T Nation

MSNBC Article That P*sses Me Off

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24895105/

anyone else find this just more excuses for fat people to say “I can’t get in shape” ? I mean sure, it says that it makes it easier to gain the weight back after losing it, but damn, stop eating at BK and maybe you won’t gain it back. opinions?

You could look at is as an argument to prevent getting fat before the age of 20. I see a lot of kids and I wonder if their parents actually think they will suddenly have a “growth spurt” and absorb the extra 80 pounds they are carrying around.

[quote]Cat Nip wrote:
You could look at is as an argument to prevent getting fat before the age of 20. I see a lot of kids and I wonder if their parents actually think they will suddenly have a “growth spurt” and absorb the extra 80 pounds they are carrying around. [/quote]

That would be the positive you could take from that article, but let’s face it, you know most of the ignorant masses will read that and say, “There’s no point in trying to lose weight because that article said I’m stuck with it.”

exactly. this is the kind of shit I wish they’d keep a secret. don’t have to lie, you’d get in trouble. but don’t tell fat people “oh, you might as well keep eating that cheesecake.”

So, I’ve heard about this before, but never really thought about how it applied to myself until today; What happens if you gain most of your fat cells after the age of 20 and then lose a bunch of weight? Are those pretty much lifelong fat cells, as well?

If anything, that article makes me want to do my cardio.

[quote]Bergman wrote:
So, I’ve heard about this before, but never really thought about how it applied to myself until today; What happens if you gain most of your fat cells after the age of 20 and then lose a bunch of weight? Are those pretty much lifelong fat cells, as well?[/quote]

After the age of 20, unless you became massively obese, you are pretty much stuck with the number of fat cells you have for life unless you get liposuction. You are thinking of this wrong if you think you are somehow going to gain new fat cells after the age of 20 without packing on a TON of body fat to make that happen. Your body would fill the fat cells you have present unless you do something extreme.

The info in this article is not new. Fat CELLS are not the same thing as FAT. Fat CELLS empty and refill based on how much fat you need to store in excess.

That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.[/quote]

What, you think lazy people will see it that way?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bergman wrote:
So, I’ve heard about this before, but never really thought about how it applied to myself until today; What happens if you gain most of your fat cells after the age of 20 and then lose a bunch of weight? Are those pretty much lifelong fat cells, as well?

After the age of 20, unless you became massively obese, you are pretty much stuck with the number of fat cells you have for life unless you get liposuction. You are thinking of this wrong if you think you are somehow going to gain new fat cells after the age of 20 without packing on a TON of body fat to make that happen. Your body would fill the fat cells you have present unless you do something extreme.

The info in this article is not new. Fat CELLS are not the same thing as FAT. Fat CELLS empty and refill based on how much fat you need to store in excess.

That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.[/quote]

Well, I did go from 215 to about 285 in the span of 6 months. Not sure if that’s considered massively obese, but it’s probably close enough to warrant the creation of new fat cells, I’d imagine?

I’m back down to about 245 now, so I’m curious if this little amount of pudge around my midsection will ever go away.

[quote]Bergman wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bergman wrote:
So, I’ve heard about this before, but never really thought about how it applied to myself until today; What happens if you gain most of your fat cells after the age of 20 and then lose a bunch of weight? Are those pretty much lifelong fat cells, as well?

After the age of 20, unless you became massively obese, you are pretty much stuck with the number of fat cells you have for life unless you get liposuction. You are thinking of this wrong if you think you are somehow going to gain new fat cells after the age of 20 without packing on a TON of body fat to make that happen. Your body would fill the fat cells you have present unless you do something extreme.

The info in this article is not new. Fat CELLS are not the same thing as FAT. Fat CELLS empty and refill based on how much fat you need to store in excess.

That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.

Well, I did go from 215 to about 285 in the span of 6 months. Not sure if that’s considered massively obese, but it’s probably close enough to warrant the creation of new fat cells, I’d imagine?

I’m back down to about 245 now, so I’m curious if this little amount of pudge around my midsection will ever go away.
[/quote]

Fat loss is a result of diet. Fat CELLS would not prevent fat LOSS, so your concern doesn’t make much sense.

If you still have fat around your midsection, that has everything with you needing to lose more fat and very little to do with how many MICROSCOPIC cells you have.

[quote]Eppert wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24895105/

anyone else find this just more excuses for fat people to say “I can’t get in shape” ? I mean sure, it says that it makes it easier to gain the weight back after losing it, but damn, stop eating at BK and maybe you won’t gain it back. opinions?[/quote]

The only thing I see from that article is more ammunition for fatties to use as excuses as to why they way they are (God forbid, it couldnt be eating Dunking Donuts every morning, McD’s for lunch, and Papa Johns for supper…) and only stresses the need for eating right and exercising so you dont become resident Mister or Miss Chubb-O

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.

What, you think lazy people will see it that way?[/quote]

I am sure most dumbasses believe everything they see on the news and in the newspaper without question and only at face value. I have pretty much given up expecting people to THINK.

This is the excuse my mom uses for not losing weight.

Her diet is excellent though, just lack of exercise.

As you know, SCIENCE IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!
!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am sure most dumbasses believe everything they see on the news and in the newspaper without question and only at face value. I have pretty much given up expecting people to THINK.[/quote]

At to think that most people look at bodybuilders as muscle bound lummoxes. It’s quite funny considering most could probably pass off as qualified nutritionists.

Oh well, I guess it’s back to lifting my huge triangular iron weights.

I find it highly ironic that some (not I didnt say all) individuals that are highly educated are some of the most ignorant and stupid people Ive known when it comes to nutrition.
Examples Ive personally seen are doctors (which in hindsight really isnt uncommon considering all the pharmacuetical laden brainwashing theyve received in order to become a doctor)

Drugs will NEVER be the solution to good health. And neither will believing that their is a magic pill/solution that will magically make you Miss or Mister BuffBody without doing a lick of work. Unfortuneatly, too many people believe otherwise:(

mainstream nutrition (and everyone associated it that is “licensed”) has pretty much been worthless since the 70’s when they started pushing anti-fat and still do even with mountaing of evidence against it

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Fat loss is a result of diet. Fat CELLS would not prevent fat LOSS, so your concern doesn’t make much sense.

If you still have fat around your midsection, that has everything with you needing to lose more fat and very little to do with how many MICROSCOPIC cells you have.[/quote]

Prof X, your description of fat cells is the best one that I’ve found on any site.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.

What, you think lazy people will see it that way?

I am sure most dumbasses believe everything they see on the news and in the newspaper without question and only at face value. I have pretty much given up expecting people to THINK.[/quote]

I’m not trying to soft pedal fatties or anything, this is a question I’m really curious about. If you have more fat cells, wouldn’t that mean you have more receptors for insulin and other regulatory molecules, allowing you to more quickly or preferentially fill them?

This of course is moot if we allow that most people won’t significantly change their number of fat cells, which I believe is true.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bergman wrote:
So, I’ve heard about this before, but never really thought about how it applied to myself until today; What happens if you gain most of your fat cells after the age of 20 and then lose a bunch of weight? Are those pretty much lifelong fat cells, as well?

After the age of 20, unless you became massively obese, you are pretty much stuck with the number of fat cells you have for life unless you get liposuction. You are thinking of this wrong if you think you are somehow going to gain new fat cells after the age of 20 without packing on a TON of body fat to make that happen. Your body would fill the fat cells you have present unless you do something extreme.

The info in this article is not new. Fat CELLS are not the same thing as FAT. Fat CELLS empty and refill based on how much fat you need to store in excess.

That means it is correct that fat people will not lose fat CELLS but it does not mean they can’t lose FAT.

Well, I did go from 215 to about 285 in the span of 6 months. Not sure if that’s considered massively obese, but it’s probably close enough to warrant the creation of new fat cells, I’d imagine?

I’m back down to about 245 now, so I’m curious if this little amount of pudge around my midsection will ever go away.

Fat loss is a result of diet. Fat CELLS would not prevent fat LOSS, so your concern doesn’t make much sense.

If you still have fat around your midsection, that has everything with you needing to lose more fat and very little to do with how many MICROSCOPIC cells you have.[/quote]

I’m actually perfectly fine with the bodyfat level that I am currently at. I’m not even sure why I mentioned that. My concern, I guess, more lies with the initial bulk possibly making it easier to put on fat in the future. If that 70 pound gain did, in actuality, create a bunch of extra fat cells, then my guess would be yes and I ought to be careful.

Also, X, any clue how much room completely deflated fat cells take up? Is it negligible? This question is more out of curiosity than any sort of personal relevance.