3

votes

Hack this article, "Fat Is Officially Incurable (According to Science)" Rebuttals?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created July 05, 2012 at 7:27 PM

From the article intro:

Let's get this straight: The number of people who go from fat to thin, and stay there, statistically rounds down to zero.

Every study says so. No study says otherwise. None.

Oh, you can lose a ton of weight. You'll gain it back. Here's one study running the numbers. Here's a much larger analysis of every long-term weight loss study they could find. They all find the exact same thing: You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

One of the reasons I am eating Paleo is weight loss. Now, I would keep eating this way due to my overall health even with little to no loss. But I still need to drop quite a bit.

Any others have lasting success with Paleo?

What real science should be quoted to refute the assertions made by such an article?

Thanks!

EDIT:Yes I know cracked is a comedy site. Just because they want to be funny does not mean the author does not have a goal, agenda, message he wants his readers to respond to.

16a773dff600d080bfd8b2174ce99c07

(30)

on July 09, 2012
at 03:52 AM

@foreveryoung- So you saying calorie restriction is not the path to weight loss? What about for metabolically damaged females with a negative hormone environment? By negative I mean where all our hormones seem to be working against us, rather than for. How do we lose weight?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 06, 2012
at 03:01 PM

Westroxel some simple believe that fat people are lazy, stupid, smelly sub-humans. Many people have not lost weight and kept it off statistically speaking. If people who want to listen to statistics and learn from them are crazy them lets be crazy together o.k.?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:59 PM

Good for you Rach for losing weight and managing to keep it off long term but the fact is that most, no matter how hard they try, are unable to. It's sad that you seem to think fat people are just using an excuse to be fat. I will never understand how former fat people can think this way. I guess fat people just need to learn to "carry on" as you say? Well there ya go. Problem solved.

1296f5fecd084f101d7c5fbe013f07eb

(1213)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:47 PM

My friend lost ~160# with a vaguely paleo diet (this was before either of us really knew a lot about it) in a sort of 90/10 approach plus exercise. He has kept it off for about four years so far. He was one of the many reasons I decided to pursue a career in nutrition.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:07 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree with you that anorexia creates a "lack of a hormonal environment." Aside from psychological similarities, obesity and anorexia are similar in that both result in impaired leptin sensitivity and diminished testosterone levels. In anorexia the low T is from lack of endogenous production. In obesity, low T is from increased aromatase activity, which converts useable T into estrogen. Obese individuals typically show signs of low T and estrogen dominance, and this is why. Both scenarios though are adverse hormonal patterns and each need to be corrected.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:36 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. Obesity and anorexia are similar in that both leptin signaling and testosterone are low. In anorexia, growth hormone is probably high from extensive fasting, and in obesity estrogen is high from aromatization and testosterone is low from being aromatized or having a high SHBG. Both are adverse hormonal patters that need to be corrected.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:34 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. WHat I mean is that both anorexia and obesity typically cause adverse hormonal environments. Yes, with anorexia you don't have an excess of estrogen from aromatization of testosterone, but you do still have disrupted leptin signaling. In obesity you typically find estrogen excess and often low T and always impaired leptin sensitivity. So, the only difference is that obese people have high estrogen and anorexics have no estrogen. Both are adverse hormonal patterns that need to be corrected.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:30 PM

@ Primallykosher- what I mean by low toxin is a diet low in neolithic agents of disease- notably LA (seed oils, excessive nut consumption), refined sugar/fructose.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:27 PM

AHAHA. Yeah I just learned that literally a couple months ago and keep forgetting. I'm an idiot. At least I didn't write "supposably/"

Medium avatar

(7073)

on July 06, 2012
at 07:39 AM

It was a joke that's all - but some people may say that eating only meats is assuredly stupid - it depends on your point of view.

Medium avatar

(7073)

on July 06, 2012
at 07:38 AM

It was a joke that's all - but some people may say that eating meats is assuredly stupid - it depends on your point of view.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on July 06, 2012
at 05:09 AM

great response. I'm a bit of a pedant/grammar nazi though so feel comeplled to point out that it's 'for all intents and purporses' :)

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:36 AM

^Call it whatever you want, it's still a terrible idea.

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:21 AM

I would argue that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. :P

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:18 AM

^He said he was doing a modified fast.

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:17 AM

Where in my question did I say that I think the article is truly meaningful? I am looking for real science and real answers to articles like this one. Not sure implying I am crazy is all that helpful either. Or asserting that such an article is going to be used as an excuse by me to quit pursuing health. I am looking for fact to combat fiction especially when CW causes someone to condemn paleo without any fact to back it up.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on July 06, 2012
at 02:53 AM

I think this is your best response to date. Strikes right at the heart of weight loss myths. And its well formatted and bolded correctly! What do you mean by toxin free though?

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:36 AM

I didn't have time to write this so +100!!!! And hey OP. Tell Martin Berkhan that! I dare ya

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:02 AM

You're not saying anything outside my hopes for this way of life. No down vote for you! I do want to lose weight, but I am not trying to diet. I am eating about where i want to be eventually - but I am not very focused on calories. I am currently tracking macro percentages to get a better feel for what makes me feel good. My primary focus is health and well being and have had great success as I have an autoimmune disease that is getting its butt kicked by my new lifestyle. Thanks for your time and answer. I'm going to reread it over the next few days and process everything.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 11:42 PM

yeah... please nobody listen to bachcole, 1-2 raw eggs has way too little protein. actually, it's a bad idea for a million reasons.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 10:11 PM

Diane that's awseome to hear. You will get leaner (thinner, because muscle is more dense than fat) over time as you improve on all the aforementioned things. Just keep at it and trust the process.

F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on July 05, 2012
at 10:03 PM

This has been my experience and I have not been trying to follow anybody's suggestion. I just naturally have moved toward moderate carb, high calorie with sprinting, lots of slow movement and strength training. I'm eating more than ever and not gaining anything back. (Wish I was thinner though.) Anyway, yes, most people lose weight and gain it back but that is not any particular diet's fault. It's because they stop dieting and go back to what made them fat.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:55 PM

I would have left this as a comment to you, but it's way too wordy :\

3bc67f572ead57591a295f4913fa5991

(315)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:54 PM

I agree with you. I'm not arguing about the studies that have been already established, or how they show that weight loss is an exceptionally challenging (and statistically nigh on-impossible) endeavor. But it's counterproductive to draw conclusions that those studies were not designed to produce. They almost certainly were not established to demonstrate that weight loss is impossible, but a misreading of the results could certainly lead one to that. Your last point is the key: it's incredibly hard work. No one designs studies that will destroy the participants and lose them to follow-up.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:17 PM

A lot of people talk about "energy balance," but really, for all intensive purposes when you're talking about a human (or animal) body it's energy utilization. Are you gonna hoard what little calories your giving yourself as fat, or are you going to liberate fat and use your calories for building lean muscle mass?

1da74185531d6d4c7182fb9ee417f97f

(10904)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:59 PM

Lol, why are you jerks voting this down? This poster was OBVIOUSLY joking.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:32 PM

I have more respect for Cracked than I do most conventional news sites.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:27 PM

All studies, meaning not just interventions, meaning long term longitudinal studies find that people do not keep the weight off. The conclusion is true: losing weight and keeping it off rarely ever happens, no matter what you say your mindset is. Short term fixes are assuredly bad, but even people who are trying to make lifestyle changes suffer from attrition. In my opinion, the goal for most should be to lose 10-20 pounds or something like that. But if you are obese you can forget getting ripped. There are thousands of success stories, but it's incredibly hard work,with any method, or mindset

F31d10b54b31428e189d9b771bf7b1d1

(1439)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:25 PM

westroxel, I don't want you to get discouraged. I am currently in a modified raw veggie juice fast. The modifications are in the morning cod liver oil, bee pollen, 1 or 2 raw eggs, vitamins, green smoothie (no fruit), and coconut oil. It is also very useful to be fat-adapted before you start, which means plenty of fat and very low carbs for weeks before you start. See my answer below about the assertion in the article. I have done this fast before and it is a snap. I still have some weight to lose so I am doing it again.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:24 PM

What does it matter to you, though? I mean this motivationally, if you are obese you will almost certainly never get ripped, but there are success stories, and even losing 10-15 pounds can make a large difference to your health in addition to being more active. I'd also state that a diet that does not allow for some pizza or some beer is doomed for large scale failure. Do paleo if that floats your boat, but if you're not celiac, making room for treats of all sorts is a good long term sustainability step.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:21 PM

Eating only fruits is assuredly stupid, but I don't see how that relates to the OP.

C8b2136ef95ba6aac211825ff38cc0e9

(971)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:19 PM

OMG that second link made me want to eat everything.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:10 PM

TC, I'd like to buy your rock.

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:06 PM

Yes..I do. Does everyone realize that comedy is often used to convey a truth or agenda?

0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

(4238)

on July 05, 2012
at 07:52 PM

I've often said the same about the Onion, but I wouldn't use either site as a creditable source for a scientific discussion.

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on July 05, 2012
at 07:49 PM

The tone of the articles on Cracked is more entertaining than average, but they generally are more accurate to reality than average as well.

  • 7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

    asked by

    (644)
  • Views
    5.3K
  • Last Activity
    1433D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

best answer

13
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on July 05, 2012
at 09:07 PM

Hi, Westroxel. I'm probably going to say some things you don't want to hear, so feel free to down vote :)

In order to get obese, you have to have eaten a hyper caloric diet consisting largely of hyper-palitable foods and other neolithic agents of disease (food toxins, broadly). In the process of consuming this crappy hyper caloric diet, you both a) increase your set point and b) invoke an adverse internal environment comprised of at least one of the following (in actuality probably 3 or more): insulin resistance, leptin resistance, increased gut permeability, food allergies, gluten intolerance, and hormonal abnormalities.

Now, the problem with mainstream/conventional dieting is it really has, until very recently, done nothing to address any of the aforementioned issues. Instead the focus is on "losing weight" via calorie restriction. For two reasons this will result in inevitable failure (both of which paleo folks hate to hear). First, if you are doing nothing to address the any of the aforementioned issues, so they will rear their ugly heads and absolutely hinder you progress and ability to fulfill your physical potential. Luckly, the paleo diet is very good at eliminating those NADs and curing many of the aforementioned problems. However, you will not cure your insulin resistance by going ketogenic- you will be masking it. If So, in that way you will not fulfill your physical potential by eating a keto-paleo diet.

Second, if you eat a hypo caloric diet consistently, your body will lose leptin sensitivity, and will go into self preservation mode by hoarding any and all calories, causing you to reduce them further and further hoarding of calories as stored body fat (because it's not going to liberate any fat or other nutrients to build and repair muscle and drop fat in the middle of a famine- fat is a reserve source of energy). Get it? Calorie restriction will make you fatter. The only way you will ever be able to eat a hyper caloric or maintenance diet is if you recomposition your body, so it builds lean muscle and drops body fat. The BEST way to do this is combined weight and HIIT training with strategic use of carbohydrates to give your body the energy to build muscle, workout out with intensity, boost leptin, and increase insulin sensitivity. Now that you're getting leaner (shedding fat and building muscle) you require even more calories because muscle burns more calories than fat. Now you keep increasing calories and you've turned yourself into a machine and metabolic furnace. Everyone on paleohacks who is eating low calorie, ketogenic diets is putting a bandaid on a bullet wound and I think will either inevitably live in misery from self starvation (speaking from experience, I know what starvation feels like and how horrible it is for your psyche and your body composition) OR from gaining the weight back and being depressed because about it. The only way to not fall into this trap is to eat a toxin free (or very low toxin diet) and eat carbohydrates to boost leptin and restore insulin sensitivity and to engage in some combination of resistance and HIIT training to increase insulin sensitivity and nutrient uptake and influence a positive overall health and hormonal balance.

Those are my views and you can take them or leave them. Anecdotally, I self-starved for a long time and was really skinny (at 58lbs, but whose counting?), but ironically fatter than I am now. Then I ate roughly 400 calories a day, once a day and workout out too. Now I eat 3500 for maintenance and can certainly eat more and gain zero body fat (it will just go to muscle or more intense workouts). I workout probably a quarter of the amount that I used to. That's just anectodatal, and in some ways overcoming anorexia is not a far cry from overcoming obesity- both are addictive, both certainly destroy leptin sensitivity, and both create adverse hormonal environments. You could just as well argue that I was one of the successfully conventional dieters in the short term...but then I got smarter :)

So, do not get discouraged by this, Get encouraged, and take it as a learning opportunity not to diet with the intention of losing weight and not to do it by reducing calories. You're already taking good steps in repairing many of the issues by eating a paleo, low NAD diet. Now you have my thoughts on the next steps to absolutely attain your physical potential and maintain it for a lifetime.

A lot of people talk about "energy balance," but really, for all intents and purposes when you're talking about a human (or animal) body it's energy utilization. Are you gonna hoard what little calories your giving yourself as fat, or are you going to liberate fat and use your calories for building lean muscle mass?

So, in a nutshell, do NOT follow conventional dieting wisdom and do NOT follow conventional paleo-dieting wisdom either. Follow a low NAD/toxin diet with sufficient calories, and put them to good use by building leptin and insulin sensitivity, as well as a positive hormonal balance. There is my rebuttal and that is the fountain of youth. I hope you do something positive with this information and make yourself an outlier.

For a guide, let's say you weigh 250lbs(?), and you think that you would make a good, lean 200lb dude. Eat the amount of calories a 200lb active dude would with the amount of body fat and muscle mass you would like to be at. Eat like him, train like him, become him. He is your future self, and do everything like he would do as if you were him...today and everyday. Be him now and he'll be you a in the future. That's how you do it, I promise.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:27 PM

AHAHA. Yeah I just learned that literally a couple months ago and keep forgetting. I'm an idiot. At least I didn't write "supposably/"

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:36 AM

I didn't have time to write this so +100!!!! And hey OP. Tell Martin Berkhan that! I dare ya

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 10:11 PM

Diane that's awseome to hear. You will get leaner (thinner, because muscle is more dense than fat) over time as you improve on all the aforementioned things. Just keep at it and trust the process.

F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on July 05, 2012
at 10:03 PM

This has been my experience and I have not been trying to follow anybody's suggestion. I just naturally have moved toward moderate carb, high calorie with sprinting, lots of slow movement and strength training. I'm eating more than ever and not gaining anything back. (Wish I was thinner though.) Anyway, yes, most people lose weight and gain it back but that is not any particular diet's fault. It's because they stop dieting and go back to what made them fat.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:17 PM

A lot of people talk about "energy balance," but really, for all intensive purposes when you're talking about a human (or animal) body it's energy utilization. Are you gonna hoard what little calories your giving yourself as fat, or are you going to liberate fat and use your calories for building lean muscle mass?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:30 PM

@ Primallykosher- what I mean by low toxin is a diet low in neolithic agents of disease- notably LA (seed oils, excessive nut consumption), refined sugar/fructose.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:34 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. WHat I mean is that both anorexia and obesity typically cause adverse hormonal environments. Yes, with anorexia you don't have an excess of estrogen from aromatization of testosterone, but you do still have disrupted leptin signaling. In obesity you typically find estrogen excess and often low T and always impaired leptin sensitivity. So, the only difference is that obese people have high estrogen and anorexics have no estrogen. Both are adverse hormonal patterns that need to be corrected.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on July 06, 2012
at 05:09 AM

great response. I'm a bit of a pedant/grammar nazi though so feel comeplled to point out that it's 'for all intents and purporses' :)

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:21 AM

I would argue that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. :P

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:07 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree with you that anorexia creates a "lack of a hormonal environment." Aside from psychological similarities, obesity and anorexia are similar in that both result in impaired leptin sensitivity and diminished testosterone levels. In anorexia the low T is from lack of endogenous production. In obesity, low T is from increased aromatase activity, which converts useable T into estrogen. Obese individuals typically show signs of low T and estrogen dominance, and this is why. Both scenarios though are adverse hormonal patterns and each need to be corrected.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd

on July 06, 2012
at 02:53 AM

I think this is your best response to date. Strikes right at the heart of weight loss myths. And its well formatted and bolded correctly! What do you mean by toxin free though?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:55 PM

I would have left this as a comment to you, but it's way too wordy :\

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:02 AM

You're not saying anything outside my hopes for this way of life. No down vote for you! I do want to lose weight, but I am not trying to diet. I am eating about where i want to be eventually - but I am not very focused on calories. I am currently tracking macro percentages to get a better feel for what makes me feel good. My primary focus is health and well being and have had great success as I have an autoimmune disease that is getting its butt kicked by my new lifestyle. Thanks for your time and answer. I'm going to reread it over the next few days and process everything.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on July 06, 2012
at 12:36 PM

@ bonebrothfast- I agree that anorexia creates a lack of a hormonal environment. Obesity and anorexia are similar in that both leptin signaling and testosterone are low. In anorexia, growth hormone is probably high from extensive fasting, and in obesity estrogen is high from aromatization and testosterone is low from being aromatized or having a high SHBG. Both are adverse hormonal patters that need to be corrected.

16a773dff600d080bfd8b2174ce99c07

(30)

on July 09, 2012
at 03:52 AM

@foreveryoung- So you saying calorie restriction is not the path to weight loss? What about for metabolically damaged females with a negative hormone environment? By negative I mean where all our hormones seem to be working against us, rather than for. How do we lose weight?

11
3bc67f572ead57591a295f4913fa5991

(315)

on July 05, 2012
at 07:56 PM

There isn't anything technically wrong with that article, in terms of what studies he's quoting. Those are legitimate results. But the conclusion that he draws--that it's physically and biologically impossible to lose weight and keep it off--is absolute garbage.

It's like saying that I have a rock that I keep in my pocket that prevents tiger attacks. Since I've never been attacked by a tiger, it must be working--science supports it!

The fact is that many people, when starting on a weight loss program, relapse because they don't find something that works appropriately for them. That's why you always hear people talking about lifestyle changes. You can't do slim-fast for two months, then revert to your original diet without any other changes, and expect to keep the weight off. That's essentially what those studies did, because no one would sign up for a lifetime longitudinal study, and no research dollars would ever go to support something like that. Trials are set up with a beginning, middle, and end that are necessarily defined so that they can be controlled effectively. That's why you don't ever get crazy results. And yes, statistically speaking, bariatric surgery is the only way to "effectively" keep weight off, because it's the only thing that data has actually been generated to support. The reason for that isn't because it's the only thing that works, but rather it's the only thing that's been studied that works. You have to always examine the inputs before you can evaluate conclusions.

Basically, the proper way to interpret the results from those trials isn't that science has proven that weight loss is statistically impossible (for one, that's a horrifyingly wrong statement, as science can only disprove things by definition). The only way that you could possibly make that claim is if you're attempting to follow the trial protocol to a T--including the period of time that you're on the diet, exactly what meals they ate, and THEN you go off of the diet immediately after the study period specified. The devil's in the details with those trials.

If you want to lose weight and do your diet, then do it. Don't let anyone stop you, and be careful about people who misinterpret relatively narrow clinical trials. People who lose tons of weight and keep it off aren't part of those trials. Does that mean that they don't exist? Absolutely not. Just because there isn't published data about that doesn't mean that they're not real. It just means that scientists haven't figured out how to ask the right questions.

3bc67f572ead57591a295f4913fa5991

(315)

on July 05, 2012
at 09:54 PM

I agree with you. I'm not arguing about the studies that have been already established, or how they show that weight loss is an exceptionally challenging (and statistically nigh on-impossible) endeavor. But it's counterproductive to draw conclusions that those studies were not designed to produce. They almost certainly were not established to demonstrate that weight loss is impossible, but a misreading of the results could certainly lead one to that. Your last point is the key: it's incredibly hard work. No one designs studies that will destroy the participants and lose them to follow-up.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:27 PM

All studies, meaning not just interventions, meaning long term longitudinal studies find that people do not keep the weight off. The conclusion is true: losing weight and keeping it off rarely ever happens, no matter what you say your mindset is. Short term fixes are assuredly bad, but even people who are trying to make lifestyle changes suffer from attrition. In my opinion, the goal for most should be to lose 10-20 pounds or something like that. But if you are obese you can forget getting ripped. There are thousands of success stories, but it's incredibly hard work,with any method, or mindset

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:10 PM

TC, I'd like to buy your rock.

4
0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

on July 05, 2012
at 07:42 PM

Perhaps a dumb question, but ... you do know that Cracked.com is a humor site, yes?

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on July 05, 2012
at 07:49 PM

The tone of the articles on Cracked is more entertaining than average, but they generally are more accurate to reality than average as well.

0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

(4238)

on July 05, 2012
at 07:52 PM

I've often said the same about the Onion, but I wouldn't use either site as a creditable source for a scientific discussion.

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:06 PM

Yes..I do. Does everyone realize that comedy is often used to convey a truth or agenda?

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:32 PM

I have more respect for Cracked than I do most conventional news sites.

3
C8549e3ab0e3d77910e72c87cb5e0918

(435)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:54 PM

Well if you study "structured weight loss programs" you will see different long-term effects than studying "permanent lifestyle changes".

I lost 100 pounds by eating lower carb, then kept it off for years by eating only slightly higher carb (i.e. not going back to my previous way of eating). I am now working to lose the rest, which is easier now that I've embraced paleo (and embraced eating fat). 36 pounds down since January, 44 still to go...

3
Bebc8909d95205d0f266c839304c7d3c

on July 05, 2012
at 07:53 PM

I've been on paleo for over four years now. Initially, it took me five months to lose 50 lbs., which was probably a little too much weight. I've put back about 5-7 lbs. by eating fruit more regularly and having the occasional cheat of organic apple pie or some other treat. The only way I can imagine that the weight will come back is if I start drinking alcohol again and eating the garbage I used to eat.

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:02 PM

It's a valid observation - the vast majority of people who lose weight by dietary modification are destined to put it back on. There are numerous clinical studies that support this.

When behavior modification is also implemented the results are better. As is the case with education, which is probably why paleo is likely to have better success rate, however, this hypothesis has not been tested in a clinical trial.

The only intervention that has demonstrated lasting results in a clinical setting is surgery or balloon placement.

The problem is that as soon as motivation flags appetite kicks in and the weight regain is inevitable.

1
F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:25 PM

Whenever I read studies about the failure of "diets", I always wonder whether they fail simply because people can't stay on the diet and hence regain the weight. Since Paleo is so satisfying, it's easier to stay on = sustained weight loss for life!

Medium avatar

(7073)

on July 06, 2012
at 07:38 AM

It was a joke that's all - but some people may say that eating meats is assuredly stupid - it depends on your point of view.

1da74185531d6d4c7182fb9ee417f97f

(10904)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:59 PM

Lol, why are you jerks voting this down? This poster was OBVIOUSLY joking.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:21 PM

Eating only fruits is assuredly stupid, but I don't see how that relates to the OP.

C8b2136ef95ba6aac211825ff38cc0e9

(971)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:19 PM

OMG that second link made me want to eat everything.

Medium avatar

(7073)

on July 06, 2012
at 07:39 AM

It was a joke that's all - but some people may say that eating only meats is assuredly stupid - it depends on your point of view.

0
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on July 06, 2012
at 07:47 PM

From a statistical standpoint, the article is true. I lost 113lbs and have kept it off. This makes me an outlier, but it doesn't negate the statistic. I think the information I had access to that helped me lose weight is still not widely known and will not make a significant impact on the statistics for quite sometime. Indeed, even if ancestral health wisdom becomes conventional wisdom the effects in terms of human weight isn't going to be seen until a generation or two later. Some people will lose a lot of weight, but a normal sized next generation will be the real payoff. So, to recap, the statistics are true, but they are statistics, and it is very reasonable to be hopeful if you are armed with information that most people in the population (from which they drew the statistics) didn't know. Insider traders are very optimistic, despite rather gloomy statistics regarding investors in general.

0
F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:43 PM

It's discouraging, I know. But truly, if 100% of the people on PH lost weight and kept if off all of their lives, it would still be statistically zero. You can still succeed despite the statistics - that's what outliers are for.

I absolutely agree that nobody who gets fat, then loses weight, manages to go back to their oiginal lifestyle and not get fat again. That's having your cake and eating it too (and you know how we feel about cake). But embracing a diet that allows you to regain your health, and then using your improved health to be more active, and create a new, healthy lifestyle that becomes your normal - that works. It may not make you ripped, but it will allow you to reach a healthy weight and stay there.

Chin up, it's a longer process for some of us than others, but it can happen.

0
4b5be253ac1981c690689cab7e4bf06d

(3043)

on July 05, 2012
at 08:28 PM

The number of people that have lost a significant amount of weight (more than 10% of their body weight) without surgery is so small, statistically, that it can never be "true." There are less than 6000 people in the national weight loss registry, out of a population approaching 300 million.

However, there are many people who have improved their health without changing weight. Eating fewer processed foods, cutting out gluten and sugar, eating more saturated fats, these are all things that make us "healthier" without losing weight.

The only people I know that have lost 100 plus pounds either did it "without trying," or have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of weight loss (aka became motivational speakers or fitness instructors), or developed eating disorders, or had surgery (or some combination of the latter three.).

0
F31d10b54b31428e189d9b771bf7b1d1

on July 05, 2012
at 08:16 PM

Cracked is a comic funny magazine.

The conclusion is based upon the fact that virtually everyone in these studies is eating wrong. Paleo people get the fat off and it stays off. In fact, fasting with raw veggie juice and a few eggs every day is a snap, which I happen to be doing right now. But it would not be a snap if I was not a fat-burner (thanks to being paleo for several months and eating very low carbs) and if I strayed into drinking fruit juice or anything else with a lot of carbs/sugar.

-1
3f19a4d55d338abdae160478d6a4fe1d

on July 05, 2012
at 09:03 PM

It's crazy that you would think this article means anything. Many people, including myself, have lost fat and kept it off. I lost 50lbs and have hit my natural weight. I would never let some 'proof' like this give me an excuse not to maintain a healthy body. In fact, it's irresponsible publishing something like this at the same time as government are pushing anti-obesity messages. Don't be fazed, just carry on and you'll succeed x

7bcdcce584eb132e4c06b8ad2b1d22cc

(644)

on July 06, 2012
at 04:17 AM

Where in my question did I say that I think the article is truly meaningful? I am looking for real science and real answers to articles like this one. Not sure implying I am crazy is all that helpful either. Or asserting that such an article is going to be used as an excuse by me to quit pursuing health. I am looking for fact to combat fiction especially when CW causes someone to condemn paleo without any fact to back it up.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 06, 2012
at 02:59 PM

Good for you Rach for losing weight and managing to keep it off long term but the fact is that most, no matter how hard they try, are unable to. It's sad that you seem to think fat people are just using an excuse to be fat. I will never understand how former fat people can think this way. I guess fat people just need to learn to "carry on" as you say? Well there ya go. Problem solved.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 06, 2012
at 03:01 PM

Westroxel some simple believe that fat people are lazy, stupid, smelly sub-humans. Many people have not lost weight and kept it off statistically speaking. If people who want to listen to statistics and learn from them are crazy them lets be crazy together o.k.?

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!