|
So I think we're all aware of the tidal wave of fat that seems to be flooding most of the planet by now. Its spreading into areas where obesity was never an issue in decades past, especially non-first world countries, for example poor Mexico has been fatter than America for the last few years. It also hasn't stopped spreading in places that are traditionally seen as generally overweight, such the United States where more than a third of adults are now considered obese. Obesity has become a bane for poorer, older people, especially racial minorities such as Blacks and Hispanics, and despite being a concern for decades there has been next to no progress in reversing or even slowing the trend in the overall population. There are some success stories though, obesity seems to have fallen among young children in the United States. Through all of this there have been suggestions that we need to rethink our stances on fat. There have been studies performed that suggest dieting simply does not work and telling people to sort themselves out and go on a diet is totally ineffective, 95% of people who go on diets fail to actually keep the weight off in the long term, and the effects of your weight fluctuating wildly over the years as diets come and go can have its own negative health effects. Effectively, if you're overweight its going to be a life long problem for the vast majority of people. Even if you do lose weight it probably won't really help with the health problems associated with obesity, such as heart disease. That doesn't even touch on the Genetic aspects of weight. Out of this comes the suggestion that thinness is practically an impossible thing for most overweight people to achieve in this day and age, while fat is also heavily associated with Gender, Class and Race, as such Thin privilege is a phenomenon comparable to white or male privilege and must be fought alongside them since it penalizes people for their appearance and body,especially women, despite it being mostly out of their control and thinness being a reflection of wealth and power. Shame, in any event, doesn't seem to be having any impact on obesity and probably makes things worse Following on from that is the idea of 'Health At Any Size' HAES, where it is suggested that the effects of fat on health are exaggerated and that health concerns should be less fixated on trying to get people to lose weight and instead avoid putting too much emphasis on their weight, writers like Linda Bacan (heh) point to evidence that overweight people might live longer. As many a GBS thread may suggest both of these ideas of Thin Privilege and HAES have been controversial. Thin privilege is often derided as appropriation of the language of oppression to justify an unhealthy lifestyle by the worst of 'Tumblr activism', while HAES has come under particular fire downplaying the health dangers of weight gain and manipulating evidence to suit their claims, for example the suggestion that overweight people live longer ignores much context, such as terminally ill people losing a ton of weight before they die and the low quality of life an extremely overweight person may have to deal with. Medical professionals often denounce the movement as ignoring the problems of obesity and spreading bad information. On the whole the medical establishment has been very clear about the bad effects of excessive weight gain and the problems it causes for society. So I was curious as to what DnD would think of these issues and how seriously we should take them, is there anything at all of value in HAES? Is there really serious discrimination against the overweight comparable to racial or sexual discrimination? How should we approach the issue of obesity in light of this in the future? For the record, before anyone asks, no I'm not a fat disgusting slob looking to avoid personal responsibility and shovel hamburgers into my mouth day in day out. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Nov 23, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
No. Edit: Sure you don't have to have a body like a underwear model to be healthy but I've never seen anybody in the fat acceptance movement who wasn't well on their way to dying sometime in their 50's from complications due to diabetes's or heart failure. Numlock fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Health at any size is a fallacy, absent something like nanobots that are constantly in ya taking care of the natural consequences of being extremely thin or extremely fat. Or replacing certain organs with robot/artificial parts, in the nearer term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Short answer: No Long answer: For a lot of people obesity is unavoidable, poverty means eating only the shittiest but most filling foods out there with a bare bones health insurance program that will pay for diabetes medication and heart bypasses but not an economically feasible diet, while being overworked in a job that may be physically demanding but not in a way that burns calories. Meanwhile I personally believe that if you're overweight, no one should force you to look like Ryan Gosling/Adrianne Palicki. It's like smoking, if you want to up your risk of dying before 50, go right on ahead and try not to take anyone down with you. However no one in the Thin Privilege movement looks at it that way and that's what makes them so insufferable and impossible to take seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Cheapest in terms of caloric density maybe, but most filling definitely not. Many processed foods are specifically designed to not be filling. From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&:quote:To get a better feel for their work, I called on Steven Witherly, a food scientist who wrote a fascinating guide for industry insiders titled, “Why Humans Like Junk Food.” I brought him two shopping bags filled with a variety of chips to taste. He zeroed right in on the Cheetos. “This,” Witherly said, “is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.” He ticked off a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say more. But the one he focused on most was the puff’s uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. “It’s called vanishing caloric density,” Witherly said. “If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there’s no calories in it . . . you can just keep eating it forever.” Sugary drinks are the best/worst example of that, as our bodies don't handle liquid calories well at all: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...d626a36e215.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Why should I trust the medical opinions of people who are not medical professionals? Does the 'Health at Any Size' movement have more rigorous and accurate evidence than the mountains doctors have regarding health and obesity? It doesn't seem so. There is a huge difference between acknowledging that obesity is a difficult thing to lose (and comes with its own consequences after the fact) and implying that because it is, we shouldn't even try. Nobody should just give up when it comes to issues of personal well-being. In a lot of ways the HAES movement is accepting of a society that facilitates the poor health of poor individuals. It wants to keep elements of the status quo even when it decries discrimination against overweight individuals. It is a social movement that does not promise much beneficial social change. Chelb fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Also as near as I can figure, the "health at any weight" slogan and related stuff started out as meaning "even if it's really hard for you to get to an ideal weight, you can still do other things to be as healthy as possible considering your weight". It's just that over time, dull witted people took the wrong meaning from it, that you can be equally as healthy at stick thin anorexic or 700 pound tubby as at a normal weight. And that's simply not true, unless the healthy weight person has numerous diseases and organ problems at least!  You get too skinny or fat, and you start having a hard ceiling on how good your health can actually be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Absolutely not. It is a problem that getting and staying healthy is overly difficult for some people, but the solution is to make it easier for them. Not to encourage them to give up and say it's impossible so just be happy the way you are, or entertain the delusion that they're not going to die of a heart attack before 50, or accuse others of having "thin privilege". The correct solution doesn't preclude treating people with equal respect regardless of their weight, but I guess at someone point, people felt that wasn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Health at any size is a fallacy fishmech is correct about this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Through all of this there have been suggestions that we need to rethink our stances on fat. There have been studies performed that suggest dieting simply does not work and telling people to sort themselves out and go on a diet is totally ineffective, 95% of people who go on diets fail to actually keep the weight off in the long term, and the effects of your weight fluctuating wildly over the years as diets come and go can have its own negative health effects. Effectively, if you're overweight its going to be a life long problem for the vast majority of people. Even if you do lose weight it probably won't really help with the health problems associated with obesity, such as heart disease. That doesn't even touch on the Genetic aspects of weight. This paragraph is a good example of the terrible misinformation that gets spread whenever weight-loss is discussed. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._healthier.html This article does not actually provide any evidence that diets don't work. It argues instead that diets are not worth the effort. In fact, the article doesn't even mention a particular diet, except a single diet which seems to work pretty well (The dieting woman kept her weight off). Claiming that weight loss does not affect levels of blood pressure, cholesterol etc. it cites this paper. One pg 866, you can see that the average amount of weight lost among participants was 2 pounds, a completely irrelevant number. The article also mentions the second paper you have linked. http://www.clinicalendocrinologynew...491e565887.html Read the second paragraph, weight loss through diet and exercise decreased risk of kidney disease, depression, and care costs. So, it does reduce the risk of health problems, and pushing attention onto the risk of heart disease is dishonest. Another important thing, the subjects of the study all had type 2 diabetes to begin. That's a disease with its own consequences, one that doesn't go away with weight loss, but can be prevented by losing weight before it develops. Really It's mostly bs. The most proven way of losing weight is to limit how much you eat. It is physically impossible for your body to conjure up calories out of thin air. People who can't lose weight, or regain their weight, are eating more than they should. I don't think people should shame and disrespect anybody, because stressing somebody isn't going to help things at all, but weight loss is entirely a self-directed thing that is easily controllable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I suppose I struggle with "fat acceptance" or whatever because I actually was obese at one point, 5'7" & 237 lbs (currently around 165 lbs now, still slightly overweight), and now I'm not anymore, because I made just a few changes to my diet and exercised/walked a tiny bit. One of the biggest things I did was simply to stop drinking soda, only low fat milk/water/black coffee. I swear to god I must have lost like 20+ lbs just not drinking sugar anymore. Lately I've cut out sugar/white flour completely and I feel so much better mentally and physically. I am not a paragon of self control or motivation or whatever, in fact I'm kind of a huge gently caress up, but I just changed some habits, and I wasn't as disgusting anymore. Like, you can't make one change, like not drinking soda anymore? Make one loving change! You will be less fat. You won't miss soda; soon you will be astonished at how the Coca Cola Corporation has normalized the drinking of sugar at every meal. I guess I have a little bit of an I-did-it-why-can't-you attitude, which I realize is unattractive, but it's how I feel. Reaganomicon fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This paragraph is a good example of the terrible misinformation that gets spread whenever weight-loss is discussed. To be clear I don't actually have any respect for HAES, I was trying to show the arguments from their perspective but I think that they've generally shown to be more about taking evidence and studies out of context to beef up their arguments while sowing suspicion about medical professionals that really do know better, I probably didn't make that clear enough later in my post. Here are some other studies that deflate any idea of truly healthy obesity: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1784291 http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2087915 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794119 http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/680536/ That said there are a small number of things that they bring up that are difficult to ignore, the point about long term weight loss from structured programs is one of them: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full The 95% weight loss failure rate is a massive exaggeration but most people simply cannot keep the weight off after a period of about five years of initial loss, most of it is coming back on. To keep it off most people need to get themselves into a state of permanent lifestyle change WRT exercise and diet, which is at odds with the tendency for diets to be seen as a temporary thing. The average person is reducing their weight by a small percentage from where they began. Now admittedly this concerns a number of diets without distinguishing them in terms of quality (as does most of the public), here's a study concerning better dieting practices, they're quite successful but are very intensive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183129/ quote:Really This is what annoys me more in this debate, its incredibly easy to just tell people to stop eating and that weight loss is self-directed and easily controllable, we've been doing it for decades and evidently it hasn't made a lick of difference on a large scale. People are getting fatter just about everywhere, we'll always get somebody like the poster above me saying 'Well I did it easy enough, why can't you?' but people are just not losing weight at all effectively despite vast amounts of time and money spent on diets or similar programs. Evidently its a lifestyle problem and we're failing to address it, what gives? Fister Roboto posted:Absolutely not. It is a problem that getting and staying healthy is overly difficult for some people, but the solution is to make it easier for them. Not to encourage them to give up and say it's impossible so just be happy the way you are, or entertain the delusion that they're not going to die of a heart attack before 50, or accuse others of having "thin privilege". The correct solution doesn't preclude treating people with equal respect regardless of their weight, but I guess at someone point, people felt that wasn't enough. You seem skeptical about the notion of thin privilege, but there seems to be something going on, for example fat women are usually treated more harshly by male jurors, and fatter women seem to earn less than their thinner counterparts, it seems to more harshly effect women, probably as a side effect of notions of attractiveness, though a lot of this could also be related to class and race factors that haven't been taken into account here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:This is what annoys me more in this debate, its incredibly easy to just tell people to stop eating and that weight loss is self-directed and easily controllable, we've been doing it for decades and evidently it hasn't made a lick of difference on a large scale. People are getting fatter just about everywhere, we'll always get somebody like the poster above me saying 'Well I did it easy enough, why can't you?' but people are just not losing weight at all effectively despite vast amounts of time and money spent on diets or similar programs. Evidently its a lifestyle problem and we're failing to address it, what gives? It's a problem of misinformation and general ignorance. People suck at doing research and people suck even more at discerning actual research from bullshit like that slate article. Most people simply don't know how to discern truth from farts, which is why the diet pill industry is valued in the billions annually. The result is people try so much stuff that *doesn't* actually involve managing caloric intake, and then complain about how 'diet' and exercise just don't work! quote:You seem skeptical about the notion of thin privilege, but there seems to be something going on, for example fat women are usually treated more harshly by male jurors, and fatter women seem to earn less than their thinner counterparts, it seems to more harshly effect women, probably as a side effect of notions of attractiveness, though a lot of this could also be related to class and race factors that haven't been taken into account here. 'Thin Privilege' is a thing, but labeling it as 'privilege' is pretty drat offensive to people who are marginalized and have no way of personally fixing it. If you want to take advantage of all the benefits of being not fat, then eat less. If you want to take advantage of all the benefits of being white or male, then better luck next life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:This is what annoys me more in this debate, its incredibly easy to just tell people to stop eating and that weight loss is self-directed and easily controllable, we've been doing it for decades and evidently it hasn't made a lick of difference on a large scale. People are getting fatter just about everywhere, we'll always get somebody like the poster above me saying 'Well I did it easy enough, why can't you?' but people are just not losing weight at all effectively despite vast amounts of time and money spent on diets or similar programs. Evidently its a lifestyle problem and we're failing to address it, what gives? I agree completely that obesity comes from a person's lifestyle, but there's no other physiological answer to the question of "how can I lose weight". We are seeing some decreases in obesity rates, mainly in young children, but children are the only people that have their diets controlled by others. It really speaks to how obesity is reinforced by your brain and your habits, because this "easy" answer appears to be incredibly difficult. The big issue is that "Lifestyle problems" are beyond the control of medical services, regulatory agencies, or government departments. There are worse things than overeating, and we can't stop people from doing them even when we make them illegal. Fad diets and superfoods et al. are confusing bullshit that hide our own physiology from ourselves, they're practically on the same level of selling snake oil. The problem with packaging solutions is that even though the solution might work, people only understand the packaging. This is how people lose weight through Weight Watchers or something, get satisfied and cancel, and then put the weight back on. The only helpful thing I can imagine is continued reinforcement of the "easy" solution of counting calories and portion size. Unlike economic policy, this is the one true way of weight loss, and the government should outright beg people to ignore other solutions. We should not shame people into losing weight, but allow people an understandable, concrete path to losing weight. There should be no confusion or despair if somebody tries and fails, they should just need to start again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:
In fairness, I think its worth keeping in mind that any kind of fat discrimination falls harder on women and minority women at that than anybody else, something like 55% of Black adult women are now obese so the problems of fat discrimination can't be disassociated from the race and sex elements of it. Additionally the poor state of education, lack of availability of good cheap food and lack of time to exercise makes it very difficult for them to easily fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:How should we approach the issue of obesity in light of this in the future?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Has there been any sort of campaign on a widespread scale that actually reduced obesity rates? I can't think of anything in terms of reversing obesity on a big scale, though I should say, there do seem to have been some successes preventing really young people from fattening up, notably in France which has somehow managed to keep obesity rates closer to Sub-Saharan Africa as opposed to North West Europe, though obesity is still rising there: http://www.oecd.org/france/Obesity-Update-2014-FRANCE_EN.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Has there been any sort of campaign on a widespread scale that actually reduced obesity rates? The obesity epidemic is a new problem so there would be few if any examples anyway if we had actually tried mass campaigns to curb obesity. They might be out there but the one targeting fat kids is the only example I know of. Campaigns would probably need to be directed at preventing obesity more than reducing rates in the current population. Policies could be things like mandating employment or food standards that make a healthy life style attainable for working people, and making the consumption of videogames, doritoes and mountain dew punishable by death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Additionally the poor state of education, lack of availability of good cheap food and lack of time to exercise makes it very difficult for them to easily fix the problem. It depends on how we define "good cheap food." The conservative standby of  beans and rice is cheap, filling, fairly nutritious, and pretty good when made properly (I made some just the other day). But it's never going to be good in the same way that an oreo is, nor is it as cheap in caloric density terms (but that's not necessarily a bad thing if the goal is weight loss). It's also going to taste like a pile of dirt if you just dump plain canned beans on because you never learned how to cook.And exercise isn't really important here. At best it can provide minor benefits compared to diet, at worst it can cause people to overestimate calories they burned and overeat because they "earned" it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Eat less
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I think the biggest issue is that people just haven't gotten used to the idea that you have to pay attention to what you eat. Unless you break out the food scale it's really easy to go a couple hundred calories over on lunch (especially if you fill up your soda for the road) then snack, then dinner, and suddenly you are slowly gaining a pound a month over the next x years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It depends on how we define "good cheap food." The conservative standby of Exercise is good for other reasons, though. Someone who exercises will be healthier than someone who doesn't but weighs the same amount, and if you have a lower body-fat percentage at a given weight, you'll burn more calories just by doing nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This paragraph is a good example of the terrible misinformation that gets spread whenever weight-loss is discussed. The problem is that your entire post is bullshit spoken from a position of privilege, aimed at blaming the marginalized for their own faults. We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. We have substantial evidence of the contrary. We DO have evidence that intentional overeating results in weight gain... that reverses itself as soon as you stop doing it. Meanwhile losing weight by diet and exercise has been clearly debunked repeatedly - it doesn't work on a societal scale, and it barely works on an individual scale - or frequently, it doesn't work at all, thanks to lipases being a bit fidgety. We also have no evidence that weight loss helps with medical outcomes outside very specific cases. We DO have evidence that being overweight protects you from a variety of common health problems - consistent evidence, repeatedly challenged but never disproved. It's called the obesity paradox. It isn't a paradox. We have evidence that being poor, sick and tired makes you fat. And the rich and the privileged do nothing if not keen to find ways to blame the poor for their supposed shortcomings. Health at any size is still dumb though. If you're fat, then you ain't healthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. We have substantial evidence of the contrary. We DO have evidence that intentional overeating results in weight gain... that reverses itself as soon as you stop doing it. Meanwhile losing weight by diet and exercise has been clearly debunked repeatedly - it doesn't work on a societal scale, and it barely works on an individual scale - or frequently, it doesn't work at all, thanks to lipases being a bit fidgety. People spreading lies like this doesn't help either. Eating less resulting in weight loss: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2006.146/full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long http://www.researchgate.net/profile...31630000000.pdf http://www.researchgate.net/profile...b0359000000.pdf Blood lipids after weight loss: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/56/2/320.full.pdf quote:We DO have evidence that being overweight protects you from a variety of common health problems - consistent evidence, repeatedly challenged but never disproved. It's called the obesity paradox. It isn't a paradox. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Using "fat" for "obese". Just "overweight" is not necessarily bad, but there's a point where it's bad. For the rest of it I'll read it before replying. Though, I did mention "societal scale". Proof: The change in obesity since people started preaching low-calorie diets and exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Using "fat" for "obese". Just "overweight" is not necessarily bad, but there's a point where it's bad. That's not how proof works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:
To be fair it is extremely true that for any given person most diets don't work (because most diets have no rational basis to them, and they essentially rely on the hopes that their particular combination of food swill lower the amount of total food you eat to get the result). endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. This isn't true in the least. Check out Nazi German concentration camps, and hell, most areas suffering from long term food shortages during and after wars. Minimal food = losing weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Using "fat" for "obese". Just "overweight" is not necessarily bad, but there's a point where it's bad. You have got to be loving with us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This isn't true in the least. Check out Nazi German concentration camps, and hell, most areas suffering from long term food shortages during and after wars. Minimal food = losing weight. Is this choosing to eat less or not being able to eat? Being poor, tired, stressed and sick fucks up your internal mechanisms regulating how much you eat / store. The Larch posted:That's not how proof works. It's proof what we're doing is not working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Being poor, tired, stressed and sick fucks up your internal mechanisms regulating how much you eat / store. So if we just keep people poor and tired we can harvest them for free energy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Is this choosing to eat less or not being able to eat? Are you trying to make some sort of dumb dichotomy where choosing to eat less doesn't work but being forced to eat the same amount less does? Because that sounds pretty bullshit, op.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
What percentage of people actually have a medical condition that makes losing weight hard? I remember reading an article or a study or something that suggested that most diets fail because the people doing them blatantly cheated or didn't follow the instructions at all. Weight gain and loss depend entirely on the persons own habits, so turning it into some kind of a privilege issue is really dumb. I lost 10 kilos last year through small diet changes and light exercise. I refuse to believe that 95 % of overweight people can't do the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Are you trying to make some sort of dumb dichotomy where choosing to eat less doesn't work but being forced to eat the same amount less does? Because that sounds pretty bullshit, op. It's not a dumb dichotomy - one is where the person themselves chooses how much to eat, and one's where someone else does. Both of these can result in weight loss. However, people do not in general have the ability to resist hunger when tired or stressed. kikkelivelho posted:What percentage of people actually have a medical condition that makes losing weight hard? I remember reading an article or a study or something that suggested that most diets fail because the people doing them blatantly cheated or didn't follow the instructions at all. Weight gain and loss depend entirely on the persons own habits, so turning it into some kind of a privilege issue is really dumb. Over 20% lifetime prevalence for long-term obesity-causing diseases currently. Weight gain and loss have little to nothing to do with the person's habits and everything to do with the environmental pressures set on them. Try starving and still getting work done. It's a delightful feeling. You refuse to believe not everyone is like you, white, privileged, healthy and rich. Series DD Funding posted:People spreading lies like this doesn't help either. I checked all those studies and literally zero of them controlled for factors caused by the methods used for establishing the diets. Counter-studies? Conveniently illegal. Can't expose people to those conditions deliberately in the name of science. So, you're forced to look into studies on the effects of cortisol on sleep, effects of cortisol on weight gain, effects of poor sleep on tissue insulin resistance, effects of insulin resistance on insulin levels (well that one's easy), effects of insulin on lipases, effects of lipases on the body's metabolism, effects of sleep on leptin, ghrelin and the body's ability to process nutrients. I cannot unfortunately not find non-paywalled links to those. The short version is that poor sleep and stress throw metabolism into a lovely state where the body cannot correctly regulate hunger. How the various diseases interplay into this is a chicken and egg scenario, in that we decidedly know which one was first but they're still pretty interdependent. People who do not get proper rest - both mental and physical - get sick AND fat. Fixing this is relatively easy if you have the means to do so, but it requires for the stress (especially involving stress regarding money) to stop and people to have enough time to properly take care of themselves. Blaming fat people for being fat only results in them being sicker and fatter (and studies explicitly back that one up). Fat people trying to diet and exercise while already being exhausted from their daily lives only make themselves miserable - and fatter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I checked all those studies and literally zero of them controlled for factors caused by the methods used for establishing the diets. None of which contradicts what I said. Eating less results in less energy availability resulting in weight loss. The problem is in the eating less, not its effects
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:It's not a dumb dichotomy - one is where the person themselves chooses how much to eat, and one's where someone else does. Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. Hell, this is almost in direct contradiction of this post you made just up the page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. You should phrase this in a way that doesn't cause people to stop reading here and think "lol idiots don't know the laws of thermodynamics" hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You should phrase this in a way that doesn't cause people to stop reading here and think "lol idiots doesn't know the laws of thermodynamics" Actually given what he's posted so far I'm eagerly awaiting him to go full on breathanarian on us. poo poo, have any if you heard of any studies showing bad outcomes from the practice? And don't get me started on isolated case studies, those are grade C evidence at best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: "Almost in direct contradiction" meaning "completely consistent". My initial argument stands. It doesn't work for losing weight on an useful way, because if the people were capable of consistently resisting that hunger they wouldn't have gotten fat in the first place. And all of these studies that result in positive effects regarding weight loss do not do it with only weight loss through diet and exercise, it also involves massive other lifestyle changes, mostly in the way people schedule their time. And the studies generally don't deal with the kind of poor people who don't have the money for doctor-guided therapy, the time to rest or the ability to stop worrying about money - or the very people this epidemic is affecting. Series DD Funding posted:None of which contradicts what I said. Eating less results in less energy availability resulting in weight loss. The problem is in the eating less, not its effects No, which should explain how your point wasn't applicable to mine to begin with. Eating less results in less energy availability which results in weight loss... assuming the lipases work. Which they don't in a statistically significant amount of people. Take these people away from their daily lives and put them in a regimented, doctor-supported schedule and suddenly they begin working again, because it's the stress and lack of rest loving them up, making studying it a problem. And this is assuming the people are capable of eating less and still able to do their daily tasks without a further detriment to their survival (continued employment) - they're already stressed, further fatigue easily pushes them to a point where their work quality is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Eating less results in less energy availability which results in weight loss... assuming the lipases work. Which they don't in a statistically significant amount of people. (citation needed)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
Are you saying that the body doesn't break down its fat reserves when it's starved? e: Because I can find you a whole load of pictures of people on a reduced diet in extremely stressful conditions and spoiler alert they look like skeletons. e2: Otherwise, your point that long-term weight loss is a willpower and lifestyle thing is an important one when looking at how to address the issue. In the same way that simply telling an alcoholic to stop drinking or a smoker to stop smoking is not usually an effective intervention, just telling fat people to stop eating so much is not going to help them even if it is fundamentally the answer to their problems. XMNN fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:00
|
|