Small Talk: About Big People

[Meredith Quill]

The Small Talk topic is for:

 

• Introductions
• Off-topic chatter
• Having virtual tea with forum buddies

 

This is NOT a topic for actual show discussion. When you want to talk about the show:

 

1. Figure out the nature of the topic you want to talk about
2. Look for an existing topic that matches or fits
3. If there is NOT an existing topic that fits, CREATE ONE!

 

Examples of topics that populate show forums include (but by no means are limited to):

 

• Character topics
• Episode topics
• Season topics
• Spoiler topics
• Speculation topics
• In the Media topics
• Favourite X topics
• ...you get the idea

 

Happy trails beyond Small Talk!

[goodbyeglittergirl]

Here's what happened to me, yogi2014L -

I was normally sized until puberty. After puberty hit, I gained weight at a rate that was not equal to the amount I was eating. By which I mean I was eating the same stuff as my younger sister and doing the same activities, but I was gaining weight and she was not.

 

I went to fat camp, I visited nutritionists, I did all sorts of stuff - it did not help. And after a while of following the basic calorie in/calorie out math and not having any luck, I gave up. So from the age of 18-26 I probably gained 70 pounds. I wasn't gorging on ice cream every night, but I was also not watching what I ate.

 

I then buckled down and followed a low-carb diet and exercised CONSTANTLY, and my weight went down, but nothing like what you would expect to see. I finally saw a doctor who said "You have PCOS. Your diet and exercise are the only things that have kept you under 300 pounds." 

 

So TL;DR - I do think a big part of her weight issue could be from the PCOS. Some of it, though, can also really be from the "giving up" that happens when you see that the things that allow other people to drop weight do almost NOTHING for you. It's really depressing. THIS is the sort of thing I would LOVE to see addressed on the show - a pipe dream, I know!

[yogi2014L]

Here's what happened to me, yogi2014L -

I was normally sized until puberty. After puberty hit, I gained weight at a rate that was not equal to the amount I was eating. By which I mean I was eating the same stuff as my younger sister and doing the same activities, but I was gaining weight and she was not.

 

I went to fat camp, I visited nutritionists, I did all sorts of stuff - it did not help. And after a while of following the basic calorie in/calorie out math and not having any luck, I gave up. So from the age of 18-26 I probably gained 70 pounds. I wasn't gorging on ice cream every night, but I was also not watching what I ate.

 

I then buckled down and followed a low-carb diet and exercised CONSTANTLY, and my weight went down, but nothing like what you would expect to see. I finally saw a doctor who said "You have PCOS. Your diet and exercise are the only things that have kept you under 300 pounds." 

 

So TL;DR - I do think a big part of her weight issue could be from the PCOS. Some of it, though, can also really be from the "giving up" that happens when you see that the things that allow other people to drop weight do almost NOTHING for you. It's really depressing. THIS is the sort of thing I would LOVE to see addressed on the show - a pipe dream, I know!

Thank you for the explanation and sharing your experience!! I really appreciate it :-)

[Shibori]

PCOS doesn't "go away" if you don't ovulate. It's the opposite- many women with PCOS have issues with missed periods because they don't have the right hormonal balance to ovulate in the first place and end up taking medication TO ovulate (Provera, for example, is a common one- not to be confused with the birth control Depo-Provera) Birth control is often used for women with PCOS because it regulates hormones (lowering ones like androgen that contribute to the facial hair and skin problems) and may make menstrual periods more regular.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Shibori

[goodbyeglittergirl]

PCOS doesn't "go away" if you don't ovulate. It's the opposite- many women with PCOS have issues with missed periods because they don't have the right hormonal balance to ovulate in the first place and end up taking medication TO ovulate (Provera, for example, is a common one- not to be confused with the birth control Depo-Provera) Birth control is often used for women with PCOS because it regulates hormones (lowering ones like androgen that contribute to the facial hair and skin problems) and may make menstrual periods more regular.

Preach. This is totally true. Birth Control pills are given to PCOS patients just to try and regulate their cycle (and also make sure they menstruate at least 4x/year for endometrial buildup reasons), but it does NOT address the underlying imbalances. There is no real treatment for PCOS. You can take Metformin, which can help with the insulin resistance piece of the puzzle, and you can take various things (bc, provera, etc) to take control of your cycle, but you at the end of the day you STILL have PCOS and as of now there's just nothing you can do about it. Eating healthy, trying to maintain a healthy weight, getting regular exercise, those are also "management" things that need to be done, but you STILL have PCOS. In fact, there's a whole subset of PCOS women who are actually THIN but have PCOS.  

[QueBueno]

Laser hair removal was one of the best investments I ever made. It is pretty pricey, and I get she doesn't make much money. But if she could swing it somehow, it's blissful for my shaving days to be pretty much over. I didn't complete my lower legs due to a dispute over billing, but I got far enough that I only shave my legs if I'm going to the beach or getting a pedi, and my armpits have a couple of rogue hairs but they are virtually bare. So freeing. She could also get waxed, by a professional at a salon where daddy won't come barging in.

At my workplace, they supply larger chairs upon request. One of our high-up executives is very obese. Yes, you can hold down a job if you're obese or even super-obese.

[Morgalisa]

 

At my workplace, they supply larger chairs upon request. One of our high-up executives is very obese. Yes, you can hold down a job if you're obese or even super-obese.

I agree.  However, unfortunately the only examples of this I have seen have been men.  So, I would like to see a show that features obese or super-obese women with careers and how they live their lives.  I would find that interesting to watch.

[ShaNaeNae]

Laser hair removal was one of the best investments I ever made. It is pretty pricey, and I get she doesn't make much money. But if she could swing it somehow, it's blissful for my shaving days to be pretty much over.

 

Que, Smooth Solutions? ;-)

[Ocean Chick]

I agree.  However, unfortunately the only examples of this I have seen have been men.  So, I would like to see a show that features obese or super-obese women with careers and how they live their lives.  I would find that interesting to watch.

 

My sister-in-law was super obese and held a very good job.  She was being trained to replace her boss when he retired.  Unfortunately she got cancer and died before that happened, but it's not that rare for obese women to have good jobs.

 

I've not yet watched this show, but from reading all these comments it sounds like Whitney is Ruby 2.0, with an lots of excuses why she can't lose weight.  Banana and mayo sandwich on white bread?  Even reading that makes me lose my appetite.  Heh.

[Shibori]

As a PCOS sufferer myself, I'm actually offended that she seems to equate PCOS with some type of disability.  There are a lot of annoying things about PCOS, and the infertility issues can be devastating, but she's not missing a limb, or diabetic (yet), or blind, or paralyzed.  Those kinds of things take away your choice and limit your options, and she still has lots of options.  I could see if she had tried the typical interventions and they didn't work, but it seems like she's latched on to this little bit of dancing as a cure all, and completely unwilling to address the dietary issues.  

 

It doesn't have to be about counting calories.  In fact, I encourage anyone who's still supporting the "3500 calories is a pound, you need X calories a day, cut 500 a day for a week and you'll lose a pound" thing to actually try it and see if your own weight responds as predicted by the formula.  It rarely does, and for a million different reasons.  I can tell you from experience (and with incredibly detailed food journaling) that there have been days I only ate 800 calories and gained a pound and a half the next day. There have been days when I ate over 3000 calories and lost two pounds the next day (just this past Monday, actually).  I will say that the 800 calorie day was nothing but frozen pizzas and other processed crap with very little water to drink, and the 3000 calorie day was all food I cooked from scratch with unprocessed but full fat ingredients and where I drank plenty of water.  She has all the time in the world, no job, no responsibilities, how about eating real food for a week and see what happens?  Try cooking something?

 

I guess I'm pissed (though not surprised- TLC) that this show actually ends up reinforcing stereotypes rather than challenging them.  As a self-anointed spokesperson for the PCOS set, she doing an awful job.

[QueBueno]

Que, Smooth Solutions? ;-)

Yep, Smooth Solutions. The reason I got angry with them and stopped going was that they encourage you to buy packages of discounted treatments, which I did. I'd bought a package of six which was at maybe a 20% discount. My next visit, they were selling the same package for half of what I'd paid. They wouldn't refund me for five sessions at the new price. So yeah, they're scummy but the results were good. (Sorry for the offtopic post!)

[PityFree]

Oh, you guys - just get a Tria hair removal laser for home use. It's brilliant, easy, and you'll never end up having to have your parents shave you. I think even Whitney could reach her legs with it.

Whitney kept talking about laser hair removal so I think a home method would be perfect for her. What is she going to do: have her mom shave her every day? (The talk about boundries? Nope. If you are 30, live at home for free, and need your mom to help groom you, you don't get to complain about boundries.)

Edited January 29, 2015 by PityFree

[Shibori]

I don't understand how it can take so long to choreograph a dance class. Isn't it basically Zumba (step, kick, turn x infinity)? I mean, especially since it's a "big girls'" class there will probably be a limited number of moves because mobility may be an issue (based on Whitney's personal training session.

When I've gone to Zumba, each song has its own dance, and each instructor may have like, 12 songs they do regularly, so each class might use 6-7 of those 12.  Within each song, there are step sequences that repeat throughout the song- like within a song, the steps are the same every time the chorus comes up.  That allows you to pick up the dance pretty well by the end of the song, even if it's your first time doing it, and once you've done that instructor's dances a few times, you can follow along pretty well.  So she would need to choreograph a few songs to start, but could use them over and over again for other classes.

 

A more traditional dance class, on the other hand, would usually start with a warmup and then the rest of the class would be learning a combination, or a few, or maybe parts of a larger dance that future sessions of that class will add to.  But then you'd only need a small amount of choreography for each class, and more choreography for each successive session.

 

Either way, getting ready for the first class might take some time, but preparing for classes after that really shouldn't.  And I mean, this is her only job, so I'm not that sympathetic.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Shibori

[TonyasBlueEyeshado]

Her PCOS is world's biggest sham. I am Whitney's age, diagnosed with the double whammy of Endometriosis and PCOS approximately a decade ago. Guess what? I weigh 120lbs. Is it a difficult-to-maintain 120lbs? Hell freaking yes! But I cook all my own food, don't eat after 6pm, and can count the number of days I've missed at the gym in the past 17 years on my hands and feet! All of this, in addition to working a full-time job and raising a child.

Does my hair & skin suck? Yeah. Do I pine for pizza? You bet your sweet ass.

Whitney's story is not empowering. It is utter bogosity and a slap in the face for those of us who manage to be productive members of society.

[PityFree]

I think the issue with her being teased in HS was that she was not thin enough or didn't have the right body type to be a professional dancer. I think she was in the normal range in HS - but kids can be a-holes.

 

In HS, I remember some catty girls making mean comments when I had to get a size medium (the horror!!!!!) top for my pom pon practice uniform while other girls got size smalls - and I was not overweight! I just have relatively broad shoulders/rib cage. (I should have been a swimmer instead.)  

Edited February 5, 2015 by PityFree

[Shibori]

Swelling in my feet was the first warning sign of high blood pressure for me.  I was in Target with my mom (a nurse) and mentioned all my shoes seemed too small and that my feet were swollen.  She asked if I'd had my BP taken lately, and we walked over to the pharmacy where they had (then, it's gone now) a machine and my BP was 160/110.  For me that was the beginning of the cascade of problems that go along with obesity (and for me, PCOS), and it started in my early 30s.  Later comes diabetes, gallbladder problems, high cholesterol, and a bunch of other issues.

[shoovenbooty]

I don't know what percentage of her weight issues are symptoms of PCOS (Is it conceivable that PCOS can cause person to gain 100 lb. in a year as Whitney did ?), but one thing is for sure: Despite her acceptance of herself at any weight, she is super-morbidly obese and needs to lose weight.

I wondered the same thing, because I find it odd that her PCOS suddenly seemed to "kick in" when she started college (or, at least, she makes it sound like it did).

The PCOS diagnosis is perplexing. I have one friend who is 5'5" and maybe 110 pounds. She had trouble conceiving (though ultimately did so with the help of in vitro). Then, there's another acquaintance who's 5' and 300+ pounds. She too had trouble getting pregnant but also had IVF resulting in triplets. So, I am again mystified by the range of people there are with the same diagnosis.

PCOS is perplexing and not a one-size-fits-all diagnosis. In my case, my cousin-in-law also has it (we have commiserated together over difficulties getting pregnant) and she is 5'1", probably 100 lbs, and has trouble gaining weight when she's not pregnant. I was an average weight until puberty started, and over one summer I gained 30 lbs without much change in diet or physical activity. I realized after becoming more active that I was able to keep weight off easier, so I started doing sports and cheerleading. Once those activities died down at the end of each school year, my weight would start to creep back up, but never more than a few lbs. I discovered that not only was activity keeping my weight down, but so was my calorie intake. What others eat calorie-wise to lose weight, is what I consume to maintain. And don't even get me started on the male-pattern hair growth I've struggled with for almost 30 years, which is the worst part for me!

It will be a rough road for Whitney, but if she's willing to put in the effort, she can get back to a normal weight range, and maintain it. But she needs to stop blaming PCOS for her obesity.

Edited because I shared a little more info than I felt comfortable with.

Edited February 6, 2015 by shoovenbooty

[riverblue22]

My 28 year old daughter has PCOS, diagnosed during college.  She could probably stand to lose 20 pounds but I think she put that on during cocktail hour with her friends and her social life.  She's never had the weight gain that Whitney attributes to PCOS.

[lolalempick]

Her PCOS is world's biggest sham. I am Whitney's age, diagnosed with the double whammy of Endometriosis and PCOS approximately a decade ago. Guess what? I weigh 120lbs. Is it a difficult-to-maintain 120lbs? Hell freaking yes! But I cook all my own food, don't eat after 6pm, and can count the number of days I've missed at the gym in the past 17 years on my hands and feet! All of this, in addition to working a full-time job and raising a child.

Does my hair & skin suck? Yeah. Do I pine for pizza? You bet your sweet ass.

Whitney's story is not empowering. It is utter bogosity and a slap in the face for those of us who manage to be productive members of society.

I think its important to note that PCOS is a spectrum of symptoms - so no two people have the same symptoms/condition - in its severe form you can expect huge hormonal imbalances, hair growing on the face, bad acne, diabetes... but I agree it doesn't really seem like PCOS is leading to just the weight gain for her and no other (apparent) symptoms.

[Bellalisa]

I just read this article today about a friend of mine which was published online. I didn't know she had PCOS. She went from 330 to losing 128 pounds. 

 

http://fitbottomedgirls.com/2015/02/how-janel-became-an-iron-girl/

 

I mean you can see she has a daily struggle! It's hard but not impossible......

[non sequitur]

I just read this article today about a friend of mine which was published online. I didn't know she had PCOS. She went from 330 to losing 128 pounds. 

 

 

What an inspiring story, especially how athletic she became!  That is amazing.

[lovetheduns]

My sister-in-law was super obese and held a very good job.  She was being trained to replace her boss when he retired.  Unfortunately she got cancer and died before that happened, but it's not that rare for obese women to have good jobs.

 

I've not yet watched this show, but from reading all these comments it sounds like Whitney is Ruby 2.0, with an lots of excuses why she can't lose weight.  Banana and mayo sandwich on white bread?  Even reading that makes me lose my appetite.  Heh.

 

Well I am obese, Whitney has about 140 lbs on me so I guess I am not super-obese but I hold down a corporate job. Heck, I hold down a consulting job and travel 50-100% of the time (via air -- I can fit within an airplane seat so there is that). I made it to the equivalent of a director level for a 50,000+ employee company before I went into consulting.

 

I have worked with some women who were bigger than me and one thing that I think ALL of us had in common is that all of us were very well put together, dressed for our bodies (not painted on spandex Whitney is a fan of nor sleeveless shirts), and most of us were actively trying to lose weight so we were not foreign to the gym or other activities. 

 

If the metric is needing to have a special chair ordered, then none of this woman nor myself were obese enough for that-- I have personally not run across that in the office (people who can't fit into a chair).

[Darknight]

I think Whitney is using PCOS as a crutch.

[Snarklepuss]

I think Whitney is using PCOS as a crutch.

 

My jury is out on that until I see her more of her real attitude towards food.  I figure we might get to see that next season.   I've been doing some reading on PCOS, and from what I can gather, the cause of the weight gain is really insulin resistance which can be brought on by the PCOS.  Being post-menopausal and developing insulin resistance myself I can attest that it's no joke and no crutch that it makes you gain weight that's hell to take off.  In my case I am just getting over a stomach flu/bug and despite going 2 weeks with not much food, I have not lost a single pound.  When I was younger I would have lost at least 4 lbs. by now.  So I don't judge.  I will make my decision on her based on more information.

 

I also don't think everybody who gets PCOS necessarily gets the insulin resistance or they have other metabolic factors that prevent them from gaining a lot of weight.

[notyrmomma]

Bariatric surgery is always an option for PCOS.  Thanks for posting that article, it was very inspiring.

[Aw my lahgs]

I think she has similar eating habits/patterns as the people on My 600 lb life.... She just blames it on her PCOS... Blaming the disease, not herself, for her weight. Does PCOS make weight gain easier and weight loss harder? Sure. But if she were to eat normal food, in normal quantities, with a couple (normal sized) indulgencies a week (ice cream, star bucks, some oreos, chips), she might stand to lose 20 pounds, but NO WAY would she be 400... If she eats a 1200 calorie diet comprised of GOOD food (protein, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, no junk) she WOULD lose weight and plenty..... Especially if she also exercises...

 

In a few years, we'll see her on My 600 lb. (probably in denial like Paulene or idgaf Penny).

[AnJen]

 

It doesn't have to be about counting calories.  In fact, I encourage anyone who's still supporting the "3500 calories is a pound, you need X calories a day, cut 500 a day for a week and you'll lose a pound" thing to actually try it and see if your own weight responds as predicted by the formula.  It rarely does, and for a million different reasons.  I can tell you from experience (and with incredibly detailed food journaling) that there have been days I only ate 800 calories and gained a pound and a half the next day. There have been days when I ate over 3000 calories and lost two pounds the next day (just this past Monday, actually).  I will say that the 800 calorie day was nothing but frozen pizzas and other processed crap with very little water to drink, and the 3000 calorie day was all food I cooked from scratch with unprocessed but full fat ingredients and where I drank plenty of water.  She has all the time in the world, no job, no responsibilities, how about eating real food for a week and see what happens?  Try cooking something?

 

I want to word this politely, but still be clear: you are entirely incorrect.

 

Weight loss is simple. Never easy, but simple. It's basic thermodynamics: energy in vs energy out. If this weren't true, there would be glaringly obvious large-scale examples (for an extreme example, think of the holocaust. Between 6 and 11 million people were starving in concentration camps...if "calories in, calories out" didn't apply to every single person, then there would have been a decently sized group of that 6-11 million that didn't lose much, if any weight during the holocaust. We know that's not true; every last one of them was skeletal. Because they didn't have enough calories going into their bodies, so their bodies burned the energy stored within their cells.) That's just how weight loss works.

 

Now, it's not strictly linear. Many things can affect your weight from day-to-day; I guarantee that if I weighed myself 10 times over the next 3 days, I'd get 10 different readings, and they would be anywhere within a 5lb range. Water weight/bloating, sodium intake, time of day, bowel movements...all of these effect your weight from day to day. This is the problem you've described above, with showing a gain after an 800 calorie day, or a loss after a 3500 calorie day. Everyone's weight naturally fluctuates within that 5lb range.

 

It really is that 1lb is equal to ~3,500 calories. If you want to lose 1lb a week, you really do just need to cut back 500 calories per day, or burn 500 calories extra per day (cutting calories is the easier option there; it's easy to over-estimate the calorie burn from exercise). 

 

And yes, there is a caveat that not all calories are created equally...if you eat 1500 calories/day of junk food, you're still going to lose the same amount of weight as if you eat 1500 calories/day of fresh produce, lean proteins, etc. But you're gonna feel like crap on the junk food, you'll have cravings, and you won't feel satisfied. That's why eating better and not just eating less is required, because those whole, healthy foods are going to keep you full and satiated where the junk food would just make you crave more and feel like you are hungry all the time.

 

But saying that "calories in, calories out" doesn't work for everyone is just categorically untrue. Everyone I know who has succeeded in weight loss (and there are quite a community of us) have one thing in common: that we accepted that the reason we were obese is because we were taking in way too many calories for what we were burning. There might be a tiny (and I do truly mean tiny) percentage of people who have a metabolic condition that means they can't lose weight...but for the vast majority of people in the world, losing weight is completely attainable. I have PCOS, and the difference between myself and Whitney is that I stopped blaming the PCOS and started working to fix my overeating problems.

 

I've been creating a deficit with my own calories, and have settled on a deficit of 1,000 calories/day, which is a weight loss average of 2lbs/week. It really does work; I've lost 70lbs, and have 107 more to go, and it really is just that simple. Of course, simple doesn't mean easy...I still want to eat the foods in the amounts that I used to, because food is comfort for me, but it takes willpower. Once you make up your mind that it is actually possible to do, you can do it.

 

As I said above, weight loss isn't completely linear. Because those things I mentioned can create fluctuations, it's important to not get discouraged easily. I weigh and measure all of my food and track it with Myfitnesspal; I measure my expended daily calories with my Fitbit. I weigh myself once every week or two weeks, and I record the number on the scale without any judgment or expectation of what that number should be, because I know that fluctuation happens. If you do this, and you record the numbers (and if you're a nerd like me, make a graph!), you'll see that the numbers trend downwards at about the rate of 2lbs/week. It takes time to see that pattern; if you're looking for immediate results, you're always going to be disappointed, regardless of what diet you're on. 

 

As above, this post wasn't directed at you, or to be mean; just saw the above quote and wanted to put the correct information out there.

Edited August 6, 2015 by AnJen

[Intuition]

 

The fact of the matter is that even with a "normal" metabolism, Whitney would be just as heavy if she kept up these habits of hers. Studies have shown that metabolism only accounts for a difference of 200-300 calories (meaning you take two people who eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the same, and one is high-metabolism and one is low metabolism...the difference between them is 200-300 calories burned per day.) Is it slightly unfair that the high metabolism person could afford to eat a donut once a week and maintain the same weight as the low metabolism person without any extra exercise? Yeah, I guess. But life's not fair, and we deal with it. Whitney didn't gain 100+lbs in a year, and then more on top of that in later years, because of a low metabolism; she gained it because she eats more calories than she burns.

 

Weight loss with PCOS is also nowhere near as hard as it's made out to be. I have lost 70lbs, and that's with all of the times that I fell off the wagon and wanted to eat loads of junk and not exercise. You don't have to starve, you don't have to go crazy and only eat raw, vegan, sugar-free. You don't have to eat perfectly and never make a mistake. You just have to eat less calories than you burn. That's it. There is no magic secret.

 

Whatever anyone's personal experience may be, no one can speak for how Whitney's body reacts to dieting only their own.  And no two people are the same.  I have read that no two people with PCOS gain or lose the same way.  It may be harder for you to gain weight and easier for you to lose it even with PCOS than for Whitney.  Insulin resistance for anyone is a tough thing to beat and cutting out only 300 calories a day will not even make most normal people lose weight, which is why most diets always cut people down to somewhere around 1500 calories a day.  And it's circular logic to claim that Whitney gained weight not because she has a low metabolism but because she eats more calories than she burns - It's precisely because she has a low metabolism or insulin resistance or both that she doesn't burn calories as efficiently as someone without those issues and gains weight more easily and on less food than a person without that problem.  It is common knowledge that insulin resistance causes a person to put on more weight on less food plus makes them have a much harder time taking it off than if they didn't have the insulin resistance.  That's a double-bind I wouldn't wish on anyone.

[Dirtybubble]

In my experience, people at extremes of the weight spectrum (morbid obesity and emaciation) usually have some sort of psych issue like a trauma history, depression, extreme anxiety, etc.. I don't know about Whitney but I don't think she got to her size out of sheer laziness (just having a constant supply of food to sustain that size takes a lot of effort) or due solely to PCOS. Not saying that this show should go the way of Ruby or that Whitney needs to talk about this stuff on camera, but it's something I think about when I see people as large as Whitney is.

 

 

ITA!  Being 200-300 lbs overweight can't simply be she eats too much.  Well why do you eat too much?  Most over weight people use food as a comfort and being diagnosed with a disease like PCOS can be very scary and the fear may trigger her to over eat and eat junky food.  So in her mind, in a lot of people's mind, the disease is what caused the weight gain simply because they gained the weight around the time they were diagnosed.  *shrug* 

[Snarklepuss]

When someone has condition like Whitney's they can scale back on the food all they want and still gain weight to a point that differs by the person if nothing is done to successfully curtail it.  They need to be on a doctor supervised diet just to maintain let alone lose.  I think Whitney thought she could "manage" herself but she was seriously wrong.  Plus she underestimated how much scaling back it would take and how hard it would be to lose the weight she gained.  I've put on pounds for seemingly no reason before, then scaled back my food intake and stepped up my exercise only to find out I'm still gaining.  Fortunately for me, my gaining stopped at 200 lbs., not 400.  Why she didn't go see a doctor to get on a supervised diet is beyond me.  She's young and immature in a lot of ways so perhaps that's why.  But I see that as the only thing she did wrong.  A lot of people would have reacted sooner before they got that heavy.  I could not see my body going that far out of control without checking myself into my hospital's diet program.  In fact, I should probably do it anyway.  But I've been on doctor supervised diets before, in fact a few of them, and what I've noticed is that they cut back calories severely but don't address the hunger issue.  My theory is that insulin resistance causes extreme hunger on calorie restricted diets, which they rarely address successfully, which is why the diets eventually fail.  You don't just feel hungry, you feel like you're starving to death - i.e., sick.  Before I had insulin resistance (pre-menopause) I could be on those diets and not suffer from intense, debilitating hunger.  One of the previews of the next episode of this show features Whitney claiming she's hungry.  I feel her pain, really.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Snarklepuss

[goodbyeglittergirl]

If Whitney has dieted and dieted and dieted, then her metabolism is probably screwed up from all of that, too - PLUS the insulin resistance and PCOS. 

[ClareWalks]

If Whitney, as she states, eats one big meal per day, she has screwed up her own metabolism just by doing that. This sort of "feast or famine" way of eating is utilized by sumo wrestlers to keep body fat on, yet it is extremely popular among obese people all over the world. 

[rck]

If Whitney, as she states, eats one big meal per day, she has screwed up her own metabolism just by doing that. This sort of "feast or famine" way of eating is utilized by sumo wrestlers to keep body fat on, yet it is extremely popular among obese people all over the world. 

That way of eating is a terrible habit, but from what I understand it's not because your metabolism is any different than if you eat three times a day but because going for a long time without eating makes you prone to binges when you do eat.

 

I'm not overweight but I have similar habits so I sympathize with Whitney. She's doing the right thing by starting to eat more regularly.

[ClareWalks]

That way of eating is a terrible habit, but from what I understand it's not because your metabolism is any different than if you eat three times a day but because going for a long time without eating makes you prone to binges when you do eat.

 

I'm not overweight but I have similar habits so I sympathize with Whitney. She's doing the right thing by starting to eat more regularly.

 

It's primarily because your body stores more of the calories as fat, because it is in chaos thinking "wow, we don't know when we're gonna eat again, we'd better stockpile this shizz." These are not scientific terms, LOL. So if two people both eat 2500 calories a day, but one person eats it in five meals and the other eats it in one, the person who eats 5 meals will generally have a healthier weight, all else being equal.

[leighroda]

I'm going to hell for this, many will probably hate me for it, but I have to say it... For someone who has "danced all of her life" she really isn't *that* good... I don't even mean now, I mean the videos they show when she was smaller. I'm probably being snobby about it, I am very willing to admit that, and maybe it's a matter of an unfortunate clip was picked when they keep showing that college dance clip, but technique wise it was not what I would expect for someone who has danced all of their life. If she's just dancing for the sake of fun and exercise that's fine, more power to her, but she tries to portray that she is/was an expert dancer, and I just do not buy that.

[OnceSane]

Just a reminder: This thread is for discussing anything EXCEPT the show and its participants. Please take the Whitney conversation to another thread.

[Shibori]

I want to word this politely, but still be clear: you are entirely incorrect

Bringing up the Holocaust in a diet thread is an excellent example of Godwin's law, but not particularly good science. Only healthy men deemed fit for work made it past the gas chambers. Someone who was overweight with the modern equivalent of a metabolic disorder wouldn't have made the cut. Every human being will eventually starve to death if denied food long enough. My original point was that the 3,500 calorie in a lb of fat concept will not accurately predict weight loss for all.

Your application of the 3,500 calorie formula is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which would be great- if the human body was a closed system, and if the human body produced energy by setting flame to fuels rather than through a complex metabolic process. All fuels are not created equal, which you can easily demonstrate by putting diesel fuel in a car designed to run on unleaded gasoline, and measuring the energy produced by the engine. Or feeding sugar to someone with type I diabetes.

I would also point out that from an epidemiological standpoint, your comparison group of "everyone you know who has succeeded in weight loss" is not valid, as it is a self-selecting group. Anyone who followed the same method but did not succeed in weight loss would be, by definition, excluded. How long would someone need to prove the rule wrong before the rule isn't a rule anymore? Or should they just keep trying until they prove it right, even if it never happens? Because we all know they're either lying or just not trying hard enough, right? You acknowledge there are some exceptions- those medical conditions deemed a "legitimate" medical excuse. As determined by whom, though? The people in the "success" group? And the beauty is that it becomes a self-reinforcing concept for the success stories: weight loss is really, really hard, so if I succeeded and you didn't, it's because I have more commitment and willpower than you. Acknowledging that it may not be the case for everyone, or even most people, would then diminish the "success," so that's not likely to happen. The entire diet industry is built on the idea that you just aren't trying hard enough, so acknowledging there are other factors would really cut into business.

It's not about trying to be "polite," it's about getting the science right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/28/why-the-most-popular-rule-of-weight-loss-is-completely-wrong/

Edited September 20, 2015 by Shibori

[Dirtybubble]

 

I wanted to give my 2 cents about the obesity vs. anorexia debate.  I have been on both sides of the scale (sort of) I'm 5ft 2in and my top weight was 150lb and my lowest weight was 96lbs.  Both weight gain and weight loss were the result of my diet and not a medical condition or anything else to blame, it was all on me.  And I can say from my personal experience that weight gain & obesity is treated much more with tough love and rudeness than anorexia.  When I was at my top weight the teasing never stopped.  Piggy, slob, lazy, you name it I was called it.  So I started dieting to stop the name calling.  Well dieting turned into obsession with calorie counting  and body image.  The name calling changed to sympathy and handling me with kid gloves when I lost weight.  I was always a shy, quiet person so as a waif of 96lbs I guess people just reacted to what they saw.  I know this isn't the same experience for everyone and I only have guesses as to why people treated me so tenderly when I was so light *shrug* but I just wanted to say that from my POV people saw being large as me just being a lazy slob and me being skinny as a sign something was really wrong and I should be pitied.

 

 

 

 

[Snarklepuss]

Bringing up the Holocaust in a diet thread is an excellent example of Godwin's law, but not particularly good science. Only healthy men deemed fit for work made it past the gas chambers. Someone who was overweight with the modern equivalent of a metabolic disorder wouldn't have made the cut. Every human being will eventually starve to death if denied food long enough. My original point was that the 3,500 calorie in a lb of fat concept will not accurately predict weight loss for all.

Your application of the 3,500 calorie formula is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which would be great- if the human body was a closed system, and if the human body produced energy by setting flame to fuels rather than through a complex metabolic process. All fuels are not created equal, which you can easily demonstrate by putting diesel fuel in a car designed to run on unleaded gasoline, and measuring the energy produced by the engine. Or feeding sugar to someone with type I diabetes.

I would also point out that from an epidemiological standpoint, your comparison group of "everyone you know who has succeeded in weight loss" is not valid, as it is a self-selecting group. Anyone who followed the same method but did not succeed in weight loss would be, by definition, excluded. How long would someone need to prove the rule wrong before the rule isn't a rule anymore? Or should they just keep trying until they prove it right, even if it never happens? Because we all know they're either lying or just not trying hard enough, right? You acknowledge there are some exceptions- those medical conditions deemed a "legitimate" medical excuse. As determined by whom, though? The people in the "success" group? And the beauty is that it becomes a self-reinforcing concept for the success stories: weight loss is really, really hard, so if I succeeded and you didn't, it's because I have more commitment and willpower than you. Acknowledging that it may not be the case for everyone, or even most people, would then diminish the "success," so that's not likely to happen. The entire diet industry is built on the idea that you just aren't trying hard enough, so acknowledging there are other factors would really cut into business.

It's not about trying to be "polite," it's about getting the science right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/28/why-the-most-popular-rule-of-weight-loss-is-completely-wrong/

 

I couldn't cut any of this post - I can't believe I missed it when it was posted - Shibori, if you're out there, I just want you to know that this wins the internet for me today - Perhaps even this month or the entire year.  This is the exact argument I have tried to make over and over again myself - You, however, nailed it.  And thanks for posting that Washington Post article.  I am going to print it out and have it tattooed to my forehead, LOL.  It confirms everything I already knew or suspected but needed to have in article form.

[RCharter]

Your application of the 3,500 calorie formula is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which would be great- if the human body was a closed system, and if the human body produced energy by setting flame to fuels rather than through a complex metabolic process. All fuels are not created equal, which you can easily demonstrate by putting diesel fuel in a car designed to run on unleaded gasoline, and measuring the energy produced by the engine. Or feeding sugar to someone with type I diabetes.

I would also point out that from an epidemiological standpoint, your comparison group of "everyone you know who has succeeded in weight loss" is not valid, as it is a self-selecting group. Anyone who followed the same method but did not succeed in weight loss would be, by definition, excluded. How long would someone need to prove the rule wrong before the rule isn't a rule anymore? Or should they just keep trying until they prove it right, even if it never happens? Because we all know they're either lying or just not trying hard enough, right? You acknowledge there are some exceptions- those medical conditions deemed a "legitimate" medical excuse. As determined by whom, though? The people in the "success" group? And the beauty is that it becomes a self-reinforcing concept for the success stories: weight loss is really, really hard, so if I succeeded and you didn't, it's because I have more commitment and willpower than you. Acknowledging that it may not be the case for everyone, or even most people, would then diminish the "success," so that's not likely to happen. The entire diet industry is built on the idea that you just aren't trying hard enough, so acknowledging there are other factors would really cut into business.

It's not about trying to be "polite," it's about getting the science right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/28/why-the-most-popular-rule-of-weight-loss-is-completely-wrong/

I'm not sure what your point is about t1 diabetes.  But if you feed a t1 diabetic sugar they could theoretically burn it off the same way a normal person would.  They just couldn't because the amount of activity needed to burn off the sugar would be more than they could reasonably do.  Which is why the normal body produces insulin, and t1 diabetics take it externally. It's also why many t1 diabetics will eat carbs and disconnect themselves from an insulin source before a workout.  They realize that they are going to work that sugar off in a workout the same way a normal person would.

 

I was reading through the Washington Post article and what struck me was that it was somehow written with the assumption that people are told to eat the same number of calories as they get smaller.  I've never seen that recommendation from anyone who is losing weight w/o surgery.  I think most people would accept that an obese person eating 4,000 calories a day is likely to lose weight once they cut down to 3,500 calories a day.  But they aren't going to get to a healthy weight eating 3,500 calories even if that would result in initial weight loss.  At some point they would have to cut to 3,000 calories, and than to 2,500 calories as their body gets smaller to maintain weight loss, and at some point they should get down to 1,500 calories a day as their body gets smaller.

 

Not to mention that as far as I could tell from the NIH press release there hadn't been a study done actually testing the validity of the model, so its hard to tell.  

[Snarklepuss]

How much a person has to cut back in order to lose weight depends on the person, their age, height, their activity level, their gender, among other things, according to most diet calculators.  At my age of 57 and at my height (5'2") and weight (just around 200) I am told I need to cut my calorie intake almost in half to lose weight "quickly" whatever that means.  Supposedly I could eat 300 more calories a day to lose weight "slowly" (which I doubt would work for me given my personal metabolic issues but that's another story).  So there is also no "one size fits all" formula for that from person to person either.  Interestingly, when I plugged in 380 lbs. for a 30 year old woman of my height with a "moderately active" lifestyle the ratios didn't come out too different.  It still showed roughly the same proportion of calories as it did for me that would need to be cut before weight loss was possible, both slowly and quickly.  I tried a couple of diet calculators online and the results were similar.  I am sure that's one reason the big diets out there are based on this and why I was eating a 1200 calorie a day diet on most of them.  My problem with 1200 calorie a day diets is that as a woman gets older and goes past menopause, the more she needs every nutrient she gets due to poorer absorption and metabolizing and 1200 calories a day would not provide enough nutrients for optimal energy and health.  I bombard myself with vitamins and supplements as it is to counteract this effect but with so few calories it becomes even more difficult.

[RCharter]

Here is a question for the board -- there are guys that are into really big women, but they are generally called fetishists.  Why is that?  It seems like its just a guy with a preference.  Some guys like boobs, some guys really like butts, some guys are into really skinny women.  We don't call any of these guys fetishists, but it seems like guys that are into really big women get this title.  

[monagatuna]

I think there is a difference between preference and fetish. Fetishes are more consuming than a mere preference. For example I might have a preference for black guys, but fetishizing them would be constantly bringing it up, refusing to date or consider dating anyone but a black guy, and talking about it constantly when talking about dating. If the main reason I'm dating a guy is his race, it's a fetish, whereas a mere preference might attract me to him, but there are a lot of other reasons I would date him.

 

Here's an example: I used to have an Asian boyfriend. I live in an area with a good proportion of Asian men. When we broke up, it got around my graduate school that I had "yellow fever" because my ex was Asian. I was dogpiled by single Asian men who thought all they had to be was Asian for me to go out with them. And many of them were obsessed with the idea of dating a white woman, which is a bit fetishizing itself. Some of them were perfectly fine, attractive, nice, interesting men. But others were ugly, rude, dumb, uninteresting, misogynistic, or even married. Some of them seemed to think just being Asian was enough to date me. Had that been true, it would have been more indicative of a fetish than a preference. Basically, if the main defining feature of attraction is one particular thing, like weight or race or hair color, it's more of a fetish, whereas a preference is watered down by other factors like personality, hobbies, compatibility, and overall attraction. I guess that's a long-winded way of saying a fetish has little to do with the person and more to do with the feature you want in that person. I hope it makes sense, I'm not really describing it well.

[RCharter]

So basically, if you would date EVERY fat woman, its a fetish, but if you would date a subset of fat women its a preference.  There are people who will only date a certain race/hair color/body type, etc etc -- so it makes sense that it becomes a fetish when you would date ANYONE in that subset.

[monagatuna]

That's sort of like a defining characteristic, yeah, I think. There may be more to it, but that's how I differentiate it. 

[Snarklepuss]

I think there is a difference between preference and fetish. Fetishes are more consuming than a mere preference. For example I might have a preference for black guys, but fetishizing them would be constantly bringing it up, refusing to date or consider dating anyone but a black guy, and talking about it constantly when talking about dating. If the main reason I'm dating a guy is his race, it's a fetish, whereas a mere preference might attract me to him, but there are a lot of other reasons I would date him.

 

Here's an example: I used to have an Asian boyfriend. I live in an area with a good proportion of Asian men. When we broke up, it got around my graduate school that I had "yellow fever" because my ex was Asian. I was dogpiled by single Asian men who thought all they had to be was Asian for me to go out with them. And many of them were obsessed with the idea of dating a white woman, which is a bit fetishizing itself. Some of them were perfectly fine, attractive, nice, interesting men. But others were ugly, rude, dumb, uninteresting, misogynistic, or even married. Some of them seemed to think just being Asian was enough to date me. Had that been true, it would have been more indicative of a fetish than a preference. Basically, if the main defining feature of attraction is one particular thing, like weight or race or hair color, it's more of a fetish, whereas a preference is watered down by other factors like personality, hobbies, compatibility, and overall attraction. I guess that's a long-winded way of saying a fetish has little to do with the person and more to do with the feature you want in that person. I hope it makes sense, I'm not really describing it well.

 

I sort of agree, but not exactly - Just having a preference for a "type" or a feature is not technically a sexual fetish as defined by the DSM, nor is being exclusive about that preference a fetish if it extends to general physical characteristics even if other non-physical factors are not considered.  A sexual fetish in the strict sense of the word would include objectification of a body part or parts or other physical attributes that often normally don't cause sexual arousal and focusing on that to the exclusion of most everything else.  I once dated a guy when I was single who told me he liked his women "hairy" and asked me to stop shaving my legs, etc.  I was a little creeped out by that but I liked him so I indulged him - once.  The way he focused on that almost to the exclusion of any other attribute of mine (not to mention any need I might have had) totally turned me off and let's just say that relationship didn't last.  To me it felt like an unhealthy fixation.  I felt like if I didn't stay unshaven he wouldn't be interested in me sexually at all.  It was as if that was the only way he could get turned on.  That's where I think a fetish can go over the line into an unhealthy fixation.  Of course, if you don't want to stick with the pathological, not all fetishes are unhealthy fixations.  I think a lot of men have a mild fetish with women's body parts that doesn't cross over the line into unhealthy/creepy, but then again purely psychological definitions usually concentrate on what's pathological.

 

Of course the term fetish is used more loosely by average people who don't stick within the DSM definitions and use the term to indicate an obsession with something.  For example, I'm just like Stacy London, I have a black jacket fetish.  I must own 15 of them, LOL.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Snarklepuss

[Snarklepuss]

So basically, if you would date EVERY fat woman, its a fetish, but if you would date a subset of fat women its a preference.  There are people who will only date a certain race/hair color/body type, etc etc -- so it makes sense that it becomes a fetish when you would date ANYONE in that subset.

 

Not necessarily - I don't think it means you'd date everyone with that fetishized characteristic.  Even people with fetishes can be more specific than that.  Like one of those guys we all wish we never knew about but learned of on TLC who fetishize their car, but only that particular model in that color, not every car.  So it wouldn't just be fat women, but fat women with cute faces and dark hair, or whatever.  The fetish can be for something that specific.  It would be a preference if the person were OK with dating people that didn't fit that narrow subset.  For example, when I was young I had a preference for policemen.  Most of them in those days were tall, good looking and let's say the uniform only made them look all the more attractive to me.  I dated a few here and there but also dated other men, so in that case it was more of a preference than a fetish.  It would probably have crossed over the line into a fetish if I could only be interested in men if they were policemen.

[Shibori]

Moved over here from the ep thread:

The reason there are obese women with PCOS and thin women with PCOS is related to their diet, but also to the type of PCOS. Women who have never gained weight on PCOS are women who typically eat healthier foods or less calories already; it's very hard to overeat on veggies and lean meats...you would feel full to bursting before the calories caught up with you.

On the other hand, the majority of obese women with PCOS developed the PCOS *after* the obesity; in other words, for most obese women with PCOS, the PCOS is a symptom of the obesity, not the cause. Many see their PCOS symptoms completely disappear following sustained weight loss.

I'm genuinely not trying to be oppositional, but again, I'd really like to see some kind of citation or research to back this up. Because the research I've read, including the NIH piece below say that the *incidence* of things like insulin resistance and hormonal imbalances (like GnRH and FSH) is independent of weight in those with PCOS but that the *severity* of those symptoms IS weight dependent. That's very different from saying obesity caused the PCOS. And I haven't read anything that even attempts to state conclusively that the lack of PCOS weight gain is solely due to dietary choices.

I'm coming from a place of having received contradictory and sometimes bad medical advice from doctors for the treatment of my PCOS in the 20 years since I was diagnosed, so I've found its important to advocate for yourself as a patient and not be afraid to ask questions, while being cognizant of the limitations of my own knowledge.

Here's the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861983/

Edited November 23, 2015 by Shibori

[Snarklepuss]

 

The reason there are obese women with PCOS and thin women with PCOS is related to their diet, but also to the type of PCOS. Women who have never gained weight on PCOS are women who typically eat healthier foods or less calories already; it's very hard to overeat on veggies and lean meats...you would feel full to bursting before the calories caught up with you.

 

I think the reason some women become obese with PCOS has as much to do with their particular genetic makeup as anything else.  When I found out that Babs (Whitney's mother) is a type 2 diabetic, that spoke volumes to me because it seems to run in the family despite one's diet.  Seeing how thin Babs is at an advanced age, there's something about her genetically that's much different from her daughter.  Many women with PCOS develop insulin resistance and become pre-diabetic, which can make some people have trouble managing their weight.  This is well known as a side effect and I don't think they know why it works that way in some people but not others.  I'm sure hormones also play a part in the reason.  It's not just the hormone levels but how sensitive to them a person is and how they work in the body that can differ from one person to the next.  My doctor once told me he thought I was sensitive to my own hormones, which could make me have symptoms of an imbalance even when I didn't have one.  An interesting theory from an award winning doctor.  BTW, even if I ate nothing but lean natural meats and veggies, I'd never be as thin as Babs even at my age of 57.  She's not exactly the most athletic person, either.  I probably get more exercise than she does.

[Snarklepuss]

Moved over here from the ep thread:

I'm genuinely not trying to be oppositional, but again, I'd really like to see some kind of citation or research to back this up. Because the research I've read, including the NIH piece below say that the *incidence* of things like insulin resistance and hormonal imbalances (like GnRH and FSH) is independent of weight in those with PCOS but that the *severity* of those symptoms IS weight dependent. That's very different from saying obesity caused the PCOS. And I haven't read anything that even attempts to state conclusively that the lack of PCOS weight gain is solely due to dietary choices.

 

I'm with you - I haven't seen anything conclusive about just how much weight is gained because of PCOS or how much is diet.  But I think it can also be a matter of simple math or logic.  It's counter-intuitive, but if PCOS makes it harder to lose weight and easier to gain weight, you have a situation in which preventing weight gain can be difficult depending on the person.  I've read that we all gain weight but it's how fast the body burns it off that can make the difference between a fat person and a skinny person even if they ate the same diet.  Depending on their individual issues hormone-wise or other-wise people burn calories at different rates.  A person with PCOS might burn calories slower, depending on their manifestation of the syndrome, which creates a situation where even only a few extra calories can result in weight gain that becomes that much harder to burn off.  A few extra calories a day can pile up if one's body makes it 2 or 3x more difficult to burn off.  Also, For normal people one might have to scale back only a small fraction in order to lose weight while some people might have to scale back to near starvation diet levels to lose anything - and never mind being able to maintain the new weight.  All of this can be true of people with or without PCOS, but I'm thinking that in some people the PCOS makes these symptoms come out in force.