Saturday, 5 May 2012
You could say that my experiment has been a success.
For some reason I had a look at an old diet board that I used to post in years ago. Some of my old posts were still there, including the ubiquitous start weight/current weight/goal weight statistics that are appended to profiles on diet message boards. All of the weights I'd put in seemed tiny to me now. Although those posts marked a period of successful weight loss, they also marked the start of my serious weight gain. It was after that point that I "ballooned" as the Daily Mail likes to put it. I won't say at this point what diet I was on, and what diet I changed to (following advice about a health problem I had) as I don't know if it's relevant.
When I started this blog in 2008 I was the fattest I had ever been, but had decided to stop dieting. By 2012, I had put on .... no weight at all. NOT dieting appeared to halt my weight gain, and my weight remained steady (within a few pounds) for several years. It appears that like many people, I gained weight, overall, while I was dieting. When I stopped dieting, I stopped gaining weight.
There are other benefits, of course. I can eat "normally" and enjoy my food, without spending too much time thinking about it. I can live in the "now" instead of waiting for a slimmer time. I'm reasonably happy with my body. I've stuck with much the same bra size and clothes size so I haven't minded investing in attractive clothes which fit. Most of all, I don't feel like I have an eating disorder.
So the "experiment" (not dieting) worked beautifully. My weight has been stable and there have been added benefits.
The mixed feelings? Possibly against my better judgment, I think I now do want to lose some weight. I probably need a whole new post to explain why, but I have some health concerns. I'm not convinced that losing weight will help with those concerns but I'm not sure I can continue to hold out against current medical advice. Reluctantly, I'm looking at upsetting the status quo and going back down the diet route (you know, the route that made me gain weight before?). Wish me luck!
Monday, 9 April 2012
In fat people and thin people, the levels of hormones which control hunger and satiety follow different patterns.
I think they were saying that instead of feeling hungry before meals, then full afterwards, us fatties go through the day with a sense of wanting something to eat which is never quite relieved by eating. That provides quite a neat explanation for why fatties seem to overeat and thinnies don't.
Genetics is a factor.
A big factor. Part of the programme involved a search for twins who were different weights, and what was striking was how rare they seemed to be. It was taken as read that genetics were a big influence.
Epigenetics/prenatal factors are also important.
The programme looked at the influence of your mother's diet during pregnancy: a malnourished mother is more likely to produce a child with a tendency to obesity, apparently.
Weight loss surgery has other effects beyond reducing stomach capacity
In particular, it seemed to reduce appetite dramatically.
What was perhaps most surprising was the surgeon presenting the programme had believed until then that weight was all about willpower - that slim people are slim because they have the strength of character to resist becoming fat. I suppose that can seem to be the case to somebody who has always been "naturally" slim (even though it's obviously not the case for somebody like me who has gained weight whilst keeping the same personality that I had when I was slim :)). I'm just surprised that a doctor would think that was the case.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Recently I've been looking at the No S Diet. I'm not sure if I can summarise the diet here without infringing copyright, because those fourteen words at the beginning are the diet. But I think I can safely say that it's basically eating only at mealtimes and avoiding high sugar foods during the week, and unrestricted eating at weekends.
I liked the sound of it. After all, it's more or less how we tend to eat naturally. I imagined that this is how it might work:
- one type of food is restricted (sugary food), which might lead to less calories over all (although not necessarily. The "set point" thing might lead to more of other foods being eaten to compensate)
- possibly sugary foods might tend to be quicker and easier to eat than the other food we tend to eat (so you're cutting out the type of food you'd be most likely to overeat)
- restricting the times of eating might mean less food is eaten overall. People might well eat a little more at mealtimes, but wouldn't feel an urge to eat a lot more.
- people who tend to overeat at a sitting will have less sittings to overeat at (and it would be difficult to hugely overeat at mealtimes, because you are restricted to one plateful of food, I think).
- the weekend allows for a bit of relaxation, indulgence and particularly social eating (meaning that it can fit in with people's lifestyles and they are more likely to stick with it)
I can see how it might work in theory.
But then I started to have a look a couple of the blogs and testimonials of people following the diet. Only a couple, and maybe I didn't read a representative sample. I got the impression that people were losing a good few pounds at the beginning of the diet, but then started to level off a bit. Maybe they reached the bottom limit of their "set point". Maybe their eating adjusted so that they ate more at mealtimes. Maybe some other reason. It wasn't dramatic (and to be fair, the diet doesn't claim to be).
Two blogs I read in a little more detail. I was surprised to find that the writers were adding further restrictions to the diet. That was disappointing. Apparently they had accepted that it wouldn't work on its own, for them. I'm not sure why it works for some and not others, and I'm not sure how well it works long-term.
However, I do like the idea better than some of the others out there. It doesn't seem to encourage an obsession with food. Apart from avoiding the sweet stuff, you could be eating more or less what you like, every day. A plateful of food at a meal is actually quite a lot of food (assuming it's not mainly lettuce), so you wouldn't need to be left hungry. I think it could be easier to stick to three meals than to eat when you're hungry, because three meals tend to fit in easily with family and work. (No need to sit twiddling your thumbs during a communal lunch because you don't feel hungry enough yet, then have to pull out a packet of nuts while you're trying to work).
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
From memory, the following points came up:
*Naturally thin people found it difficult to put on extra weight. Two people could not manage to eat all the extra food.
*One person put on extra muscle instead of extra fat and increased his metabolic rate.
*All the participants easily lost weight at the end of the study
Meanwhile, some other obesity research was looked at:
*A virus which causes chickens to gain weight is more common in fat people
*Once laid down, fat cells don't go
*Evolution has selected for a tendency to fatness
*Small children fall into two groups - those who continue to eat when full, and those who lose interest in food when full
*People seem to have a set weight point and adjust their diet and exercise naturally to maintain that weight.
*Fat people who lose weight, have an appetite for extra food.
There was more, but that's a quick sum up.
I was particularly interested in this story, because for most of my adult life I wasn't fat. I was naturally slim - not thin, but within a "healthy" BMI range. I seemed to be very much like the naturally thin people on the programme. I didn't have any desire to overeat. I lost interest in food after I was full. I was never overweight as a child.
Now my weight has changed, but I still behave much like a naturally slim person. I have a normal appetite. I don't overeat. My house is full of chocolate and other treats left over from Christmas but I only have the occasional piece now and then - not because I'm trying to resist but because I don't want it. So the puzzle is - why am I eating as I have done for all my adult life (apart from a few misguided attempts to diet), but steadily gaining weight?
The programme didn't give any explanations for somebody like me. (Unless you count the virus idea people seem to be pooh-poohing at the moment).
Sunday, 25 January 2009
'People slap my belly all the time, and the truth is, it really hacks me off,' he says, with quite unexpected feeling. 'It's because I'm a man. Everything's a joke when it comes to overweight men. Women have it much easier.
'No one would ever say, "Oh, you're fair piling on the beef there" or "That's some ass you've got on you". They wouldn't pat a woman's tummy or prod her thighs. But, as a bloke, I can tell you that it happens all the time. They go, "Oi, Eamonn, that's some paunch". People feel they can touch you, and I hate it. If another person lays a finger on me...'
He pulls his jacket around the midriff in question. 'The thing is that they never expect a man to be offended. They do expect women to - and know that if they said those things to a woman, she would probably burst into tears or slap them. Well, I am offended, too, even though I've done my fair share of laughing along with it. Men do hide behind jokes when it comes to being overweight. They wear it as some sort of trophy, laughing along with all those, "you'd better cut down on the beer" jibes. I hardly ever even drink beer.'
Sometimes, people try to give Eamonn diet advice while patting his belly, which is a big mistake. 'What gets me is all those people who say, "Eamonn, I lost three stone just by cutting out sugar in my tea". If one more person says that to me I will scream.Even worse are the people who say, "Eamonn, I have to tell you that what worked for me was cutting out bread. I just cut out bread and, do you know, I lost seven stone in no time." Why do these people seek me out? I always think, "**** off!"'
We've all been there, Eamonn. Men get the more obvious comments and have to try to treat them as a joke, I suppose. But I think women know that the comments are lurking there unsaid - unless you visit a health professional, of course, and then they may not remain unsaid. I recently had to see a doctor who hadn't met me before, and it seemed inevitable that my weight had to enter the conversation. Of course, health professionals are advised to bring up weight issues, as part of their role in tackling obesity. I think there is a misunderstanding that fat people are fat because they didn't notice they were fat. And if their fatness is pointed out to them, they will then eat less and become less fat.
A more effective way of combating child obesity
The article claims that "health inequalities are inextricably tied up with obesity in children". The "evidence" is the WHO report, I suppose, which tells us that a boy born in Calton in Glasgow has a life expectancy of just 53.
I'm not sure where the connection to obesity comes in there. Are they suggesting that the men of Calton tend to die of obesity? Of obesity-related illness? We're not given the causes of death. We're not even told how obese the men of Calton are in comparism to men from other areas.
I keep mentioning the men of Calton, because the Calton life expectancy figures have been much reported, but only for the men. Apparently the life expectancy for women is 20 years higher, at 73. Surely that discrepancy is worth looking into, along with the causes of death, rather than just assuming it's the result of a diet of deep fried pizza?
I'm not denying that poverty seems to be linked to health outcomes. But I'm questioning the automatic assumption that the cause of death in poorer areas is obesity.
The article goes on to say that "a quarter of children and the majority of the adult population will be obese by 2050".
"It is not simply a question of getting children, and their parents, to eat less. Compared to the late 1970s, seven- to 12-year-olds are consuming fewer calories, not more. It's about getting them to be more active."
So the increase in obesity is not caused by extra calorie intake. (And a commenter helpfully points out that it doesn't seem to be caused by lack of exercise either, because exercise doesn't prevent childhood obesity).
But as the article points out, government interventions don't make much difference to obesity either. Despite that, the aim seems to be to keep increasing government intervention, at increasing expense.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
I don't claim to know the truth of this story. I'm very aware that these documentary programs take a certain slant on the story and that information may be omitted or misrepresented. The slant taken was that Billy was being killed by his mother's overfeeding, as she tried to deal with her grief over the death of her previous son, Matthew. It was tearful viewing, as Billy's mother Barbara struggled not only with the still raw grief over Matthew's death, but the guilt over possibly killing Billy. (I don't know if loading her with more guilt was the best way to deal with the situation. I think an overload of guilt can be paralysing and/or destructive. However, as I mentioned, we don't know what was omitted). She said that if he died she would want to die too, to get in the coffin with him. He said that he felt he was slowly killing her. At the end of the programme we were told that the two had been separated.
But one thing really was bothering me by the end of the programme. Billy's facial expressions and speech seemed just like a depressed person's. It turned out that he had been bullied at school, and so had had to be homeschooled. He apparently had no friends. He spent almost all his time in his room, with his mother visiting to bring him food or to wash him. His father seemed caring, although he didn't seem to spend much time with him. It seemed to me that depression might be a risk for anybody in those reclusive circumstances, especially if the circumstances had been brought about by bullying. Billy's sexuality is never mentioned, and he's treated like a child sometimes by his mother, but also sometimes by the other adults in contact with him, I felt. At one point, he laughs as he's given anaesthetic, and one of the medical staff mentions that it's the first time they've seen him laugh. And right enough, he doesn't seem to laugh or even smile much at all. After the surgery and some weight loss, he is back home, holed up in his dimly lit bedroom, and a showdown develops with his mother, who is trying to encourage him to exercise. She doesn't want to bury another son, she says and asks him, rhetorically, if he wants to die. Yes, he says, sometimes he does.
And that all worried me a lot. Maybe Billy wasn't depressed, but what I was seeing seemed to point to him needing assessment, at least. The bullying, the social isolation, the apparent eating disorder, the lack of smiling or laughter, the lack of motivation or energy and particularly the desire to die were warning bells for me. But, unless I missed it, Billy's possible depression was never addressed. It was as if his size dwarfed all other problems he might have. The answer to everything was for him to lose weight. And maybe it WAS the answer to everything - I just don't know. But even if it was, treating his depression may have helped with his motivation, and surely would have given him a better quality of life, before, after and during the weight loss. And surely, even, if the bullies had been dealt with and Billy had had supportive friends and a social life, his life would have been better in the first place.
It seems to me that it may be another case of people not being able to see beyond the fat. The fat is the problem. Removing the fat is the solution.
While Billy was in my mind, I read this other story about David Smith:
'Man mountain' who nearly ate himself to death loses 28 stone and becomes fitness instructor
David seems to have had a happy outcome. But again, I'm bothered by the description of his life as a fat man:
He said: 'I had been overweight all my life.
'I would have sticks and stones and dog mess thrown at me and I would be spat on.
I've had a broken arm and black eyes because people didn't like me because of my weight.
'It got so bad that I didn't want to leave the house and I didn't even feel comfortable in my own backyard until it was dark out.'I felt like I deserved as much pain as possible and I wanted to kill myself.
Isn't that heartbreaking? What upsets me, is that he seems to judge himself for the terrible way he was treated, and again, the general thrust of the article is that his weight was the problem. He wouldn't have been so terribly bullied if he hadn't been fat. Now that he's no longer fat, he's no longer being bullied. Losing weight was the solution. The horror of people indulging in such utterly reprehensible behaviour as the emotional and physical bullying he describes is not addressed. Did the attacker or attackers who did this go to court? We don't know, and we get the impression it doesn't matter because they weren't the problem, David Smith's fat was. He was driven to an extreme level of social isolation, like Billy, and like Billy, he wanted to die. The same cycle of bullying, social isolation and depression, all being seen as an inevitable result of being fat rather than something that should be tackled.