I went from 345 pounds to 205 pounds the natural way, so I can speak with some knowledge of the topic. Ambinder’s piece is exactly what one would expect from a guy who went the surgical route. Note this quote:
“On The Biggest Loser, contestants are plucked out of their environment and social circle, sent to a weight-loss boot camp, and forced to radically change their calorie intake and output for several months. That’s one way to lose weight. But who, besides the very rich, or the very idle, can replicate the show’s setup?”
Well, anyone can alter their calorie intake, which is the most important part (how did Ambinder and I get so fat in the first place?). As far as the exercise goes, let’s say you are a single mom of three, to pick the least forgiving setup. You can move in with your parents for a set time period (say, six to eight months) and go completely nuts on working out. It sounds extreme, but extreme situations call for extreme measures.
If it’s impossible to do extreme weight loss when you’re not at the Biggest Loser “Ranch”, then how does Ambinder explain the fact that the contestants continue to lose weight right up to the finale even after they go home and start into their job routine again? I lost my weight while going to law school, for crying out loud. It sucks to eat healthy and exercise all the time, but I had to do it to get the job and the girl I wanted.
I don’t begrudge Ambinder his surgery. He did what he had to do. Just like some people need anti-depressants, some people need bariatric surgery. But for him to say that no one can REALLY lose weight the old fashioned way is horsepucky. If someone on anti-depressants told you Christianity couldn’t make people happy, and that anti-depressants were the only real answer, you wouldn’t take them too seriously, would you?

hogwash.
as was well sussed out in some of the posts here a few weeks ago, it is quite easy to eat fresh and healthy affordably, if people make the effort to do so. and it is simple and free to make the effort to stay active and fit, if people make the effort to do so.
certainly, there are folks with pathological weight problems. but to render people helpless in the face of all of those wendy’s commercials and fried pies that they love so much, is about as big a failure of personal responsibility and self-determination that one can imagine.
sorry.

@ MC
Bravo. And congratulations. Both on your weight loss and your objective comments to this tread. Thank you.

But for him to say that no one can REALLY lose weight the old fashioned way is horsepucky.
Losing the weight is one thing, keeping it off is something else. Long term success rates (5 years or more) are less than 10%. It’s not just a matter of eating right and exercising.

It’s not just a matter of eating right and exercising.
What else could it be besides matching caloric intake with caloric expenditure?

@Rawlins
Thanks for the kind word.

Re: What else could it be besides matching caloric intake with caloric expenditure?
You are leaving out metabolic rates. When people reduce their caloric intake very often their metabolic rate also slows down to compensate, so they end up losing little or no weight. And there are no safe ways to increase metabolism.

You are leaving out metabolic rates. When people reduce their caloric intake very often their metabolic rate also slows down to compensate, so they end up losing little or no weight.
Sure, but that fall under caloric expenditure.
And there are no safe ways to increase metabolism.
Doesn’t exercise increase metabolism?

Drink plenty of coffee. The nervous fidgeting will burn plenty of calories. Repeat until you get heart palpitations and back it off a scooch.

“Doesn’t exercise increase metabolism?”
Bingo

Re: Sure, but that fall under caloric expenditure.
I’m sorry, but you did not read what I wrote.
Re: Doesn’t exercise increase metabolism?
No. You need to learn what metabolism is. It is not a synonym for “activity”. It’s more or less the efficiency at which your body burns its fuel. The more eficient your body is the fewer calories it burns for any given activity– rather like a car’s “miles per gallon” statistic. And human bodies are strongly resistant to becoming less efficient (which is what you want to happen in order to burn more calories). You’ve got millions of years of natural selection working against you on that one.

I like MH’s diet….

You are leaving out metabolic rates. When people reduce their caloric intake very often their metabolic rate also slows down to compensate, so they end up losing little or no weight. And there are no safe ways to increase metabolism.
This only prevents weight loss if the metabolism slows at the exact rate of the calorie drop.
It doesn’t.
It, frankly, can’t. There are limits to efficiency.
As was even mentioned in an aside in the article, controlling calories and exercising works outside of a few edge cases. People just suck at doing it, especially over the long term. This is for a lot of reasons – from those with real metabolism or other issues, to all the environmental factors, to the fact that weight is not the only thing in your life.
I’ve lost around 20 pounds over the past 2.5 months, but I’ve been focusing on it, and have lost it pretty inefficiently timewise. I could do it more efficiently – fewer diet requirements, more taxing exercise, less cooking time, etc – and if I was more time crunched I may not have done it. I don’t know the situation of other people and don’t have much of a standing to simply sneer about exercise and diet when I might have failed as well in their situation.
And more than that, sneering simply doesn’t work. (Or diet and exercise would have taken care of things anyway). At a certain point you have to realize that not everyone can align their personal priorities to match yours – their weight, the ethics of raising their food, their support for whatever charity or issue you happen to prefer. While this doesn’t mean you give up thinking that being fit is a good idea (and, for most, an ideal) it does mean you stop moralizing and try to actually solve the problem by attacking the factors (environmental, biological, social, political, whatever) that make the “default” the wrong position.
Also, due to metabolism and other factors, obesity does have a large genetic correlation – not in that genes mean they can’t get fit, but genes mean Person A is going to become obese when they do x but Person B isn’t. Still, this genetic makeup doesn’t matter if you become active – the correlation between genes and obesity disappears with vigorous activity.
I lost my weight while going to law school, for crying out loud.
Yes, because if there’s a position that screams “in a personally difficult to manage situation and lacking options”, it’s going to law school.

I’m sorry, but no sale. I like Marc, but it’s not anyone else’s fault that he’s carrying around some extra pounds. Unhealthy food is subsidized by government policy (the various agricultural subsidies) and sold aggressively, true, but nobody else puts it in his mouth. Sorry.

Rod, most obesity in the USA has nothing to do with morals.
And in general: the “one size/solution fits all” does not work. Just because Person A did X and lost 50 lbs does *not* mean that Person B can do the same.
Nor does metabolism = activity, as someone mentioned above. There are people (many women) who simply do not lose weight with exercise. For one thing, many women don’t add any significant amount of muscle. (Men have it a lot easier; testosterone increases muscle mass w/ exercise.) And yes, it is possible (esp. if you are a woman) to slow your metabolism down to the point where you can eat 400-500 calories a day and *still not lose weight.* Needless to say, there’s no way to get all one’s necessary nutrition at that low a calorie intake. But for many, this is the endgame of countless diets.
What people need is a clear genetic picture of specifically what level of activity, and what patterns of eating are *most healthy for them.* For instance, if someone needs the equivalent of 10 miles a day of walking and a no-grain, no sweeteners diet (basically vegetables, meat, and dairy), then knowing that early in life will really help them. Likewise, someone who needs to severely restrict fats needs to know that. And these tendencies are probably largely genetic. So “shame and blame” doesn’t do any good; we are talking about metabolic conditions.
Finally, the writer doesn’t help anything with his low self-esteem and self-hatred, referring to his “ugliness,” etc. I seriously question whether someone can make the necessary changes in lifestyle (surgery or not) out of negative motivations like self-loathing, as opposed to a positive outlook based on health and love for one’s body, even though it’s not “socially acceptable” in appearance.

Re: This only prevents weight loss if the metabolism slows at the exact rate of the calorie drop. It doesn’t. It, frankly, can’t. There are limits to efficiency.
What usually happens is that people lose a small amount of weight– and then their metabolic rate adjusts accordingly and they gain it back. This is fairly well understood physology. I am not sure why people are disputing it. And yes, there are limits to efficiency, but those limits go pretty far out. Your metabolism can’t compensate for actual starvation, but that’s not a recommended weight loss strategy.
By the way, I have a bit of an issue with the title of this post. It’s not just the US that has an obesity probnlem. Pretty much the whole world does, anywhere the food supply and personal incomes allow for it.

I’m sympathetic, but I think all Ambinder really proved is that you can’t be a political reporter keeping an insane schedule and drop weight. Check out his Atlantic Wire interview on his reading and information habits. He’s checking twitter feeds on his blackberry the moment he gets out of bed very early in the morning. That’s simply not normal.
I was overweight, but a year ago I leveraged some “environmental factors” (good public transport system) and began to build some of my lifestyle around the priority of eating healthy. So, I sold my car, walk everywhere, create weekly menus that account for every meal. Now I am within the normal BMI.
He may be right that it’s hard to not be obese in America, but I think the problem is more that we are a people who want it all and simply won’t compromise. Nobody made him be a political reporter.

It’s all mental, and how are outside pressure and policies going to change us inside? When I spend time with my husband’s family it’s bizarre how obsessed with food they are, like another universe to me. When they wake up in the morning they are thinking about lunch, and right after lunch they are thinking about dinner. And every day has to be different foods and tastes – mexican, chinese, italian recipes or restaurants in regular rotation. The wide variety in diet pleases us, sure, but it isn’t natural to our human state and it incites appetite to unnatural levels. In cultures or families where people eat generally the same things and same flavors each day, overweight is much less common.

Turmarion, it’s particularly effective and enjoyable when coupled with a chocolate croissant for breakfast. Caffeine + fat + theobromine = yum!

I agree with those who have pointed out that Ambinder did not talk about why he gained weight, he only talked about what he did to try to remove it.
3 weeks ago my modem at home died. I was in a state of shock, it was as if life support had been removed. I recovered, but very slowly. Previously, I would sometimes think back to what life at home was like, when I had no internet connection, when I did things. I do miss being able to Google every new fact I acquire, and learn more about it. But the truth is, I don’t need those facts for any purpose beyond entertainment and mindless acquisitiveness. I still have an internet connection in my office, so I don’t need one at home. I’ll see how long it lasts. But not filling my life with empty calories is my responsibility.

People! Rod! read this gentleman’s research to get off the metabolism merry-get-round.

“Yes, because if there’s a position that screams “in a personally difficult to manage situation and lacking options”, it’s going to law school.”
Ambinder said that the only the “very rich or very idle” could lose extreme amounts of weight the natural way. I was and am not either of those things, and I only mentioned law school as an example of non-idleness. I never claimed that I was “lacking options”, whatever that has to do with it. Did Ambinder “lack options”?

I am old enough to remember the 50′s — we didn’t drink big gulps every day, pop was a treat. Fast food places were just coming in and they served a 1/4 pounder as their big burger. The statistics are that we eat 500 more calories per day now than then — and it shows.
I look back at photos from then and we all look THIN in contrast to today and to what we even think is normal today.

@LL:
I forget who it was (MacIntyre?) who pointed out that a “good” society is one in which the path of least resistance leads to a healthy outcome. By that standard, there are very few aspects of our society that are good. Food’s just one of the many.

“I forget who it was (MacIntyre?) who pointed out that a “good” society is one in which the path of least resistance leads to a healthy outcome”
What? Who said that? The path of least resistance usually leads to sleep, or overindulgence.

Ambinder said that the only the “very rich or very idle” could lose extreme amounts of weight the natural way. I was and am not either of those things, and I only mentioned law school as an example of non-idleness. I never claimed that I was “lacking options”, whatever that has to do with it. Did Ambinder “lack options”?
Sorry, I thought you were making a larger point; I agree Ambinder overstates his case there and it’s not only the “very rich or very idle” that can do it the natural way. (As the comment mentioning his blackberry habit notes, Ambinder’s own approach to his career likely had something to do with his inability to lose weight that way).

MC, do you have any tips for those of us who are on a quest to become un-obese? I feel like, at 28 years old, I’m finally on the right track but it is slow going. Which I don’t mind as long as I’m headed in the right direction. But how do you stay motivated over time? I assume it took a while since you lost a large amount. Kudos to you!

Rawlins,
Doctors and professionals will usually tell you “slow and steady”, but I’m not sure that’s helpful. Yes, I did lose my weight over the course of three or four years, but I went from 295 to 205 in about six months. On the Biggest Loser, they do it even faster than that. It is so much easier to stay motivated when you see the results coming fast and furious (i.e., losing 10 pounds in two weeks rather than six). Someone who loses only a pound or so week after week is not usually going to sustain the energy it takes to stay disciplined.
So how do you lose it that fast? For me it was this simple: Take an amount you want to lose, no matter how ridiculous (when I was 345 my goal was 265, and when I was 295 it was 240). Divide that weight into ambitious but feasible weekly goals, so that you reach your target weight in, let’s say, six months to a year. As you can tell, even at my most furious pace 3-5 pounds was the max I could do on a regular basis. Of course, if you watch TBL, you know that it can be 8 pounds one week and 0 the next. No reason to get discouraged.
To meet those weekly goals, this is what I did: 1500 calories a day (they do 1800 on TBL, but they work out a lot more), and 2-4 hours of exercise per day (I rested on Sundays for religious reasons), 2/3 of which was cardio. I’m talking running as fast as you can go for two hours or so a day; you won’t lost the weight that fast by walking. (Of course, when you’re not running, it helps to walk as much as possible). I didn’t have a trainer; as long as you are soaking your clothes with sweat, you are doing it right. And the kind of food you eat only matters insofar as good foods will fill you up at lower calorie counts; but the calorie count itself is the key.
Now of course none of what I’ve said here is new. The key is sticking with it for all those months and months, and that’s a mental battle, not a physical one. Some things to remember:
1. The laws of biomechanics make it impossible NOT to lose weight if you are eating so little and exercising so much. Keep that in mind whenever you tell yourself that “it can’t be done.”
2. Some days this existence will feel like a living hell. Your legs and stomach will scream at you and you will be sorely tempted to slack off, just a little bit. But I would much rather have this living hell for a few months than live the quiet hell that is obesity FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. That kept me going. My whole family is big. It is a miserable way to be. Remember, remember how much you hate being obese, and you’ll get though the long runs and the hungry nights.
3. NO SLACKING OFF. A lot of professionals talk about cheat days. That only works for people with an otherwise healthy relationship with food. Cheating with food is how you got fat in the first place. Wait until you’ve reached the ultimate goal before you slack off; by the time you look that good your relationship with food will have changed.
4. Most importantly, recognize that if you are to lose the weight, your life can never be the same. You aren’t just “on a diet”; you have changed your diet. You don’t eat the cake at parties. You don’t have seconds. Someone else might be able to do that and not be obese, but you can’t. If that sounds unfair, so be it. The world isn’t going to cut you slack just because you didn’t deserve your bad genes. But the change is absolutely, positively worth it.
If you have any other questions, give me some way to get a hold of you. I’ve already hijacked Mr. Dreher’s blog way too much here, although I hope I am doing God’s work.

Your Name above:
May we also assume that you were unemployed, or only very part-time employed? Most of us do not have hours, plural, a day we could put to that sort of regimen, unless we are willing to quit our jobs, or neglect obligatory responsibilities to home and family.

@Judith: What? Who said that? The path of least resistance usually leads to sleep, or overindulgence.
Not necessarily. If the portions you can buy in a restaurant aren’t belt-busters, you won’t eat as much when you eat out. If everybody around you thinks that living together out of wedlock or teen pregnancy is Just Not Done, you’re less likely to do it. If there isn’t any easy consumer credit, you’re probably not going to be in debt over your head. And so on.
In each of the three hypotheticals, you have to make an effort to behave in a self-destructive manner: specifically order more than one portion in a restaurant; openly or secretly defy social convention and stigma; actively seek out fly-by-night lenders. In each case, the path of least resistance leads to a healthier outcome than defying convention.
That is not so these days, at least not in those particular areas.

Re: If the portions you can buy in a restaurant aren’t belt-busters, you won’t eat as much when you eat out.
There’s no law or even social convention saying you have to clean your plate at a restaurant. I went out for dinner last Sunday and brought half the main meal home and had it for lunch on Monday.

No law or social convention, but it’s not the path of least resistance: you often have to ask for a takeout box, though these days many waiters will suggest one if you haven’t eaten everything. Furthermore, it requires self-control. It is, again, not the path of least resistance.
But if the portion were a healthy size, the path of least resistance would be to eat it and go home. Just as the path of least resistance currently is to eat the current giant-sized portion, and go home.
People who were extra-hungry would have the option of ordering more food; I did that routinely as a teen-aged football player. Nowadays, though, you get extra food whether you ask for it or not.

@Jon
No, as I mentioned above, I was in law school when I lost the weight, which I would hardly call “partly employed”. I lost some of the weight while attending class full time, and the rest while working full time during the summer.
Now, granted, I was single at the time. But here’s the deal: it was only temporary. Once I lost 140 pounds, I didn’t need to exercise more than an hour a day to maintain the loss (and if I didn’t love food so much I could get away with less).
Take an obese father with a job and kids. If he were to spend 2-4 hours a day exercising for the rest of his life, then, yes, the weight loss would not be worth the loss to his family life. But for six to twelve months? So that you can maybe live to see your grandkids or great grandkids grow up, not to mention be in immensely better health while you raise your kids? How traumatized are the families of TBL contestants because their parents went away for 20 weeks or so? Do they regret doing it?
You might say “that’s just TV”, but I did it so I can tell you it’s not just TV. It can be done.
I was extremely obese and I have many people I love who are as well. I know that obese people are usually the victims of bad genes and bad circumstances. But the misconception that “IT’s JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO LOSE WEIGHT!!” does them no favors if it prevents them from having a better life. And let me tell you, it is a much, much better life.

MC,
Thanks for sharing your experience. Like Jon mentioned above, I literally do not have the hours in a day to commit to exercise in that way. I work full time and have a baby and I’m lucky if I can carve out a half an hour to do my Jillian Michaels DVD! I guess slow and steady will have to be the path for me. I’m doing weight watchers–the plan is good and the meetings keep me motivated. It may only be a pound a week, but that’s about all I can manage right now!

NK,
That’s awesome. Given the norm is to gain a few pounds every year, you are doing great. I believe the key to maintaining is lifestyle changes: exercise routine, smaller portion sizes, awareness of emotional eating. When I first had a baby I had trouble finding time to eat. When I ate I was accomplishing something. Unfortunately I fell into the trap of eating when I wasn’t hungry for the sense of accomplishment. Sounds like you’re on the right track.

Dan Berger,
I see what you are saying, I think. That when conventions don’t support right living, people tend to take whatever is available, and do it, right or not.
However, the opposite is also true. In a world of strict convention, many people appear to do quite well by following them. But achievment requires focusing on an endpoint, and working to get it. The path of least resistance does not lead there.

MC,
when I was in college (a physics najor at the Univ. of michigan– so not a slacker curriculum!) had plenty of time on my hands. After all, I was only in clas between two to four hours a day, and while I worked part time, it was mainly at night, and I could do a fair amount of homework there. That left plenty of daylight freetime hours.
Nowadays, my work day eats up ten consecutive hours (counting transit, get ready, and lunch times), then I have a second side job I do at home that consumes another hour or two. Dinner, household chores, errands that can’t be delayed until the weekend, and simple need to relax with a book and a hot bath before bed account for what’s let.
However most people are not morbidly obese, and do not need need to lose weight in the three digit poundage category. I’d be happy to shed 25-30 lbs, which would put me back at my college weight. Yet there seems to be no way to do so. Even when I biked a lot living in St Pete (over an hour a day given clement weather), I managed to lose a grand total of five pounds. No doubt that exercise was good for me, but as a weight loss technique it was fairly ineffectual.

Jon,
No, most people aren’t morbidly obese, but a whole lot of them are, and I think most of us have had them in mind while commenting here.
25 to 30 pounds overweight is not obese, and it’s perfectly sensible for you to decide that losing those pounds is not worth turning your life upside-down for six months. You say that it “seems impossible” to lose the weight; presumably you know that it is possible (again, the laws of biomechanics say so), but I understand why you wouldn’t want to almost-starve yourself and impinge on your family and personal time in order to make it happen. Weight loss can be a miserable experience (like law school!), so I can understand why the merely overweight don’t want to go through it. (I don’t know how tall you are, so I don’t know if 25-30 pounds makes much of a difference on you).
If you were 100+ pounds overweight, though, I would implore you to quit that second job temporarily, even if it meant moving into a smaller place or with your parents or whatever, quit taking those baths and stop reading, in order to lose the weight. The difference in quality of life for me has been more than any amount of money can compensate for. I simply cannot emphasize this enough. You went to college, for which you probably paid thousands of dollars, and forewent thousands more in full-time wages in order to have time to attend. Why? To improve your future career prospects and therefore your quality of life. How is taking time out of life to go from being obese to a normal weight any different? The difference in career prospects alone probably rivals the value of a college education, and it won’t take four years for most people.

Judith, But achievment requires focusing on an endpoint, and working to get it. The path of least resistance does not lead there.
I wasn’t saying people would achieve anything. Most people don’t achieve great things; many people don’t even achieve minor things. But in a Good Society you should expect that going along with the crowd and taking the path of least resistance would at least not be actively unhealthy.