I absolutely see where you are coming from Ms Glory, and I think that everyone needs to find ones's own path. For some, vegetarianism rocks. For others, Atkins rocks. For some, calorie counting, and for others, low-carb works.
The point I am trying to make, which is what I think you believe and state more eloquently than I, is that although you feel your body responds differently to different diets, the very fact that it does is NOT an indication of a physiological illness or issue.
When highly processed, refined foods are consumed, ALL of us have the same physiological reaction. When one eats low-carb, there are certain biochemical processes that act in all of us.
I think this is important because to state that there are mysterious physiological differences at work is, well, somewhat harmful! We are all humans, with the same basic physiological responses to nutrients. If a human doesn't get enough vitamin D, he/she WILL get rickets. If a human restricts carbs, fuel is obtained from other souces, in ALL of us.
So instead of attributing this to an inherent physiological difference, perhaps it is more accurate as you say, Ms Glory, that one feels better on their diet of choice because for that person, they are freed from the PSYCHOLOGICAL factors associated with refined carbohydrate consumption.
And if low carb rocks your world, GO for it!!! We all have our own paths to follow...
Kira
I have to disagree that our processes are basically the same. For example, hormones have a very, very strong influence on our body processes, including how we metabolize different foods, how quickly, and how many calories we burn to stay alive. If we put every person at 3FC through a battery of tests to get hormone levels, I bet that NO ONE would have the exact same profile.
For example, you said "If a human doesn't get enough Vitamin D, they will get Rickets" and that is absolutely true. 100%, for everyone. But what that doesn't address is the difference in "enough" based on different biochemistries. For example, people with darker skin metabolize less vitamin D from sun exposure, compared to people with paler skin. People on specific medications have trouble getting enough Vitamin D, because those medications interfere with absorption of the nutrient from food. And, not insignificantly, just being obese can influence how you metabolize Vitamin D...specifically, more is sequestered in subcutaneous fat when it is made from sun exposure, and therefore can't be used by the rest of the body.
Name any nutrient and you'll find the same level of variability...total calories included. Calorie needs vary by age (as hormone levels change) and body composition, as well as by things as innocuous as the weather and ambient temperature.
These are physical, measurable reactions. Put some people on the same amount of vitamin D, and some will become deficient while some will not. Put some people on the same calories per day, and some will lose weight and some will not.
Consider a glucose tolerance test. This test exposes people to the exact same amount of a high glucose solution, then measures blood sugar levels over time.
The normal range for this test is fairly huge, particularly at the 1 hour interval after ingesting the solution...from 105-160 mg/dl. That's a HUGE spread...your blood sugar, an hour after eating, would be "normal" and would have no associated diagnosis no matter where it fell in that range. In other words, your blood sugar response could be increased by 52% before you'd be diagnosed with anything. And I think a 52% increase in the amount of sugar in your blood could definitely cause a physiological reaction that is significant, even if it's still considered "normal".
So while we are all subject to the same basic biochemical rules, we do have physical differences in our reactions to what we ingest, are exposed to, etc, even if we have no clinical diagnosis, and those physical differences can make a big difference in how our bodies respond to weight loss attempts. And that's not an excuse - it's a biochemical, tested and confirmed, fact. That's why when you take twins raised separately, and throw them into a room with a bunch of other twins raised separately, and feed them all an identical diet and give them all an identical exercise regimen, some of the people lose weight, some of them gain, some of them are constantly hungry, some of them are constantly satisfied, and typically, the twins (even when raised apart, which indicates they have separate psychological issues if they have any) have the same reaction. They don't have the same history, but they DO have the same biology.
Actually, rickets is a perfect counter example. If you deprive people of vitamin D, they all "eventually" develop rickets. If you deprive people of vitamin C, they all "eventually" develop scurvy. However, there's a HUGE varience in how quickly and how severely an individual will be effected.
This analogy is quite effective for weight loss, as well. Calorie-restriction eventually will result in weight loss - but the caloric level at which weight loss occurs, and how quickly and how much weight is lost will also vary tremendously.
Absolutely there is variability Ms Mandalinn! But you will lose weight. That is a physiological fact. And how you choose to do it is really your own path. It just pushes a hot button for me, coming from a doctorate level in health sciences, when people purport that there are significant physiological differences between humans. There ARE variations, of course, but one will not find unique biochemical processing differences between humans (barring, of course, disease processes). We all need insulin -- the amount may vary and the amount one produces may vary, but I have yet to meet a human so unique that they don't require insulin. The Krebs cycle is still the Krebs cycle. And insoluble fiber is not digested because of the lack of enzymes to break down cell walls. And we can't breathe underwater, because we need oxygen. No matter how unique you believe your physiology to be.
And as I stated before, I applaud all those who have found their own path and for everyone, each path is different. I just think it does a disservice to suggest that there are special, magical physiological processes that are SO unique to each person and that must be investigated in order to lose weight. Often, weight loss comes down to a matter of choice. And THAT is purely psychological.
Kira
I don't see anyone arguing that physiological processes are drastically different, in the way you suggest. Normal variations - known variations in both envionment and physiology more than adequately explains most, of the variance. And new research is explaining more and more of the remaining mystery.
Yes, it is impossible to have a metabolism of zero - that is you will lose (regardless of any known disease process) if your calorie level is low enough. So yes, in essence anyone can lose weight (even if they have a disorder that makes weight loss more difficult), if they can take their caloric level to below whatever that is - even if it's less than 1000 calories. However, the existing known variations in brain chemistry, metabolic function, hormone levels... are more than adequate to account for the very different experiences people have with hunger, weight gain, maintenance and weight loss.
Obesity is not so much like rickets or scurvy, but more like cancer. Expose people to a given amount of any known carcinogen and some will develop cancer, and some will not. Increase the exposure and you'll increase the occurrence of cancer. You may even find a carcinogen that will result in 100% cancer rate, and even so - how quickly the cancer appears, how quickly it grows, and how the individual responds to treatment will all vary tremendously, and there's not a drop of "magic" involved.
There are many situations in which human physiology varies quiet significantly. Andean highlanders are a perfect example - a combination of genetic and environmental differences result in the Andean people and other high mountain dwelling people having a significantly different phenotype from people living at low altitudes. There are significant differences in physiology both in structure and function of the chest, lungs, metabolism, and hematology that allows them to live at altitudes that would severely cripple lowlanders if they climbed to that altitudes.
There's been a good deal of research on the physiological difference between obesity-susceptible and obesity-resistant humans and animals (in animals, of course there's a better understanding of the genetics that makes one strain of rats obesity-prone and another obesity-resistant). It's not magic, it's not rocket-science, just regular-old science.
There's still much disagreement over how much of obesity is environmental and how much is genetic or physiological, but that doesn't mean the jury is out - there's plenty of evidence to account for a good bit of each. And the mechanisms are fairly well understood, and better understood than ever before. More and more research is finding physiological differences between obese and non-obese, between formerly obese and naturally thin.... (Insulin resistance makes weight loss more difficult whether or not the insulin resistance was caused by obesity).
Some of the causes are circular (well, actually more a downward spiral) - not so much chicken and egg as a self-perpetuating cycle. Once one becomes overweight, there are physiological (as well as social, emotional, mental) processes that make losing weight more difficult or make weight gain even more likely. Just the physical limitations that obesity can create, can make weight loss more difficult. Physiology doesn't mean genetics, as even physiology can change in response to environmental factors. But once the physiology has changed, it's the physiology you have.
