Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Hard Loser? This may really explain it.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Martha Gallagher - 27 Jan 2005 21:35 GMT
There's a cool Washinton Post article at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41897-2005Jan27.html

on the subject of some people being naturally fidgety while others are
more stolid. They found that the fidgeters could burn up approximately
10-20 lbs more a year simply by their jiggling around and that the
sitters-still tended to have higher inertia even when they had lost weight
- in other words they weren't limiting their movement because they were
fat, they were fat (in part) because they didn't move around much.

I find this particularly resonant because I've always been a very still
person. I don't fidget, jump up to get things, drum my fingers. I have an
innate capacity for stillness. In fact, I find really fidgety people
somewhat disconcerting to be around. And, I've always tended towards being
overweight. (honesty compels me to add that my weight problems have, in no
small part, been due to poor and excessive food choices.)

So, while it seems not to be the case that some people actually have
significantly slower metabolisms, functionally, some of us may really not
be burning up the same number of calories in our daily activities even if
we eat the same foods and spend the same amount of time in the gym as our
fidgety opposite numbers.

I don't see this as a call to throw up our hands and cry "we are doomed to
fatness" (unless doing so would burn up a few calories in itself), but
rather as a way to understand that some of us may in fact need to work a
little harder.

Because this theory seems plausible to me, I'm going to try a two pronged
experiment.

First, I'm going to see whether I can train myself into being a fidgeter.
It doesn't come naturally for me, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
learnable trait.

Second, I'm going to recognize that I probably really do burn fewer
calories during the day by my activities, and so if it turns out that I
can't teach myself to fidget, then I'm going to need to add another half
hour or so of concentrated exercise to my schedule.

Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
doesn't find it convincing?

Martha

Signature

"ALPO is 99 cents a can.  That's over SEVEN dog dollars!!"
Revek - ASDLC

Nicky - 27 Jan 2005 22:48 GMT
> There's a cool Washinton Post article at
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41897-2005Jan27.html
>
> on the subject of some people being naturally fidgety while others are
> more stolid.

There's a documentary running in the UK ay the moment comparing a bunch of
kids - they came to the same conclusion. The difference between the extremes
was astonishing. Some of it did seem to be learned - a sick kid became
sedentary.

Buying a laptop has done nothing to make me more fidgetty!

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.7/<6  Weight 95/78/72Kg
1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004

Sprgtime - 27 Jan 2005 23:58 GMT
> There's a cool Washinton Post article at
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> - in other words they weren't limiting their movement because they were
> fat, they were fat (in part) because they didn't move around much.

> Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
> doesn't find it convincing?

I've heard of similar studies 5+ years ago.  They sound good to me.  I'm a
fidgeter :)

Signature

Spring
LC since 1/1/04
260/200/170

"Before" & "current" pics at link below:
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/sprgsnow/album?.tok=phX4sVBBuvxvs4Hs&.dir=/55b8
&.src=ph

Jane Lumley - 28 Jan 2005 09:09 GMT
>Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
>doesn't find it convincing?
>
>Martha

Yup, me.  I'm incredibly fidgety and I have the world's slowest
metabolism.  

Signature

Jane Lumley

JC Der Koenig - 28 Jan 2005 13:15 GMT
You only think you're incredibly fidgety.

Signature

You take stupid to a new level.  -- MFW

> >Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
>>doesn't find it convincing?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yup, me.  I'm incredibly fidgety and I have the world's slowest
> metabolism.
Jane Lumley - 28 Jan 2005 20:38 GMT
>You only think you're incredibly fidgety.

Hi, JCD.  Other people think so too, and frequently say so.  
Signature

Jane Lumley

JC Der Koenig - 29 Jan 2005 03:01 GMT
You only think you are resistant to weight loss.

Signature

You take stupid to a new level.  -- MFW

> >You only think you're incredibly fidgety.
>>
> Hi, JCD.  Other people think so too, and frequently say so.
Jane Lumley - 29 Jan 2005 15:35 GMT
>You only think you are resistant to weight loss.

I don't think I am abnormally resistant.  I think most middle-aged women
have to cut calories more and exercise harder than young chaps like you.
As long as I do that I lose quite fast.  I maintain easily, too.  

You're always out looking for that next victim, aren't you?  Someone who
can be exposed as deluded, or made to feel more anxious?  Dennis Nilsson
once remarked that serial killer are sad, weak, pathetic individuals who
cant' get up a conversation with anyone in a bar.  See the point?  
Signature

Jane Lumley

JC Der Koenig - 29 Jan 2005 22:31 GMT
I'm not that young.

Who's Dennis Nilsson, and who cares?

Why are you still fat?

Signature

You take stupid to a new level.  -- MFW

>>You only think you are resistant to weight loss.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> once remarked that serial killer are sad, weak, pathetic individuals who
> cant' get up a conversation with anyone in a bar.  See the point?
Jane Lumley - 30 Jan 2005 16:02 GMT
>I'm not that young.

How nice.

>Who's Dennis Nilsson, and who cares?

A serial killer.  Can't answer the second part - his victims, perhaps?  

>Why are you still fat?

I'm not.  I'm within normal range for my height.  

Why are you?  
Signature

Jane Lumley

JC Der Koenig - 30 Jan 2005 16:25 GMT
JPEGS!!

Signature

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that.  -- MFW

>>Why are you still fat?
>
> I'm not.  I'm within normal range for my height.
Jane Lumley - 30 Jan 2005 20:49 GMT
>JPEGS!!

If you won't take my word for it, why would you believe a picture?  You
would then announce to all that the woman in the picture is actually my
cousin Sadie and that I am really a two-thousand pound heiferess.

Why are you still fat, btw?  I didn't catch the answer.  Unless you are
fat because you eat JPEGS.  

I'm bored now.  
Signature

Jane Lumley

The Queen of Cans and Jars - 30 Jan 2005 21:05 GMT
> I'm bored now.

what took you so long?
JC Der Koenig - 31 Jan 2005 01:20 GMT
My jpegs have been posted.

Where are yours?

Signature

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that.  -- MFW

>>JPEGS!!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Why are you still fat, btw?  I didn't catch the answer.  Unless you are
> fat because you eat JPEGS.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.