Obesity Discussion Forums

[SheaGrl]

A thinking brain burns more calories than an idle one! The jury is still out on exactly how many calories are burned while thinking, but it has been estimated that about 1.5 calories are burned per minute (or 90 calories per hour).

Not too bad! Anyone feel hungry after intensive thinking?

[hannahlee0711]

I always feel hungry after intensive thinking!

[azamat]

Originally Posted by SheaGrl

A thinking brain burns more calories than an idle one! The jury is still out on exactly how many calories are burned while thinking, but it has been estimated that about 1.5 calories are burned per minute (or 90 calories per hour).

Not too bad! Anyone feel hungry after intensive thinking?

I have noticed that during the days where I have lots of meetings and brain-storming activities (like Tuesdays), I'm much more hungrier then the days where my work days are easy (like Fridays).


I also remember during the 'finals week' in college, I ate almost twice as much then at the beginning of the semester.

If you think about it and look at various great thinkers in our modern history, you might be able to see a correlation between 'famous thinkers', 'influential philosophers' and their healthiness in terms of body weight. People like Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Newton, Freud etc etc (hope I just didnt open a Pandora box)


ps. I do wonder though, how many calories I spent during typing on the keyboard while thinking about this post?! hehe

[Juddan]

It is true to a certain extent. I wouldn't use 'thinking intensely' as a way of exercising though :-)

[Obesity Discussion]

I do feel drained from a long day of work/thinking, but I don't think it's from this! My brain is always on overdrive though....so maybe if I stop thinking I'll put on weight!

[NevOhio]

This is a key question I have noticed that there seems to be little (but some) research on. I am a CPA that has blocks of intensive work (can last for weeks at a time). If I do not supply the brain with carbs (normally white carbs), not only am I exhausted at the end of the day, but I like to say I cease being able to analyze complex concepts. In a word, as a colleague put it, a fog comes over you.

The problem is the brain is not burning the conventional calorie. So, you tend to gain weight. I have seen research that suggests glucose is needed but metabolism does not increase. With added sugar and no way to burn it off, weight is gained.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by NevOhio

This is a key question I have noticed that there seems to be little (but some) research on. I am a CPA that has blocks of intensive work (can last for weeks at a time). If I do not supply the brain with carbs (normally white carbs), not only am I exhausted at the end of the day, but I like to say I cease being able to analyze complex concepts. In a word, as a colleague put it, a fog comes over you.

The problem is the brain is not burning the conventional calorie. So, you tend to gain weight. I have seen research that suggests glucose is needed but metabolism does not increase. With added sugar and no way to burn it off, weight is gained.

Interesting....I seem to be a bit different. When I eat simpler carbs I tend to feel a little more lethargic and less sharp.

I'm a little different than you, as your work seems to go in intensive spurts because you do tax work if I remember right, where I work about 12-16 hours a day 6-7 days a week non-stop as financial controller. Maybe the constant pace makes it easier for me to focus.

My weight gain is directly correlated to whether or not I pig out while working long hours and whether or not I get to the gym.

[monique]

I remember from back in High School Biology my teacher talking about how some people have a tendency to be hypoglycemic and some hyperglycemic. The result is that though we think of sugar creating a "sugar high" like the buzz most kids get from Halloween candy, some people have the opposite reaction and actually get sleepy after too much sugar.

Considering how people with hyperactivity respond in the opposite way to most people to stimulants like caffeine and ridalin, it makes sense that not everybody would react the same to glucose in the brain.

Yet more evidence that human bodies are all different!

~Monique

[NevOhio]

Originally Posted by Obesity Discussion

Interesting....I seem to be a bit different. When I eat simpler carbs I tend to feel a little more lethargic and less sharp.

I'm a little different than you, as your work seems to go in intensive spurts because you do tax work if I remember right, where I work about 12-16 hours a day 6-7 days a week non-stop as financial controller. Maybe the constant pace makes it easier for me to focus.

My weight gain is directly correlated to whether or not I pig out while working long hours and whether or not I get to the gym.

Somehow missed seeing your email when it came in. Oh well.

I have always found this with the simpler carbs: You feel a bit tired for about 1/2 hour after eating them, then the super charger kicks in and I get several hours of intensity and focus.

Back in the early to mid-90's when the really hot theory was that eating right meant a lot of fiber, fruits and vegtables, I tried eating what should be considered this "non-crap food". What happened was the intensity and focus I needed was not there (and I got an upset stomach). I later found out that the fibre caused what has been referred to as "general upper GI intollerance". I have been advised by several doctors not to eat that kind of diet.

So, that is my problem. What interests me about this is what you say you eat to get through the long days. I like to observe what others eat under accounting stress. For years I have watched staff and colleagues eat during busy and non-busy times. The ladies are the most interesting. During non-busy times, they will bring in small salads or other petite little dishes from home. They eat like birds. When the rushes hit, they switch over to heavy duty food. I watched one staff accountant one day (a manager actually) hit Wendy's and have a fully loaded potato, chicken sandwich with cheese and large size frosty. For the busy season that was the type of diet she ate. When it calmed down, it was back to the little dry salad.

Another female colleague of mine this January said that when she started eating like that plus all the tons of candy that appears she said it was stress eating. My theory is that the brain needs lots of carbs to operate and that is a major reason why the professional population's weight is exploding. (With computers we sit much more intensely for longer hours than we did in the late 70's and early 80's).

With that theory I asked her if she could go without the junk food. She said sure she could. She ate that way because she wanted too, not because she needed the food. I said, well I would like to see if you can eat your regular way (i.e. the way she eats when we are not busy). She took it an easy challenge to win. A couple of days later she came in and said "screw you and your theories" (censored). She went back to eating "badly" because eating the diet rich in fibre and nutrition was not cutting brain wise. The fog descends.

So, hearing you do well is an interesting counter point to my emerging theory.

By the way since the melt down last October we have been going six and seven day weeks. I have had maybe three full days off since April 15th. It is just crazy busy (my blocks of time are running together). This does not help trying to cut calories. But, you either do the work when it is there or it won't be there when you need it.

[monique]

NevOhio, I would love to think my brain needs simple sugars, but I think your theory is wishful thinking. Our *mouths* love sweets and I think that's a major part of why they make us feel better. We are born preferring sweets so that we'll drink our mother's breastmilk, whereas we have to learn how to like salty or savory foods. I bet it wasn't so much that your coworker needed junk food to think clearly as she missed that yummy milkshake that was cheering her up on tough days. Personally I crave sweets often but I don't think that means they're good for me, I think it's because I like the taste.

I've never noticed that there are any mental benefits to junk food, or healthy food either. My raw vegan friend INSISTS that the brain works best with only uncooked vegetables, fruit, and nuts. She doesn't even think legumes and grains are healthy! She insists that the way she likes to eat is required for peak performance, which is pretty much what you're doing as well. But if you look around the world different people and cultures all have different ways they like to eat; biggest meal in the morning, or noon, or evening, diets that are vegetarian, or high-protein meat-based, etc. And there's no one culture that is all that much better off as far as I can see. Seems to me the human body is pretty flexible about how it gets its calories.

~Monique

[NevOhio]

Originally Posted by monique

NevOhio, I would love to think my brain needs simple sugars, but I think your theory is wishful thinking. Our *mouths* love sweets and I think that's a major part of why they make us feel better. We are born preferring sweets so that we'll drink our mother's breastmilk, whereas we have to learn how to like salty or savory foods. I bet it wasn't so much that your coworker needed junk food to think clearly as she missed that yummy milkshake that was cheering her up on tough days. Personally I crave sweets often but I don't think that means they're good for me, I think it's because I like the taste.

I've never noticed that there are any mental benefits to junk food, or healthy food either. My raw vegan friend INSISTS that the brain works best with only uncooked vegetables, fruit, and nuts. She doesn't even think legumes and grains are healthy! She insists that the way she likes to eat is required for peak performance, which is pretty much what you're doing as well. But if you look around the world different people and cultures all have different ways they like to eat; biggest meal in the morning, or noon, or evening, diets that are vegetarian, or high-protein meat-based, etc. And there's no one culture that is all that much better off as far as I can see. Seems to me the human body is pretty flexible about how it gets its calories.

~Monique

Monique: I realize that there is a whole lot of complicated chemistry going on in humans. And, I agree with you and I think in the end the research is going to show that the body is pretty adaptable. But that is in essence the problem. As the Endocrinololgist told me, the body is a conservation mechanism.

Once those two issues are really understood, then a lot of other things with weight start to fall into place. If you exercise and your body is programed to be heavy, then why wouldn't the metabolism slow down and not speed up? The opposite of the standard view. If you eat less and your body is programed to be heavy, they why wouldn't the metabolism slow down to maintain the status quo? And then there is the opposite argument, if the body is programed to be thin and you eat more than usual, then why wouldn't the metabolism speed up to maintain?

Where does it say that the fuel that is necessary to operate the brain at a peak intellectual level is in any way coordinated with the fuel the rest of the body needs? Simplified, it is well established that sugars run the brain and protein runs the body.

What if it isn't pure glocose that the brain needs but instead a component of glucose so that the body extracts that component for the brain and sends the rest of the sugar unit on its way? In some people, the balance is flushed from the system. In others it is stored. So, that in the end, two humans might need the same amount of sugar to function equivalently, but one will gain weight and one will not gain weight because of what the body does with the excess. And, what if researchers are finding different levels of hormones in people who are fat and thin and eat the same thing? And, which is the worse outcome, to gain weight and be fat, but be competitive or to find a new line of work which may compensate you at 30% of what you are capable in this society of doing?

I have no wishful thinking on this. I just want to be healthy and lose weight. I gained 100 lbs working my ass off over a four year period (1989 to 1992 + or -). Since that time I have tried everything I can do to get the weight off. Since 1997, lifestyle changes did not work (cutting back on work). Diets and eating patterns have not worked. Exercise has not worked. A combination of the above has not worked. Surgery has not worked.

What has happened? I believe exercise has left me at the high end of health for someone of my weight (today roughly 322 lbs at 6'4"). Blood pressure is normal, Cholesterol with exercise (and a mostly protein diet and Lipitor) is normal, I now eat literally half of what I ate 15 years ago and fight everyday not to gain. I won't even go into what cutting back hours to make sure I got my exercise in and because I just did not have the energy has cost me economically. I find if I do not eat some simple carbs I go into a fog and work either does not get done or the work that gets done is not up to my standards.

After all this and the barrage of the media that you need to hit the gym, or eat a special cookie, or go see a surgeon, or follow Dan Marino's solution I came to the conclusion there was something wrong. I am fat but there are a lot of others who are fat. Some just seem to be couch potatoes. Others seem to work hard to take the weight off. Some seem to have slacker jobs or don't work; others spend long hours working. After a couple of years you look at both sets and mostly everyone remains fat. The ones who work hard always blame themselves: they broke down and ate or quit exercising or got tired of it or whatever. But if exercise and calorie deprevation really worked over the long haul, wouldn't more than a few from the active group show better results? (Lottery winner or not.)

That is when I started looking at some of these alternate ideas. What I have found is not justification or rationalization for where I am. What I have found is that when you slice the hype, the researchers in this area are frustrated. The good surgeons, the endrocrinolgists, the psychologists, most of the nutritionists (who work at the research centers) say the same thing. For those who are really heavy (BMI >35) and must take off significant weight and keep it off, diets don't work. Exercise doesn't work. Bypass surgery works to a degree but there are major issues with it (and I think the ultimate verdict is still out on it). Lap Bank surgery is still an open question.

What they all focus on is hormones. Hormones which regulate the different forms of hunger. Homones that regulate metabolim. Hormones that regulate stress. When the researchers finally get a grip on the hormones is when fat will go away in our society. Until then we need to do what we can to stay as healthy as possible. One of the big things to allow us to stay healthy is NOT to constantly blame ourselves for our hormone imbalance. When someone loses 105 lbs and then puts it back on, understand you are fighting big forces. And, remember the damn media fuels the completely incorrect notion that its your fault (and not hormones which create tidal forces within the body). Another thing is to exercise, but do not get down when it doesn't seem to help you lose weight. Exercise for exercises sake. It pays off in so many ways.

Enough. Back to work on the 4th......

[monique]

I do agree that bodies that are large want to stay large. But I also think it's possible to reprogram our bodies. Once you've been thin 10 or 20 years I bet your body will start trying to preserve the new size. Some people DO succeed, so it must be possible. I think your attitude about exercise is great, it's still good for you no matter what the scale says, so it's worth doing.

I have found that my metabolism is a lot more efficient than the charts say it "should" be, by 500 to 1,000 calories PER DAY. So I don't blame myself for being so heavy, but I also think it's pretty useless to blame my body, since calorie efficiency was a great asset in evolution. This is just what happens when a society has plenty of extra food to go around, and not that much menial physical labor to do! I've started restricting my calories and exercising more and for the last 4 months have been steadily dropping about 2 pounds a week. When I took a week off and "ate normally" I regained 5 pounds. Obviously that's not fair and I know a lot of fat-haters would not understand that this is what the very obese go through when they lose weight, but I don't see my situation as hopeless or feel like all I can do is wait passively for technology to figure out a solution. If I have to limit my calories and increase my exercise forever then I'll just deal with that and find a balance between how much work I can manage and how much weight my health can handle. In my own experience I lost 30 pounds or so once before and it took a few years of not paying any attention at all or owning a scale before I regained it, with interest. I figure that means I can't stop paying attention next time. The worst that could possibly happen is I gain more weight, and that could happen even if I do nothing!

So why not have a little optimism and remember that small minority of those who DO lose weight and keep it off forever? If you were told you had a 1% chance of ever walking again after a spinal injury, would you just wallow in your misfortune or would you do your best to be that 1%? You play the cards you're dealt and being fat is not all that horrible a card to have. I still think it makes more sense to keep struggling and trying new things than to give up.

~Monique

[NevOhio]

Originally Posted by monique

I do agree that bodies that are large want to stay large. But I also think it's possible to reprogram our bodies. Once you've been thin 10 or 20 years I bet your body will start trying to preserve the new size. Some people DO succeed, so it must be possible. I think your attitude about exercise is great, it's still good for you no matter what the scale says, so it's worth doing.

I have found that my metabolism is a lot more efficient than the charts say it "should" be, by 500 to 1,000 calories PER DAY. So I don't blame myself for being so heavy, but I also think it's pretty useless to blame my body, since calorie efficiency was a great asset in evolution. This is just what happens when a society has plenty of extra food to go around, and not that much menial physical labor to do! I've started restricting my calories and exercising more and for the last 4 months have been steadily dropping about 2 pounds a week. When I took a week off and "ate normally" I regained 5 pounds. Obviously that's not fair and I know a lot of fat-haters would not understand that this is what the very obese go through when they lose weight, but I don't see my situation as hopeless or feel like all I can do is wait passively for technology to figure out a solution. If I have to limit my calories and increase my exercise forever then I'll just deal with that and find a balance between how much work I can manage and how much weight my health can handle. In my own experience I lost 30 pounds or so once before and it took a few years of not paying any attention at all or owning a scale before I regained it, with interest. I figure that means I can't stop paying attention next time. The worst that could possibly happen is I gain more weight, and that could happen even if I do nothing!

So why not have a little optimism and remember that small minority of those who DO lose weight and keep it off forever? If you were told you had a 1% chance of ever walking again after a spinal injury, would you just wallow in your misfortune or would you do your best to be that 1%? You play the cards you're dealt and being fat is not all that horrible a card to have. I still think it makes more sense to keep struggling and trying new things than to give up.

~Monique

Again, there is nothing in what you are saying that I really disagree with. And, I like you must keep fighting and will. What I really am addressing is that even if the weight does not come down (or what usually happens its goes down and comes back up) keep going, keep exercising and watch what you eat but don't kill yourself if you have a bad day.

I think the difference between us is that I know what to expect and do not expect to win any lotteries. If the technology eventually works, great. If not, at least I tried and I know the odds. For me that is better than betting on a long shot. For you, maybe you like the long shots. Either way, I think it is a positive way of looking at things.

[monique]

Maybe if I'd had the negative experiences you have I'd feel the same way. But I still think you might win the lottery!

There are a lot of things in life that require many, many attempts before success. Babies don't learn to walk until they've fallen down a whole lot of times! I agree you shouldn't blame yourself if you aren't able to keep weight off despite doing all the right things, but I also think it's important to have some hope for the future and faith in your power to reach your goals! If you expect the worst you give it permission to happen. I know I'm being kind of Pollyanna about this but I don't think you can succeed without believing in yourself, and I think a negative attitude holds you back from really trying your best-- in the back of your mind you're already planning to fail!

I've only been doing this 18 weeks and I'm down 32 pounds. Why should I assume that I can't keep it up long-term? Things are going really well for me and I'm happy, and I'm sure being 32 pounds lighter is good for my body. If I do gain it back, why can't I just lose it again? I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by thinking of yourself as doomed to failure.

~Monique

[jimspeer]

Originally Posted by monique

...I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by thinking of yourself as doomed to failure.

~Monique

Conventional wisdom -- Peale's _Power of Positive Thinking_, the old song, "Put On a Happy Face," etc. -- all maintain that having a positive attitude permits one to achieve unimaginable things. Growing up, my smart-ass friends and I sneered at this bit of folk wisdom. "Polyannaish crap," we said. "vapid, sentimental, wishful thinking."

But when, at mid-life, I changed careers, went to graduate school, and became a psychologist, I discovered that in this case the conventional wisdom is exactly right. Positive thinking does indeed have tremendous power, and a smile really is your umbrella. What's more, contrary to the beliefs of poor sad cynics and pessimists, it doesn't matter if you just pretend to have a positive attitude. Pretense turns into actuality pretty quickly.

Jim

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by jimspeer

Conventional wisdom -- Peale's _Power of Positive Thinking_, the old song, "Put On a Happy Face," etc. -- all maintain that having a positive attitude permits one to achieve unimaginable things. Growing up, my smart-ass friends and I sneered at this bit of folk wisdom. "Polyannaish crap," we said. "vapid, sentimental, wishful thinking."

But when, at mid-life, I changed careers, went to graduate school, and became a psychologist, I discovered that in this case the conventional wisdom is exactly right. Positive thinking does indeed have tremendous power, and a smile really is your umbrella. What's more, contrary to the beliefs of poor sad cynics and pessimists, it doesn't matter if you just pretend to have a positive attitude. Pretense turns into actuality pretty quickly.

Jim

Very well said Jim! Positive thinking has so many amazing powers! People and good things seem to gravitate to those who are in positive moods!