Thank you and good luck with you making plans to lose weight.

http://youtu.be/eS3ltRSmoaw weight lost plans,how to,weight loss,exercise

Anyone notice the eery similarity to the weight loss drug Adipose from Doctor Who?

It could be any moment where cute little white guys pop off those monkeys and walk away!

Just sayin'.

>> ^dag:

I'm too lazy to read the article, but that quote at least seems to be just deriding previous studies - not disproving its efficacy. I should probably read the article.>> ^Gallowflak:
"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.



Probably, Dag. It's a summary of the results and conclusion of the analysis, not its argument.

I know nothing about this subject, FYI. Still. Science!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm too lazy to read the article, but that quote at least seems to be just deriding previous studies - not disproving its efficacy. I should probably read the article.>> ^Gallowflak:

"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

In reply to this comment by inveigle:
Would you happen to have a reputable link or site I could purchase from? I am quite interested.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
LOL @ HCG not working. I've seen 5 people EVAPORATE on it before my eyes. Oh it works, there is zero doubt.



I think it's a highly faked item. I have seen different results from different HCG vendors in our area. It is best to research HCG "weight loss clinics" I think in your area and look for reviews. It is common to see both pill and injectable forms. I have seen both forms work astoundingly well.

This, like all other weight-loss miracles throughout history, will end in wrongful death lawsuits.

"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Er, how is finding a weight loss book at a the home of a dead obese person similar? If it was a book advocating weight gain, then yeah, there would be a similarity.

The thing that disappoints me about statements like these is that they're not objective. There's a general tendency among the hardcore liberals here (not you specifically but I find this to be an example of this behavior) to defend values like freedom of choice/speech/etc, but only so long as they fit certain ideals they have for their vision of a 'good society'.

I get what you're saying, I can honestly tell you that I not only sympathize but whole-heartily agree; damn shame that a woman would subject her perfectly natural, normal body to this procedure.

But here's where we part ways: so what if it disturbs me? Who the hell cares what I think? It's her choice. I don't support women's right to have abortions because I think they're the proper/healthy course of action for some women in some situations (though they definitely are), I support it because it should be their right to decide what's proper/healthy for themselves, regardless of how I feel about it.

And as for cito, his comment wasn't worth reading let alone commenting on. I would downvote but I was under the impression I have to be some special-star-mega-shiny-member to downvote stuff.

>> ^bareboards2:

No, I don't think it is irrelevant.
If every single person said to this poor woman -- your body was beautiful just the way it was, please don't deform yourself for some idea in your head, then maybe just maybe, this would stop.
And yeah, I can have an opinion. A really strong one.
And yes, doctors who deform perfectly healthy bodies should be subject to peer review.
I had a friend years ago who had breast enhancement surgery. She lost a lot of weight and was so happy to be comfortable in her body. With the weight loss, her breasts shrunk and were deformed looking. She showed me a picture of her before -- it looked like she had two deflated hot dogs laying down her chest.
Now there is a woman whose self esteem was truly enhanced by surgery.
This woman? No way.
You want to comment on someone's post? Go say something to @cito. That is the most disgusting, rank, filthy thing he wrote and I am the only one to downvote it? And you want to lecture me about my opinion?


>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The doctor is a villain and should lose his license? Did he do something wrong or is that your general stand regarding any plastic surgeon? How about tattoo artists?
Whether you approve or not is irrelevant, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't think it is irrelevant.

If every single person said to this poor woman -- your body was beautiful just the way it was, please don't deform yourself for some idea in your head, then maybe just maybe, this would stop.

And yeah, I can have an opinion. A really strong one.

And yes, doctors who deform perfectly healthy bodies should be subject to peer review.

I had a friend years ago who had breast enhancement surgery. She lost a lot of weight and was so happy to be comfortable in her body. With the weight loss, her breasts shrunk and were deformed looking. She showed me a picture of her before -- it looked like she had two deflated hot dogs laying down her chest.

Now there is a woman whose self esteem was truly enhanced by surgery.

This woman? No way.

You want to comment on someone's post? Go say something to @cito. That is the most disgusting, rank, filthy thing he wrote and I am the only one to downvote it? And you want to lecture me about my opinion?




>> ^NinjaInHeat:

The doctor is a villain and should lose his license? Did he do something wrong or is that your general stand regarding any plastic surgeon? How about tattoo artists?
Whether you approve or not is irrelevant, wouldn't you agree?

>> ^TheGenk:

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.
Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television )


Yes I think common sense is a good idea when it comes to food, if a food is more nutritious when cooked, then eat the cooked version. There are many chemicals in raw food that inhibit absorption (phytates, chelating agents to name a couple), so cooking is certainly not always bad, as it can make nutrients more bioavailable.

The most important thing is just to make sure that the food you eat is nutrient dense, so fruit and vegetables should make up a large proportion of the diet, because they are the best nutrient dense foods available for our bodies.

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.

Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.

Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television

I've struggled to get up to a healthy weight for most of my life but I can make one weight-loss suggestion: Get an ulcer.

In the first 2 weeks after mine first flared up I lost almost 25lbs. I was only about 145 to start with.

That will be 13 years ago in August and while I now sit comfortably around 170-175, I don't think my guts will ever work quite right.

Trying to gain 40+ lbs over those years, though, gave me a little insight into what it might be like to try to lose as much weight -- dietary adjustment, exercise, and a ton of time and patience.

Still, I never formed a battery-powered caravan with other sickly folks. Fat or not, that's kinda goofy.