Excellent

I've had the same questions that Geek and Bill raised above. I'm wondering if the amount of exercise hasn't been properly factored into the equation. If, for example, the body settles in on a particular metabolic rate rather than an absolute weight, then exercise could explain the differences we see in the US . People just don't work as hard now as they used to. So, less work but the same caloric intake will result in a higher equilibrium weight. My own experience with weight loss was a bit puzzling to me. I am now 35 lbs lighter than I was in the late 90s. At the beginning of my weight loss period I actually dieted for about 6 months. Then, my exercise level increased (now it is 600+ hours per year) and the weight continued to decrease. At that point, I no longer had to watch what I eat. Now I probably consume 4-5000 calories per day and still am losing weight gradually. My target is to exercise 700 hours per year and just take whatever weight that results in. What is puzzling is that my performance in my two main sports (cross-country skiing and swimming) did not improve noticably. As we have all heard, since swimming utilizes flotation, the lack of improvement in swim races may not be a surprise. The lack of change in skiing floored me since skiing with an extra 35 lb pack is certainly noticable. My weight loss also resulted in no change of blood pressure, blood cholesterol or resting heart rate.

My weight loss also resulted in no change of blood pressure, blood cholesterol or resting heart rate. This is not all that surprising really. Being healthy is not all that uncommon for a person who is a bit overweight. Obviously avoiding an overweight situation is best but it is not the kiss of death either.

That article originally appeared in the New York Times with the following statement: "This is an excerpt from Gina Kolata’s new book, “Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss — and the Myths and Realities of Dieting” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux)." -

...And here's the publisher's description of the book: -------------- "In this eye-opening book, New York Times science writer Gina Kolata shows that our society’s obsession with dieting and weight loss is less about keeping trim and staying healthy than about money, power, trends, and impossible ideals. Rethinking Thin is at once an account of the place of diets in American society and a provocative critique of the weight-loss industry. Kolata’s account of four determined dieters’ progress through a study comparing the Atkins diet to a conventional lowcalorie one becomes a broad tale of science and society, of social mores and social sanctions, and of politics and power. Rethinking Thin asks whether words like willpower are really applicable when it comes to eating and body weight. It dramatizes what it feels like to spend a lifetime struggling with one’s weight and fantasizing about finally, at long last, getting thin. It tells the little-known story of the science of obesity and the history of diets and dieting—scientific and social phenomena that made some people rich and thin and left others fat and miserable. And it offers commonsense answers to questions about weight, eating habits, and obesity—giving us a better understanding of the weight that is right for our bodies." ----------

This is an interesting, although somewhat depressing, article. It raises an issue or two that I cannot understand. It says "The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples' weights might be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, *** cancer or heart disease." We know that even as little as 20-30 years ago Americans weren't so tubby. How could all this have changed so suddenly? It would seem to me that if we can so dramatically change our size in a generation or two upwards, it could be reversed also. Not all of the fat people today had fat parents, most probably had thin parents, until recent times. This seems to poke some holes in the 70% inheritance theory, although I cringe often seeing a very overweight child with huge parents. The article also states, "each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates." How can this be true, given something like 60% of Americans are obese? There is nothing comfortable about obesity, it is hard on the body.

I noticed the first Rockfeller study began with 8 subjects and increased to 50. I'm not sure that's a large enough group to be statistically significant as a scientific matter. The latter studies did have more subjects. It is quite depressing. However, I think Geek is right that there is more obesity now. I see the tubby parent/tubby kid duo some. But I also see trim parent with overweight (not necessarily obese kid) too. I think kids nowadays just spend a lot more time in front of the computer, TV or gaming systems than prior generations, who were running and biking around the neighborhodd more. Where I live, these activities are somewhat uncommon now. Everyone's too worried about kid snatching and traffic. I wonder what effect pregnancy has on weight? I've known plenty of women who were trim before pregnancy, but just cannot get the last 10-20 pounds of weight off afterward. Some of that phenomenon may be due to a slowing metabolism as we age, but still, they're not reverting to pre-pregnancy weight as the study suggests they should.

Thanks for posting the article. It's one of those subjects that I've always been curious about.

Thanx for the article. I didn't see a mention of whether or not more fat cells grew. As I remember for college, the number of muscle and fat cell doesn't change after birth. We can, however, effect their size (in theory) through diet and various types of exercise. Supposedly muscle not only weights more than fats (which is why a scale is a terrible way to judge fitness), but it takes more calories to sustain it. I know from Ranger School (I went from 165 to 110 in six weeks) the body will go into starvation mode to keep the main body systems supplied with what little food comes in. Within 3 weeks of graduation, I was 190 lbs.! It tool a long, to get the weight back off through exercise. I could have opted for Lyposuction and would have hit that target in a matter of hours. When I went to Afghanistan 18 years after Ranger School, I was 185 without much fat (a gain of a pound a year). I came home at 165 and lean (Not a fan of the word "skinny"). I've stayed that way for 2 years. I'm a big eater and have :drink: on occasion so I'm not starving myself. So contrary to the article, my weight changes based on the food and exercise and not some predetermined narrow band.

As a person who has struggled with weight for over 30 years, I know my body settles into a certain weight, and that weight is considered overweight. It takes tremendous effort of what goes in my mouth to get the weight down, and then it does not stay. I bounce back to that set point. I don't go over either, so I do think there is genetics, and set points in play. I am not lazy, work-out all the time, but working out does not make the difference, diet does, and it has to be absolutely 100% free of "bad" foods, and I have to be obsessed with every bite or I don't lose. I know other people like this as well, and it is easy to just give up because the effort is great, the awards are little. So as long as I am healthy, I keep plugging away at eating healthy and working out, but this seems to be where I stay. :dedhorse:

I read the book and now I have any more questions than I had after reading the article. It was kind of depressing, thinking that maybe I will never get these last few pounds off. But I'm not going to let it stop me from trying.