I just started reading this and hope to have it finished in time for the discussion. It's an eye-opener, for sure!

"Mindless Eating" was a pretty good read IMHO. I haven't waited to read it to start paying attention to my portions, but I admit it helped me understand and realize *a lot* more all of a sudden.

I'm about 1/2 way through right now and it is very interesting. I tried discussing it with my husband last night and he just completely buys into society's belief that the obese just lack willpower and make bad choices. <shaking my head>

He did make one good point though, that it seems these days you can find a study to support any arguement. I'm wondering if there were studies that indicated the opposite arguements of this book that the author just didn't include. The premise of this book just so closely supports my experience though that I'm not inclined to go looking for the evidence against her. Bad science, I know. I should do some research to see if there are studies to disprove her ideas.

Biggest thing I learned from Mindless Eating - if I put food on a plate, I will eat all the food on the plate. That's how I now I'm "done." So, I just put the food I want to eat on the plate initially.

I haven't read the book, but this is an interesting point. I personally am inclined to think that while genetics and personal choices play a role, a lot of weight problems (especially among people who become overweight as children or teenagers) have to do with culture/family lifestyle, which there doesn't seem to be too many studies about. I mean, we've all seen the "fat family" -- overweight parents with overweight kids. I buy that there is some genetic component, I won't argue that. But I also think that overweight parents are probably making bad food choices, which their children are learning as "normal." I'm just thinking of all those parents who put Coke in their toddlers' bottles and sippy cups, or who feed their kids Happy Meals multiple times a week. It can't be totally written off as "this family has a genetic problem leading to weight gain."

That is a point that the book does address with a study done on twins seperated at birth and their birth parents. The correlation between their weights to each other and to their birth parents far outweighed the correlation to their adoptive parents. To the point that the researchers concluded that obesity was more genetically influenced than cancer, heart disease & mental illness.

I think the idea that parents' behaviour impacts obesity is true, it seems obvious, but by the same token, lots of kids get coke & Happy meals and never become obese. Is it the genetics that determines which kids get fat given the bad habits they grow up with?

Valerie, that's really interesting about the separated twins. Now I wonder, if you took someone who was genetically predisposed toward being overweight, and from birth raised them in a family of vegan athletes, would they still become heavy?

I suppose if we were still out living in caves then people who right now are becoming overweight would be the ones surviving, since they can store more fat?

I would really think not. It's certainly not a guarantee, but being in that atmosphere has to have SOME affect on a person. A large affect in fact. Just like being in an atomosphere where there's always junk food and the like around and portions are out of control. That person is certainly prone to being overweight. Just my opinion, but I think environment is a lot more important then genetics in this instance.

Anyway, I picked up the book this afternoon from the library and hope to have a good chunk of it read by the 17th.

I looked at the cover too and immediately wondered if her parents planned to give her a name that rhymed with pina colada, or it just happened by accident.

I just learned that an obese friend of mine (all her life she said) is a twin, and the twin is skinny, even though they had the same eating habits as children. In fact, the mom rationed food to the fat one and hid snacks from her, while thin twin got to eat all she wanted of everything. I should have asked if they were identical - otherwise we know they were merely sisters born at the same time and not genetic twins, and there are lots of sisters who split their genetics. I will ask next time I see her.

I actually think that if you took someone who was genetically predisposed to being obese and raised them in a vegan athlete family's home in North America, they'd *probably* still be overweight. Mostly because the home is not a closed system. The child is still going to friends, watching TV, going to school. Not that environment doesn't play a role, it obviously does. That's one of the hypotheses in the book, that obesity is pandemic now, not because the genetic composition of North Americans has suddenly changed in the last 50 years, but the availability and variety of food has. Now we have an environment where the genetic predisposition to gaining weight is not held back by a world where food (and junk food, the kind that most easily puts on weight) isn't cheap and plentiful.

I have the book now and will be joining for the discussion on the 21st! Liking it alot so far.

I found the studies, especially with the twins extremely interesting. However, I am disturbed by the following:

1. There are numerous references to BMI in the book but references to body fat% are basically non-existent.

2. Some of the diets did not have an exercise component at all and most that did mentioned a lot of steady state cardio. Resistance training was basically an afterthought.

I'm also surprised that they saw as a revelation that people losing weight on a 600 calorie diet had similar physiological reactions to those who are starving! Gee....could it be that at 600 calories, well below someone's BMR, their very basic needs just to survive, that they are starving! You are just starving them slower. No revelation there.

I also liked where one of the scientists said they could run tests to pinpoint someone's BMR but they didn't have to because it does not factor into the treatment. Yup could see why that is irrelevent. By not knowing what someone's BMR is, you risk dropping calories below it and putting the dieter into starvation mode, but from what most of these studies show, that is what they intend to do, starve off the weight.

Also, maintenance phases were overlooked on most of the studies from what I could tell and on the one they specifically said (the liquid diet one at the hospital if I remember correctly) had a maintenance phase, it was one week. Now you've just killed someone's metabolism by starving off a lot of lean tissue and some fat and now you raise the calories in one fell swoop to what is now the reduced metabolism to maintain weight. Did they ever consider trying to upregulate the metabolism. Raising the calories slowly over a period of time until they level off. In my own personal experience, when I did it this way, I leveled off at a much higher caloric intake than I though possible. When I did it their way, my new caloric intake was much lower and not sustainable. While it has only been 13 months since I hit my goal and I am not out of the woods yet (never can be sure), If I did it their way like I did many times in the past, I would have regained most or all of my weight by now.

Basically, while I find the research all relevent and fascinating and I think they are making great strides, I think they are still failing to look closely enough at the role of muscle in increasing metabolism and fighting off fat. They never seem to focus on body composition but go strictly by weight. They recite healthy BMI's that actually put some very fit, low bf% people, in unhealthy ranges because they are very muscular and muscle weighs more than fat. And they still seem to prefer starving off muscle to burning off fat with muscle.

Granted, I'm not finished with it, but there seems to be alot of time spent discussing the anecdotal reference to exercise being discounted, or left out entirely, but its sole function/result seemed to be to increase appetite, therefore, it was not compatible with a dieting program.

But I am still in the vinegar-drinking days, so perhaps this changes later on. Doesn't sound like it tho from what you posted, depalma.

Hey guys, I'm a little behind in getting our discussion group up and running (Father's Day and a b-day) but I hope to be able to get us going tomorrow. Look for us in the Maintenance Library.

I'll hold off my comments till we really get started, but Depalma raised some of the issues I had about the state of our knowledge about the role of weightlifting and muscle and the lack of focus on maintenance. And then, you raised some other issues I hadn't thought of. Great points.