|
fishmech posted:Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: Being fair (although I'm not sure if this is their point) it could be they mean that a person opting to 'eat less' may not be sufficient to lose weight due to their own cognitive bias as to what 'acceptably less' is compared to, say, someone surviving on a much smaller food intake beyond their control. Of course the constituency of those foods matter because tiny amounts of high carb/fat vs. large amounts of protein will have different outcomes.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:(citation needed) 1 XMNN posted:Are you saying that the body doesn't break down it's fat reserves when it's starved? Only when certain criteria are met. These criteria are substantially hosed up by lack of slow-wave sleep and stress hormones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted: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. We also need to divorce the notation that "Fresh=Healthy". Chipotle and Subway are horrible, horrible foods for people that pack in a ton of calories that too many people think are a healthy lunch. Marketing has just become way to good at praying on peoples lack of food size and calories density understanding. At least people by now know McDonalds/Fat Foods is unhealthy but haven't figured out that Subway/Chipotle can be just as bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Only when certain criteria are met. These criteria are substantially hosed up by lack of slow-wave sleep and stress hormones. What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Tell me Tesseraction posted:One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America. HFCS is a problem, but not one causing the current problems. It's sugar, easy for the body to absorb and very cheap, but manageable with calorie restricted diets and education. If you only eat what is put in front of you with no thought process behind shoveling it into your mouth, then it is a major problem. Blister fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Thin is a synonim of wealth? There is no lower class? People who can't afford to eat well and who are on a permanent malnutrition "diet" are privileged at all? Is what you mean by "thin" actual thinness? Or are you talking about a wealthy, fit person who can afford a good gym? That's not thin, that's called being fit, try "health privilege" "born with money privilege" "access to a medical staff privilege" Hormonal conditions that make people gain more weight also have a lot of other problems, it's not healthy and it should be treated. When hormonal issues are stabilized people don't gain as much weight even if they eat the same ammount of food. I also suppose we're talking of real overweight not imagined-overweight due to social pressure and bullying, where people feel overweight despite having a normal or near normal BMI. That's another problem entirely and I think OP's reasoning works well if addressing only those people. But you can't lump everyone together and tell them that they are all healthy when just a fraction of the people you're talking about are actually healthy. You won't help the issue by justifying, naturalizing, or normalizing the conditon of people who can get help... You'd rather lie to a poor person with hormonal problems than giving them proper, free access to the medical staff that could help them? Society must not bully or torture them, children and teenagers who were born with obesity aren't at fault; the parents are. Adults must be responsible for being healthy so the children aren't born obese since birth. Government must be responsible for not leaving poor people outside of a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Yes, I knew what HSL is already. That doesn't provide any evidence for your claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? The body captures calories in the atmosphere through osmosis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:"Almost in direct contradiction" meaning "completely consistent". Nope and nope. You argued there is no evidence that reduced consumption leads to reduced weight. There is assloads of evidence that it does stretching back to the beginnings of history. Your attempt to go "uh I actually meant that some people don't bother to actually eat less" is not the argument you made, it's a ridiculous backpedal that directly contradicts your original argument. Tesseraction posted:One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America. HFCS usage in particular and sweetener use in general has been in a continuous decline since 1998/1999 in America.  It originally rose because of the "low fat" fad, since sugar's a great way to maintain good taste when you drop fat. fishmech fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Well that's a little misleading. While you can indeed survive weeks at a time without eating (assuming a steady intake of water and strong tolerance to pain) as soon as you start eating again your body will long-term store the food in case you go starvation mode again, to say nothing of how badly it'll kill your energy levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:HFCS usage has been in a continuous decline since 1998/1999 in America. But fast enough to reverse a bulbous trend?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But fast enough to reverse a bulbous trend? Fast enough that if the overweight epidemic was truly caused by it, we should be seeing significant reductions after 16 years. Since we haven't seen that, the cause is likely just that we all like to stuff too much food in our mouths which, let's face it, is what evolutionary development incentivized us to do for millennia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Lay off the pop evolutionary psychology. That's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Did I say that was going to happen? No, you'll just die. Well, you'll feel like utter garbage and oh-so-hungry first. Most people stop caring after long enough of that. They diet, see no benefit, grow worse health-wise, their willpower breaks due to the hunger. No amount of dieting would cause weight loss, but it's their fault anyway for not dieting hard enough. fishmech posted:Nope and nope. You argued there is no evidence that reduced consumption leads to reduced weight. There is assloads of evidence that it does stretching back to the beginnings of history. I argued eating less does not work for losing weight, as you'd have noticed had you quoted the entire line. I'm not backpedaling, you've just gotten lost in the straw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well that's a little misleading. While you can indeed survive weeks at a time without eating (assuming a steady intake of water and strong tolerance to pain) as soon as you start eating again your body will long-term store the food in case you go starvation mode again, to say nothing of how badly it'll kill your energy levels. We're not talking about long term survival situations here so it's not misleading at all. With how badly hosed up your entire body would be after weeks without nutrition, getting fat would be the least of your worries. Like losing a large majority of the muscle inside your body that keep your internal organs working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted: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. Fortunately, we have simplified Nutrition labels to make that sort of thing easy. Oh look: Chocolate Cheerios have the same number of calories as plain Cheerios.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fast enough that if the overweight epidemic was truly caused by it, we should be seeing significant reductions after 16 years. Since we haven't seen that, the cause is likely just that we all like to stuff too much food in our mouths which, let's face it, is what evolutionary development incentivized us to do for millennia. Hm, maybe, but that graph in the OP seems to suggest the rate of obesity rose more sharply between 1990 and 2000 than between 2000 and 2010, although I could be wrong on this. Hard to really say against a single, teensy, graph.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Blister posted:We're not talking about long term survival situations here so it's not misleading at all. With how badly hosed up your entire body would be after weeks without nutrition, getting fat would be the least of your worries. Like losing a large majority of the muscle inside your body that keep your internal organs working. Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Did I say that was going to happen? That's because short term diets don't work, have never worked, or will ever work; Ask your general practitioner they'll tell you that poo poo hasn't been taught for as long as they've been alive. Eating less does not mean short term, almost always it means lifestyle change, it's been this way for decades now, human beings in general just want to take the easy route if it's provided. But if someone is obese and not continuing to gain weight, they've likely hit a threshold where their caloric intake matches their expenditure. If they eat less, they will lose weight and their caloric expenditure will go down too, so it's important they continue to eat less forever. Unless they decide to increase their muscle mass or activity levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Summary executions for people being caught drinking soda; I think you'd only have to do a few hundred, then people would learn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast. Yes, that's why fasting is loving stupid Education can only solve this poo poo, make people aware of what they're eating(gently caress or just to skim the back of the box), why it's important to exercise, moderation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I think the HAES movement was originally started as a campaign against the pretty hosed up beauty standards in Western Society, but then spun off into normalizing and apologizing for some pretty blatantly unhealthy behaviors. Using the language of privilege politics as a rhetorical bludgeon. In short: no we should not take HAES seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Hm, maybe, but that graph in the OP seems to suggest the rate of obesity rose more sharply between 1990 and 2000 than between 2000 and 2010, although I could be wrong on this. Hard to really say against a single, teensy, graph. Refined sugar went down at the same time, and from we know of digestion there's no reason to suspect sugar and HFCS would have different effects on the body. Tesseraction posted:Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast. The body is not that sensitive to starvation: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.long?view=long&pmid=15640462
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:I think the HAES movement was originally started as a campaign against the pretty hosed up beauty standards in Western Society, but then spun off into normalizing and apologizing for some pretty blatantly unhealthy behaviors. Using the language of privilege politics as a rhetorical bludgeon. For all the hosed up awful poo poo crossfit suggests, they've started a similar movement called close the gap, which is promoting positive body image, like HAES was intended to do. Except in the opposite direction preaching positive body image for muscular women(who are considered obese by those graphs). It's almost like humans are insecure and hosed up creatures that like to create groups to protect ourselves with. edit: It should also be mentioned, almost all of the statistics on obesity use BMI scale, which hasn't taken into account that since modern people are getting better nutrition, have more muscle mass, denser bone structures, and living longer than when it was first implemented in 1830. There certainly is a rise, but the severity is not as extreme as portrayed Blister fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I argued eating less does not work for losing weight, Which is 100% false and untrue. What don't you get? Tesseraction posted:Hm, maybe, but that graph in the OP seems to suggest the rate of obesity rose more sharply between 1990 and 2000 than between 2000 and 2010, although I could be wrong on this. Hard to really say against a single, teensy, graph. Yeah, but if sugars were the true cause, then we should see a decline since 2000 instead of slower growth. Neo_Crimson posted:I think the HAES movement was originally started as a campaign against the pretty hosed up beauty standards in Western Society, but then spun off into normalizing and apologizing for some pretty blatantly unhealthy behaviors. Using the language of privilege politics as a rhetorical bludgeon. It's that, but it was also about encouraging people to try to be as healthy as possible even if they can't get up from very underweight or down from very overweight. I.e.: not "you are already healthy at every size" but "you can become healthier than you are now at any size, and you should really try".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast. Not really, no. It sounds like you've read the wiki page on the effects of starvation for prolonged weight loss but you've never read any of the actual research. IIRC the commonly cited starvation research was long term with extremely reduced caloric intake (in the 500 calorie range for weeks or months), and nothing less extreme than that triggers the same effects. If you don't eat for two days and then grab a combo meal at McDonalds, you're eating more than they were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Refined sugar went down at the same time, and from we know of digestion there's no reason to suspect sugar and HFCS would have different effects on the body. I know, but I recall there being a problem with HFCS being used as a makeweight in cheap foods. Not living in America I can't check your ingredients labels as readily as England's so I could well be talking about a historical, not current, issue. Series DD Funding posted:The body is not that sensitive to starvation: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.long?view=long&pmid=15640462 Which is fair, although I'll point out that journal is talking about non-obese subjects and was not about diet for weight loss but for markers of longevity. I appreciate its conclusion about sensitivity to fasting within its subject range, though. That said, it does mention a change in insulin, which might have interesting long term results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
There is also a need to regulate the title of nutritionist, because call a dietitian a nutritionist to see how quickly you can get punched in the loving face. One has a college degree with training in biology, the other doesn't need any training. Healthly eating and exercise education across the world is uttery screwed up
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Not really, no. It sounds like you've read the wiki page on the effects of starvation for prolonged weight loss but you've never read any of the actual research. IIRC the commonly cited starvation research was long term with extremely reduced caloric intake (in the 500 calorie range for weeks or months), and nothing less extreme than that triggers the same effects. If you don't eat for two days and then grab a combo meal at McDonalds, you're eating more than they were. Cute pointless dig Mike, but given that I've not glanced at Wikipedia pages on anything raised in this thread it rings a little hollow. As an example of a study, here's one where obese women who fasted between 14 and 22 hours of fasting, and saw that the obese women saw less of a drop in glucose uptake. While this is not itself proof that fasting causes one to gain weight, it suggests that people already obese have a steeper hill to climb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I know, but I recall there being a problem with HFCS being used as a makeweight in cheap foods. Not living in America I can't check your ingredients labels as readily as England's so I could well be talking about a historical, not current, issue. HFCS is solely used en masse due to the sugar tariffs that more than double the price of regular refined sugars in the US versus in Canada, Mexico, the UK, or the global market in general. Without the sugar tariffs being implemented in the 70s (you can see when they took effect in my graph of caloric sweeteners), HFCS would be restricted to niche uses, since it's "naturally" a good deal more expensive to produce and buy than regular refined sugars are. Specifically it can be excellent for "moister" baked goods and a few other niches, but if the sugar tariffs were repealed tomorrow morning, the use of it would be down something like 90% over the next couple years. So in alternate reality America where the tariffs never happened, the graph probably looks about the same except it's refined sugars that spikes and then slowly declines. Heck, it's basically what the Canadians and Australians have done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
There seems to be this unquestioned axiom that being poor makes you fat. I've rarely seen it considered the other way around, that being fat makes you poor. Fat people are provably less likely to get good jobs or to find personal/professional success -- this would obviously mean that they're more likely to remain neutral or shift downwards on the economic class ladder. When you take in account the health complications from obesity, like increased fatigue and stress, and vulnerability to illness, it's not hard to envision a situation where even if obese people manage to get good work they are incapable of putting in the effort or the consistency to be promoted or even to keep their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Brannock posted:There seems to be this unquestioned axiom that being poor makes you fat No there isn't
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
endlessmonotony, I don't think you're putting enough effort into your posts to deserve a direct response. Obesity has lots of causes that would save people money if eliminated. Soft drinks are totally devoid of nutrition besides their sugar content, and a lot of people have them with every meal. Compounding this is how the average American meal size has been normalized as being way bigger than appropriate. Reducing consumption would only save people money, regardless of whether you eat beans and eggs, hash and sausage, whatever etc. The obesity paradox can be understood when taking the conditions of the original studies into account. Data was taken from patients already admitted in a hospital, meaning their symptoms had advanced to state where home-care couldn't help. During the progression of a serious illness, wasting disease, a severe unexplained weight loss, is symptomatic of the end stages of many chronic illnesses. At this point, it is not a calorie deficit that is causing weight loss, but bodily functions shutting down and cells being cannibalized for energy. Wasting disease precedes death. With this context, it's easy to see how the thinnest chronic illness patients in hospitals have a higher mortality rate. Their weight is a product of the disease, and doesn't correlate to the weight of a healthy person. BexGu posted:We also need to divorce the notation that "Fresh=Healthy". Chipotle and Subway are horrible, horrible foods for people that pack in a ton of calories that too many people think are a healthy lunch. Marketing has just become way to good at praying on peoples lack of food size and calories density understanding. At least people by now know McDonalds/Fat Foods is unhealthy but haven't figured out that Subway/Chipotle can be just as bad. Are chipotle nutrition labels accessible at their stores? I've been to subways where they'll give the nutritional data for like, 2-inches of the bread just to make things difficult. I know that chipotle tortillas are some 300-400 calories. fishmech posted:It's that, but it was also about encouraging people to try to be as healthy as possible even if they can't get up from very underweight or down from very overweight. I feel that it's very difficult to produce an internet movement that isn't quickly hijacked by the most vocal, least conscientious people that have the same agenda. HAES nowadays is just a acronym for "let me be fat, do not bother me". I will again reiterate that the most effective way of helping people lose weight is to make it an easy and understandable process. I would have half a mind to ban marketing fad diets and quasi-artisanal millenial processed foods because all they do is prey on people's ignorance and inspire hope in a marketing phrase rather than presenting a solution. People should not be shamed, and should not feel shameful or confused during their weight loss effort, they should be offered the reassurance that the one true way of portion control is always available and beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
^^^ I can't confirm personally, but Chipotle is frequently recommended as decent fast food option for a high protein/low everything else meal for fitness/BB. What's particularly frustrating is that the fatter you are, the easier it is to actually lose weight. Getting the last couple pp of bodyfat is a huge pain in the rear end and involves eating broccoli and chicken breasts forever, but not being a ginormous fatass only really requires gradually reducing portion sizes to reasonable levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Cute pointless dig Mike, but given that I've not glanced at Wikipedia pages on anything raised in this thread it rings a little hollow. 14-22 hours of fasting does not in any way constitute starvation. 14 hours is 8pm to 10am, they skipped the midnight snack and had brunch instead of breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ It definitely is if you get the bowl-less burrito thing. At that point, it's just a bunch of beans, veggies, and meat, which is sort of the musclehead ideal meal. But I don't think the average person really fathoms just how many calories there are in a single tortilla. If the store doesn't display that stuff, that's essentially tricking people who eat there in the hopes that they get healthier. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Chipotle is fine in an athletic context. It's not fine in a "sedentary office worker eating an entire burrito for lunch" context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Fitness is way too subjective, top bodybuilders eat like god drat pigs in off season(and some get tremendously fat as a result), then will get on a calorie restricted diet for months to cut weight for competitions. Olympic weight lifters and power lifters, in general, eat whatever they want so long as they get enough calories and protein in their diets. There isn't any need to add additional protein to a modern persons diet to gain muscle mass unless you're in the extremes(like a BB). Chipotle happens to be a high protein, fat, and fiber source of food that's fine so long as your body has uses for those things. Like rebuilding muscle tissue Blister fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Chipotle is fine in an athletic context. It's not fine in a "sedentary office worker eating an entire burrito for lunch" context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Soft drinks are totally devoid of nutrition besides their sugar content, and a lot of people have them with every meal. It's not like shoving minerals and vitamins and trace metals into them would help though, nor sticking fiber or protein in - this is why talk about "empty calories" or "devoid of nutrition" is meaningless. It doesn't matter how full or empty the calories are, if you consume a lot you're going to get fat barring certain strange metabolic conditions not present in well over 90% of the human population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:29
|
|