Psychology can't be dismissed. I have a BA and MA in psychology (behavioral and developmental respectively), and six years of studying why people do what they don't want to do, and don't do what they want to - can't be summarized easily. There are thousands of variables. The field is so vast, that even in psychology it has to be broken down into different disciplines. It is still a great matter of debate in the field, whether genetics and physiology or environment play the larger role in behavior. If the experts don't know, there's not much chance of a layperson figuring it out.
My behavioral studies would tend to interpret most behavior as either genetic or the result of environmental conditioning. My developmental background is also very heavily focused on genetic, physiological, and environmental interaction.
There isn't a simple answer. There are thousands of complicated factors - and anyone who would develop a way to reliably predict behavior (whether it came to weight loss, substance abuse recovery, or illegal behavior) would win the Nobel.
Well, RIGHT ON tkm! I think you summarized what I was trying to express. Although there are slight variations (all populations regardless of species have genetic variations), lots and lots of people facing weight issues blame genetics. If one looks at population obesity trends, there has been a huge increase in the overweight/obese numbers in North America in the past 50 years. It can't be genetic for EVERYONE as populations (other than drosophila populations in a genetics lab!) tend not to experience such a rapid shift in composition over such a short period of time.
And of course the Octokids will have very different bodies, which speaks to minor differences in genetic coding. Else they would be absolutely the same as they would be raised in the exact same environment. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that each one of them, barring medical issues, will metabolize their food intake in accordance with the Kreb's cycle. And if they eat more calories than they expend, for whatever reason, they'll have weight issues. And all the psychology or understanding or discussion won't change that basic fact.
Kira
kiramira, you're asking us to argue or defend a viewpoint we don't espouse. For example:
"Or is this an excuse to eat eclairs all day?"
Obviously, a person who thinks that is at one end of an extreme. You seem to want to ignore all differences. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the truth is somewhere between
OK, so while adult bodies work differently from kids, which I will grant you, why are there claims that adult bodies (barring disease, etc.) work differently from each other? What you are born with genetically is what you basically have forever, barring bizarre mutations, so the thought that we start off all as A metabolically, but change into B, C, D, etc. by puberty makes no sense. And I'm specifically NOT referring to those of you with medical conditions, such as hypothyroidism or IBS or something like that. Those conditions of COURSE will affect one and must be dealt with. I'm referring to those, like me in the past, who bounce from diet to diet to diet with the belief that there is something fundamentally unique about the way they digest and process food. The Krebs' cycle is the Krebs' cycle. We all need vitamin C. If we don't get protein, bad things happen. If calories IN are greater than calories OUT, you gain weight.
I have an acquaintance who claims not to tolerate any protein in ANY form plant or animal, wheat, rice, bread, potatoes, milk, milk products, beans, eggs, fibrous vegetables, and fruit of any kind. None of this has been medically substantiated. She just "doesn't feel right" when she eats these and is quite bitter about the fact that she is overweight, and it is because she is just so biologically different from the rest of us. So she lives, literally, on a diet of chocolate eclairs, muffins and coffee. Notwithstanding the fat, sugar, flour and dairy in these products. She is quite overweight, has had each hip replaced, her left knee replaced and is waiting for her right knee to be replaced. So she can't exercise even though her condo complex has an indoor pool with wheelchair access, not that she is in a wheelchair... So how did she become so biologically different from the rest of us? Or is this an excuse to eat eclairs all day?
Kira
What your friend says is totally different. I think the reason why she doesn't feel good after eating something healthy is because she only eats junk food.
When your body gets used to eating a certain way, it likes it, and doesn't really like changing. It's also a mental thing. But no, your friend is not different from anyone (because seriously, we all need protein) and the only reason why she feels like crap is because she eats crap. She's not different, it's because of her diet.
I quit eating dairy for a while (I had to, it wasn't by choice) and when I started eating it again, it didn't settle well, but I kept eating it and it stopped hurting my tummy.
If your friend quit eating junk food and was on a consistent diet of healthy food and lean proteins, she wouldn't feel ill after eating it. And if she does cut out the junk for a long time and eats healthy and STILL feels ill, she should see a doctor. But honestly, I would ignore your friend. I can understand wanting to be concerned, but it's obvious she's living an unhealthy lifestyle and doesn't want to change and unfortunatley there really isn't much else you can do.
Last edited by sunflowergirl68; 04-17-2009 at 02:07 AM.
I have a couple of thoughts which may have been expressed already. But that's never kept me from talking before
I think we underestimate habit, lifestyle and what-we-been-used-ta. My parents are immigrants. My neighbours family has been in Canada for hundreds of years. I doubt that either one of us could stomach, week after week, a diet of oriental foods.
We begin shortly after birth being subjected to the choices our parents make with regard to food intake. We live a life that is individual based on environment, practice, needs, wants ...
There's such a fine line between new food discomfort, intolerance, allergy and so on. The leap from one of those to an actual named medical disorder is sometimes nebulous.
Is part of your question "why do different weight loss methods have differing effects on different people?"
kiramira, I've been following the research in nutrigenomics for while, and that's another puzzle piece that just absolutely fascinating. Dr. Mark Hyman writes about it. The five-cent tour of the theory is that while everyone's genes are the same at a high level, different proportions of nutrients will cause them to express or not express. Those proportions are what's unique, and that can be due to the inability to metabolize them, or "leaky gut", or even adaptations back in your family lineage. He started the movement toward "functional medicine", where things like hypothyroid isn't just treated - the doctor will go digging further to find out why your thyroid slowed down in the first place. Dean Ornish goes into it in his book "The Spectrum" as well - he's been able to show REVERSAL of both heart disease and prostate cancer, of all things, via nutritional therapies. Great reading!
I wanted to throw a thoroughly unscientific thought in the mix that may or may not stray a bit from the original topic. My question would be: is the rise of food allergies and sensitivities a real rise or a perceived rise? Were we always this different, or are our differences more clearly expressed because of our current food situation?
1) Variety hypothesis 1 (perceived rise): one reason why people today prefer or avoid certain foods is because they can. There is such an astonishing variety of food (and food-like substances) available that people can choose according to what they feel is best for them. Even a few generations ago, you basically ate what everybody else in your immediate cultural and geographical group ate, and this palette was limited to few and specific items. I guess your body could not really "afford" to be sensitive to milk, flour, potatoes, meat and cabbage (to cite some staples of my grandparents' culture) if there is nothing else to be had. Your system either adapted, or (presumably) you didn't thrive and grow very old.
Writing that, I realize this may sound facetious and Darwinistic. I do not mean to belittle food allergies and sensitivities, though. For example, I honestly believe that some people do well with carbs, dairy, gluten etc. while others do not.
2) Variety hypothesis 2 (actual rise): People have increased food sensitivities and allergies because they are exposed to a much more varied diet that may not always jibe well with their genetic makeup. As JayEll said - her Nordic ancestors didn't have access to tofu and rice, but their descendants do. We can eat Chinese, Mexican, Indian, Italian... in one week. We have access to food from all over the world. And while I love this variety and wouldn't trade it for meat and potatoes and cabbage every day, our systems have a lot more to process and to get used to over the course of our life than our ancestors had to deal with.
3) Food industry hypothesis (actual rise): Apart from the variety mentioned above, we eat a lot of stuff that our great-grandparents would not even recognize as food - and many people eat almost nothing but processed food. Artificial ingredients, engineered and designed food and an abundance of sugar - these are chemicals that probably were not meant to be processed by the human body in such great quantities. As with different immune systems, our digestive systems might be differently prepared to deal with these "food-like" substances. Some people have no problem with artificial sweeteners because their bodies can process/eliminate them - for others they cause problems. Again, some generations ago, all of these substances were not a problem yet.
This is getting way too long. So I'm stopping here. Hope I was making some kind of sense?
Kira, I think one thing missing from your equation is the differing metabolisms that we as individuals have. The same as a teenager can metabolize more calories with less weight gain than their middle-aged mom, who can metabolize more calories more quickly with less weight gain than her elderly mom, there are (usually much less dramatic) differences between individuals.
So if I do the BMR calculation -- the "Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR); the number of calories you'd burn if you stayed in bed all day" -- I should theoretically burn 2111.8 calories a day just by existing. If we use the Harris-Benedict equation -- "a formula that uses your BMR and then applies an activity factor to determine your total daily energy expenditure (calories)" -- for a sedentary person (BMR x 1.2), it says that I'm theoretically burning 2534.16 calories a day, or 17739.12 a week. Add to that the 3500 calories I burn a week exercising, and in theory I'm burning 21239.12 calories a week. My intake averages to 1650 calories a day, or 11550 a week, for a shortfall of 9689.12 calories a week, or just a smidge over 2.75 pounds a week lost. I am losing approximate 1.33 pounds/week, or less than half of what I'm "supposed" to be losing. And this doesn't count my random acts of exercise, as I'm not counting exercise calories unless they are burned during a specified activity intended for that purpose. So while my husband and I will be active at our photography job this weekend, it won't "count," as it's not an exercise activity.
It would be nice if the numbers were all you needed to make it work -- how much easier would it be if there were no guesswork involved! -- but sadly, that's not the case.
