Talk:Weight gain

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Point?

This whole page seems like a pointless definition with not much chance to be a full fledged article.

I disagree. Causes of weight gain is something many people wonder about and struggle with. I believe a comprehensive article on the subject would be a very beneficial and useful contribution. Ouizardus (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what type of weight gain is being talked about here. Weight gain can be both positive and negative. If it is the type of weight gain like this where the person went from underweight to a more normal weight, then the weight gain is positive. If the weight gain is gaining fat or getting obese, then it is negative. The article seems to talk about weight gain as if it were all negative and does not look into the context. There is actually an entire industry that is geared towards people trying to gain weight, for example the manufacturers of weight gainers...etc.

Neutrality

I do not like how the article starts off with a negative tone towards weight gain. Not everyone is a 400lb sow. Weight gain can be just as healthy as weight loss, as long as your goal for either is a healthy weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.17.9 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While there may be a point to the article, there is almost no effort to make it analytical in nature. "Symptoms?" Weight gain is not a disease. It can in itself be a symptom of other illnesses, but in no way should the gaining of weight be a bad thing. Will edit the article to be neutral, but it should be the job of the administators and authors. 98.246.86.122 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references

There is a significant number of statements made without any external reference, when there definitely should be. For example, the article states that one pound of fat is equal to 3500 calories. Where did those figures come from? Another example, "When energy intake exceeds energy expenditure (when the body is in positive energy balance), the body can store the excess energy in a dense, high-energy form as fat." This may be common wisdom, but surely there are some scientific sources that can corroborate this, or suggest other possible causes (i.e. some may argue that increased fatty food intake is more strongly correlated with weight gain than increased caloric intake). Ouizardus (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that one pound of fat is equal to 3500 calories is referenced to this page on LIVESTRONG.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calories to lose a pound

I can't believe that a crappy secondary source like livestrong.com is used as a citation. This disgraces wikipedia.

Beyond that, the idea that a deficit of 3500 calories is necessary to lose a pound is incredibly simplistic and stupid, and has a weak empirical foundation. What is the original source for this figure in a peer reviewed scientific publication? I've never been able to find it. Has it been passed around from blog to blog and popular magazine to popular magazine so long that everyone assumes it is correct? If someone can hunt down the original citation, what is the quality of the research? Has it been independently replicated?

It's a circular argument. If you normally eat 2500 calories per day, you cut down to 2000, this is a 3500 calorie per week deficit. If you lose less than one pound per week, you might conclude that your maintenance caloric intake level is actually less than 2500 per day, even though you've eaten 2500 per day for years without gaining and losing weight. Conversely, if you lose more than one pound per week, you might conclude that your maintenance caloric intake level is more than 2500 per day.

The alternative conclusion is that 3500 calories per day is just an average figure, and rather an arbitrary figure, and there's lots of individual variation.

The problem goes beyond individual variation. The maintenance caloric need of a given person or animal depends on many things, and probably varies quite a lot over times. Maybe the whole notion is misguided. One obvious problem is leptin. Assuming normal leptin levels and normal leptin sensitivity, serum concentrations of leptin increase when you reduce caloric intake. When leptin rises, involuntary physical activity (fidgeting, pacing, etc. -- this is an important cause of energy use), and the desire for physical activity (exercise) decreases and resting metabolism decreases. So a deficit of 3500 calories might cause a weight loss of considerably less than 1 pound.

Conversely, if a person (or rat) has been overeating lately, so stored fat is above the body's baseline, and leptin levels are high? Reducing caloric intake may not cause serum leptin levels to fall. In that case, resting metabolism and physical activity might remain high, and a deficit of 3500 calories might cause a weight loss much greater than 1 lb.

Most overweight people, particularly diabetics, are leptin-resistant. Physical activity, desire for physical activity and resting metabolism are low. 108.219.39.17 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original reference for the 3500 kcal rule is Wishnofsky M. Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 1958;6:542–546.

It turns out this "rule" is completely wrong. I agree that Livestrong is not a reliable source. I am removing that information and replacing it with an appropriate source.Michaplot (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]