On 10/08/98 10:31:36 you wrote:

From:    Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: weight loss
>
>By "unnatural" I refer to the fact that our bodies appear to be
>programmed to conserve body fat, except under fairly austere
>conditions, and to replace it quickly after it is used.

I think this is individual-dependent.  For example, I am like Amadeus who
has never been overweight.  I attribute this to a combination of genes
and an intelligent diet.  (Obesity does run in my family, both on my
mother and father's side.  This doesn't prove much, but may be of
interest.)  If I pigged out on SAD food I am sure I would gain weight.
But I have never been able to gain much, and I wouldn't describe my body
as being programmed to store fat.  If I over eat then I would store some
calories as fat.  Does this mean I am "programmed" to store fat?

On TV yesterday I saw some very fat people (400, 500lbs, and more).  They
claimed they couldn't help but be fat, while they sat there eating
chocolate covered donuts during the interview.  I also know people who
claim to have hormone problems, and are very obese.  They say that
nothing they do will allow them to lose weight.  I am sure they do have
medical troubles, but it is hard to have much sympathy when they tell you
over a giant pizza and soda.  I know all people are not created equally
in the physical department.  This is why I must disagree at least a
little bit with your above generalization.  Also, who is to say what an
austere diet is?  Many people today   would say any diet without their
donuts, cookies, pop, chips, etc. is too severe and boring to stick to.
"Life isn't worth living without ice cream" I hear some say.  I suppose
they are programmed to store fat, but it is hard to tell from the way
they eat.

My point from before is that losing weight down to a "desirable" level is
made much easier by eating a diet of highly nutritious foods, but *lower*
in calories.  The idea is that the bulk of the food is satisfying, and
the fact that your body gets all the nutrients it needs goes along way
towards satsfying hunger.  I would say people are "programmed" to eat
when they "think" they are hungry.  In today's society, it is nearly
impossible to separate the influences coming from a lifetime of
sophisticated advertising from one's perception of food.  So, I would
suggest eating low calorie, high nutrient food, listening to the body's
real needs, and seeing what happens.  Bottom line, if a person is heavier
than they want to be they eat more calories than they burn.  They use the
calories, but they are also going towards more futile heating cycles and
fat storage than the trim person.


In the
>wild the amounts of body fat would be quite modest compared to
>the modern obese human, of course.  But I don't imagine that
>obesity was an issue for many paleolithic HGs.  On the contrary,
>if they could find enough chow to add a few pounds, so much the
>better.

And what makes us think they were all lean, olympic style athletes?  If
they don't have to work very hard (~1-3hrs/day) pulling down large land
animal one after another with the greatest of ease as some on this list
seem to suggest, then why would they be any different than us today?
After all, we are claiming that the diet best suited for us is the diet
of 40,000 yrs ago, during the big hunting era.  We are genetically
identical to Cro-Magnon man of that era, are we not?  Then why shouldn't
some of us be overweight when we eat fatty red meat?  What about all
those icons of very obese women that are supposed to be from the ice
ages?  Fantasy, or modelled after real life images?

>>they grow up, and
>> reach their setpoint at around 18-early 20's.
>
>I don't doubt that early feeding levels make a contribution to
>the setpoint, but it also can rise during adult life.

My definition of "setpoint weight" is the weight you were at at the
earliest ages of mature adulthood, ~18-20.  People gain weight after this
for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with changing hormone levels
(aging), the foods they eat, and the calories they burn (or rather don't
burn).  If gaining weight as people age is natural, why are there such a
small number of obese elderly people?  This leads into another question I
had, about changing nutrition needs.  If we want to keep a certain body
weight for some reason, then maybe a varying diet over our lifetimes may
be an answer.

>...I have no doubt that if I started eating spontaneously I
>would go right back to 255, or more.  And this includes the use
>of Neanderthin-acceptable foods.  I have experimented with
>"unlimited quantities" of these foods, and promptly gained
>body fat.  To keep my weight stable, or to lose a bit more, I have to
>monitor my eating carefully, even on Neanderthin.

Any surprises?  This makes sense to me.  In other words, I mean that both
the type of foods consumed and the quantities are important for good
health.

>There is an
>element of hunger involved in the weight loss aspect, but I try
>to do it in intervals, not as a permanent way of life.  So, I try
>to lose a few pounds and then stabilize for a while.  It's very
>slow, but seems to work.  An advantage of Neanderthin is that the
>foods that would cause fast rebound are not allowed and I can
>stabilize without hunger.  But after the initial weight loss I
>have been unable to lose without hunger.  It's just a question of
>doing it sanely, and synchronizing with my exercise patterns.

That sounds like an excellent plan to me.

>For example, I have resumed karate training after a 5-year lapse.
>This involves a lot of high-intensity fast-twitch muscle work.

MA are cool.  Also, don't neglect the potential spiritual/mental aspects
of relaxation and staying in touch with one's body.

I wish I had more time to discuss these topics, they are quite
interesting to me.

James Crocker
============================
"Beautiful are the things we see.
More beautiful those we understand.
Much the most beautiful those we do
not comprehend."
Niels Steensen, 1638-1686
============================