|
Chipotle is probably the best place to eat if your lifting, and even then it's far from perfect (absolutely shittons of salt).
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
fishmech posted: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. The term "Empty calories" is the biggest reason why almost every piece of junk food is now fortified by adding unnecessary vitamins and nutrients to make it "healthy"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. True that excess calories leads to weight gain, it's important that people don't accidentally give themselves nutrient deficiencies because they cut down on beans but didn't stop drinking sugar water. If sodas could somehow have fiber and protein in them, there'd be less of a case for cutting them out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Blister posted:The term "Empty calories" is the biggest reason why almost every piece of junk food is now fortified by adding unnecessary vitamins and nutrients to make it "healthy" Do they? I have a bag of chips in my cupboard and the nutritional stuff just looks like the remnants of a potato.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Protein and fiber actually would help soda if it's able to cause satiety. Part of why caloric soda is a huge problem is because it's handled like water in the gut. Adding lots of milk protein would help, though at that point you could just make a protein shake
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Blister posted:The term "Empty calories" is the biggest reason why almost every piece of junk food is now fortified by adding unnecessary vitamins and nutrients to make it "healthy"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
I just really don't get how anyone can reconcile the reality that obesity is increasing and the argument that weight is based on factors outside the person's control like genetics. It is certainly true though that we have a lot of misinformation about weight, what works, what doesn't floating around and that vicious shaming is not helpful. But there's a wide gap between "hey maybe you should treat fat people like people" and "lets pretend obesity isn't a health issue and act like it's like being black or being gay". For example, everything in here is simply not true (with the exception of intentional overeating results in weight gain): 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. What's actually at issue is that while all of these things work, they're hard to maintain. There's not a lot of follow-through on the habit changing part to make the changes that diet and exercise can make permanent, which is more of a cognitive issue. Fixing obesity will always involve eating less and/or exercising more. It's just that it's not sufficient to just tell people to do that because you need to also work on fixing the underlying habits and other issues that are contributing to that person's base state of food/exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:True that excess calories leads to weight gain, it's important that people don't accidentally give themselves nutrient deficiencies because they cut down on beans but didn't stop drinking sugar water. Actual vitamin and mineral deficiencies are quite rare in America. Many vitamins and minerals are themselves useful for preservation or other things, or are just plain cheap, so they get sprinkled into nigh on everything. Typically when we see Americans who have vitamin and mineral deficiencies, its cases of extreme poverty where they can't afford and thus don't buy sodas to begin with or people adopting strange dietary restrictions from some fad or another. Separate from all of that too, many deficiencies require chronic lack of the given item in your food to manifest, if you manage to get a small amount once a year then you'll be ok. Sure, it's best to get as much of them in small bits each day just for consistency's sake. Also no that's wrong. It's just as bad to drink 500 calories alongside a meal even if it has fiber as well, and some of the calories are protein. Neo_Crimson posted:Chipotle is probably the best place to eat if your lifting, and even then it's far from perfect (absolutely shittons of salt). For the vast majority of the population, excess salt just means you'll need to piss more often. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted: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. We weren't talking about starvation we were talking about periods of not eating, I used extreme starvation as a counter-productive example, I've now used 14-22 hour fasting as a more common example. Perhaps you could clarify what your hypothesis is rather than snipe about whether or not I read Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I argued eating less does not work for losing weight ITT, the law of conservation of mass does not apply to fat people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:ITT, the law of conservation of mass does not apply to fat people. Is there evidence that supports sugar taxes, better food in schools and other government policies when it comes to long-term reduction in obesity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:To be fair to them, I do think that long term behavorial change does very much require a change in mindset and that dieting and cutting out food groups entirely rarely leads to lasting change. Yes, but saying things like that just get seized upon as an excuse not to do anything at all. Going on a diet is insufficient for long-term weight loss but it is not ineffective. The problem is you have to do more, not that you can avoid doing anything at all. Someone who says dieting or exercise does not work is wrong, period. Someone who says they are part, but not all, of the solution is correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actual vitamin and mineral deficiencies are quite rare in America. Many vitamins and minerals are themselves useful for preservation or other things, or are just plain cheap, so they get sprinkled into nigh on everything. Typically when we see Americans who have vitamin and mineral deficiencies, its cases of extreme poverty where they can't afford and thus don't buy sodas to begin with or people adopting strange dietary restrictions from some fad or another. Separate from all of that too, many deficiencies require chronic lack of the given item in your food to manifest, if you manage to get a small amount once a year then you'll be ok. Sure, it's best to get as much of them in small bits each day just for consistency's sake. I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If there really was a liquid that had nutritional content as a regular meal, I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. This liquid doesn't even exist, so I don't want to talk about it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Q I have a completely serious question: Why does exercise and diet not cause weight loss, in your opinion? After many people losing weight through proper nutrition and burning calories (including myself) I wanted to know why you believe, and how you believe, that the two are not at all linked with weight maintenance. Again, I know this may look like I'm trying to offend someone, and I know saying I'm not trying to is not the same as actually not offending someone but I just want to know the logic. A I am not a biologist. I know that biological systems are extremely complex, and that they can and do alter their processes in response to environment. I know that bodies are not closed systems, and a closed system is the only type in which the thermodynamics argument is a valid one – the calories in < calories out theory. I know a lot of pieces. I don’t know, because no one does, the exact mechanisms or reasons (not that biological systems have to have reasons as we understand them). You were doing pretty well in your phrasing at the beginning, and then you loving lost it. The “logic” is that it is observably true that there is no real way in which the vast majority of fat people can become and stay thin. None. Zip. Zero. There are occasional fat people who become thin and stay thin, like child rapist Jared whoever of Subway fame. But mostly what happens is that somebody has some kind of health problem, gains enough weight to be “overweight”, and then addresses the problem in some fashion (possibly diet or exercise, possibly medication or removing an allergen or some other thing), and the weight comes back off. (This actually supports the set-point theory of weight, that there is a weight that each individual body will preferentially return to, and that sometimes that’s fat and that sometimes that’s thin, but for the vast majority of people there’s no way to bring that point down, although you can damage your metabolism by weight cycling and force that point up.) Or else an actual fat person manages to lose a bunch of weight and brags about it while in the honeymoon phase, but two to five years later, all the weight is back and has probably brought along some more. It’s not a matter of what we believe. It’s a matter of observable loving reality. If you were actually fat, long-term fat not temporarily fat, and lost more than 10% of your body weight and kept it off for more than five years, then you are an extreme outlier statistically. If you fall into one of the other categories – temporarily fat, had a health problem that caused weight gain and corrected it, weren’t actually fat to begin with and just lost the 5-10% or so that it actually is possible for most people to keep off long-term, or you’re still in the honeymoon period and will regain all of it – then you fit the model we’re talking about. But the actual, factual scientific evidence – the evidence we keep on posting and people like you keep on ignoring – says that long-term major weight loss doesn’t work. That aside from extreme outliers, fat people don’t get thin and stay that way. We don’t believe it or logic it, it’s simply fact. Seriously, go read the links in our FAQ, or the blog @bigfatscience One more thing. You knew perfectly well that your question was insulting, that it would upset us. I can tell you did because you kept making excuses for it. The thing is, intention isn’t magic, and if it’s rude for a troll, it’s rude for you, too. Here’s why it’s rude. You’ve clearly seen us respond to people who ask us these questions, so you must have seen us say things like, “Seriously, go read the links in our FAQ, or the blog @bigfatscience.” And apparently you couldn’t be bothered to actually loving do that. Nooooo, you had to demand our time and attention, as if our time is worth less than the time it would take you to go read the poo poo we always loving link to. Seriously, if you wanted to understand, say, geometry, would you take a class or open a book, or would you write to a professor and demand that she take time out of her day to explain all of it to you right then, even though she already wrote the goddamn book for the class you aren’t taking because you think harassing her instead is a great idea. While telling her she’s wrong about it, based on your extremely limited anecdotal experience of Cartesian planes. And asking for her logic in insisting that two of the angles of an isoscolese triangle are always congruent, because you’ve seen a lot of isosceles triangles where they aren’t! Seriously, this is how ignorant, foolish and rude you look. You have no idea. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This liquid doesn't even exist, so I don't want to talk about it anymore. https://www.soylent.com/product/drink/
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Nah, soylent is a weird yuppie scam. The drink that gives the same nutrtional benefits as real food is a myth, and there's no point in arguing about myths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:There are occasional fat people who become thin and stay thin, like child rapist Jared whoever of Subway fame. But mostly what happens is that somebody has some kind of health problem, gains enough weight to be “overweight”, and then addresses the problem in some fashion (possibly diet or exercise, possibly medication or removing an allergen or some other thing), and the weight comes back off. lawl this is the best part of that dumb screed "well, if you redefine people who are able to lose weight (child rapists) as people who had a fixable health problem, you will find once you remove those people from the population that the remaining people are unable to lose weight!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If there really was a liquid that had nutritional content as a regular meal, I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. Look, just take milkshakes for example. They exist, they've actually got a decent amount of protein in them - a 20 ounce serving contains 19 grams of protein, 39% of the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet. It even has 4 grams of fiber, which is is 16% of your RDA. They've also got a goodly amount of vitamins and minerals They're even served by nearly all the same places people are getting soda with their meals. But they're still 702 calories for those 20 ounces, and it's a real bad idea to drink them on a daily basis with a meal a day. (For comparison, a 20 ounce Coca-Cola is only 215 calories). Slim Jim Pickens posted:The drink that gives the same nutrtional benefits as real food is a myth, and there's no point in arguing about myths. You're gonna need to unpack what you think is "real food" and "nutritional benefits". FYI, we've had liquid meals that doctors consider to be wholly suitable for long term living for decades on end, Ensure and other such products. Soylent is bullshit, but only because it manages to cost more than them, be less safe (hello cadminum and lead!), taste worse, and cause horrible farts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
If you remove the people who were able to run a 5k, you will see our studies of the population of people who have attempted a 5k show that it's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Someone who says dieting or exercise does not work is wrong, period. Lots of people like to say exercise is useless because of those studies saying that it doesn't result in weight loss, so if your only goal is to weigh a certain amount it might be technically correct. The problem is that most people's goal isn't to weigh a certain amount, it's to look and feel better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We weren't talking about starvation we were talking about periods of not eating, I used extreme starvation as a counter-productive example, I've now used 14-22 hour fasting as a more common example. Perhaps you could clarify what your hypothesis is rather than snipe about whether or not I read Wikipedia. You were talking about not eating for a day and posted a study about people that didn't eat for 14 hours. I'll go ahead and clarify my hypothesis: you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about with all of this and you're trying to hide behind a bunch of random studies that show anything close to what you're saying, and it's annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Nah, soylent is a weird yuppie scam. Yes 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Lots of people like to say exercise is useless because of those studies saying that it doesn't result in weight loss, so if your only goal is to weigh a certain amount it might be technically correct. The problem is that most people's goal isn't to weigh a certain amount, it's to look and feel better. I mean it's technically correct in the sense that (a) you can turn fat into muscle without a corresponding weight loss and (b) that when you start exercising your appetite goes up so you tend to eat more to counteract the increased calorie burn. But it's part of the basic thermodynamic equation of calories taken in vs. calories burned. It works, but there are those two issues in real-world applications of "just run some more". But the phrasing of "it doesn't work" is just rephrasing a more complicated response in a way to justify doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:To be fair to them, I do think that long term behavorial change does very much require a change in mindset and that dieting and cutting out food groups entirely rarely leads to lasting change. Of course it does, but at a high level, it really is as simple as, 'energy in < energy out = weight loss'. I used to be around BMI 19 and saw myself go to 20, and then 21 on a lovely diet and instead of letting it get out of control, I started counting calories. Am I some hero for seeing this trend and saying, 'This needs to end right now'? I certainly think not. The kinds of people who impulsively eat and don't really care all the way up to bonafide obesity are not the kinds of people who are really willing to make a major lifestyle change. I don't totally fault them, because the other problem is that there are dozens of organizations out there that are ready to make excuses for them, which they then gladly parrot. To that end, I think an honest education is the most important tool. Don't make excuses for other people. That doesn't mean you say, 'you're fat cuz u have no self control'. But instead, it should be, 'Hey, losing weight is a discipline and even after it's gone, you'll have to change your habits forever', and that kind of education should start as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean it's technically correct in the sense that (a) you can turn fat into muscle without a corresponding weight loss and (b) that when you start exercising your appetite goes up so you tend to eat more to counteract the increased calorie burn. You could argue that practically it's pretty much useless for weight loss. The real equation is almost calories you are taking in compared to your basic metabolic rate. Doing poo poo like running for an hour at best means you can get an extra 300 calories in . There's a ton of other health benefits to exercise, but for weight loss, it's rather ineffective and should not be heavily emphasized when people talk about weight loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Look, just take milkshakes for example. They exist, they've actually got a decent amount of protein in them - a 20 ounce serving contains 19 grams of protein, 39% of the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet. It even has 4 grams of fiber, which is is 16% of your RDA. They've also got a goodly amount of vitamins and minerals They're even served by nearly all the same places people are getting soda with their meals. " I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. " - me Do you agree that if broad segments of the population were educated in what exactly their nutritional needs actually were, people could be able to make better informed opinions of what they should or should not eat on a regular basis? quote:You're gonna need to unpack what you think is "real food" and "nutritional benefits". FYI, we've had liquid meals that doctors consider to be wholly suitable for long term living for decades on end, Ensure and other such products. Real food is the kind of food that people find relatable. A lot of people don't have the money for doctor-approved shakes, or don't have knowledge to sift through similar looking products, or prefer to eat things because they're more familiar. Most Americans eat things that don't lead to nutritional deficiencies, as you said. Get them to eat less of it, and obesity declines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Yes Do you know of any other weird yuppie scams? My favourites are all the varieties of fried starchy vegetables like yams or carrots squash chips/fries that are exactly the same as potato chips but come in "artisanal" plastic packaging and old-fashioned font.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You could argue that practically it's pretty much useless for weight loss. The real equation is almost calories you are taking in compared to your basic metabolic rate. Doing poo poo like running for an hour at best means you can get an extra 300 calories in . There's a ton of other health benefits to exercise, but for weight loss, it's rather ineffective and should not be heavily emphasized when people talk about weight loss. I think this is good advice, but I do have an anecdote that made me rethink this a little, or at least got me thinking about reframing it. A co-worker of mine who was morbidly obese and had been for years was told by a doctor that he basically had a couple years to live unless he made radical changes. And radical changes he made. He went from playing WoW and watching Netflix to running literal marathons in the course of about 14 months. The transformation was un-loving-believable and he is first among people who I hold up as amazing success stories in the world of weight loss. That said, he did say that he doesn't know if he'd be capable of keeping it off without running. Running is now his thing, and when people ask him how to lose weight like he did, he insists that making running a hobby is a great way to start. It's worth noting that he ate nothing but these special bars that were basically 'nutrition on a stick' for 6 out of 7 days for a year. I mean, I've never seen someone shed weight like he did but I guess that's what happens when a doctor says, 'You're going to die dude...'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Do you agree that if broad segments of the population were educated in what exactly their nutritional needs actually were, people could be able to make better informed opinions of what they should or should not eat on a regular basis? No they really wouldn't, because poo poo is still mondo complicated, and beyond a lot of people's capabilities. And people already know that eating a fuckton of food in general, or of soda or juice or candy or mayonaise is bad and not good. They still do it regardless. We're not really at a crisis of knowledge so much as a crisis of being willing and sometimes able to do something about the knowledge. So it's a weasel term you're using that means nothing. Ok. Ensure and others like it are actually very cheap for all your nutrition, even though most people wouldn't enjoy having them as their only food. And all the products you'll see on shore shelves by the Ensure are medically/dietwise identical, it doesn't require work to sift through the similar products - they're just the same stuff various hospitals need to use packaged for the consumer market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I think this is good advice, but I do have an anecdote that made me rethink this a little, or at least got me thinking about reframing it. Running is great if you do a shitload of it consistently. But running a mile is <100 calories burned. Skipping a coke or a bag of potato chips is more important to weight loss than 2-3 miles of running. Additionally the increase in metabolic rate affects hunger as well and it is really hard to offset through reduced intake without strong motivation, such as what your friend had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:A co-worker of mine who was morbidly obese and had been for years was told by a doctor that he basically had a couple years to live unless he made radical changes. And radical changes he made. He went from playing WoW and watching Netflix to running literal marathons in the course of about 14 months. The transformation was un-loving-believable and he is first among people who I hold up as amazing success stories in the world of weight loss. That said, he did say that he doesn't know if he'd be capable of keeping it off without running. Running is now his thing, and when people ask him how to lose weight like he did, he insists that making running a hobby is a great way to start. I'm not even that overweight (around 30% body fat) but one thing that really worked for me was, instead of counting calories, looking at the numbers on my weight and fat percentage, I started looking at my lifting and running PRs. It really worked for me when I started thinking "wouldn't it be nice if I could squat twice my body weight/run a marathon" instead of "wouldn't it be nice if my belly was a few inches smaller". I feel good and know I'm healthy since I'm moving towards these goals, regardless of appearance and that eventually comes as a consequence. I really wish we could push healthy behavior more than appearance. I'm trying to find this article where a "fativist" was trying to be the fattest person to finish a marathon before the cutoff time and she was having a really, really hard time training for the marathon and staying fat enough to prove her point. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and know the outcome?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Q 1. You're definitely not a biologist. Calorie-wise, a body is a closed-system. The only things we take in are air, water, and food, and only one of those has calories. But the body isn't a black box where no one understands the processes. It's actually quite simple. There are 4 primary sources of calories in our diet. Carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and less-frequently alcohol. I will address how each are turned into fat one by one. Carbohydrates: Starches and complex sugars are broken down by various enzymes, first amylase and then many others on the intestinal brush border, into simple 5-6 carbon sugars. These sugars are then processed by a very, very well understood pathway to generate energy. This pathway includes glycolysis followed by the Kreb cycle. If the body has all the energy it needs, sugars can be shunted. This usually happens after they have been broken down into 2 carbon chains. Fatty acids are created by connecting several 2 carbon chains together. 3 fatty acids are then attached to a 3 carbon chain (also produced from glycolysis) to create fats. Fat: Broken down into glycerol + fatty acids by lipase in the small intestine. Fatty acids are then transported by chylomicrons to the liver, where they are reassembled into fats and cholesterol repackaged into VLDL (very low density lipoprotein) and sent off into the bloodstream. Tissues then take fats stored in the VLDL, turning into the dreaded LDL that is your "bad" cholesterol. Protein: Does not directly form fat. Is broken down into its component amino acids and absorbed. Amino acids then reassembled into own proteins. Excess amino acids can be shunted off into other pathways to make glucose and ultimately fat, but this is a slower process, which is part of the reason protein gives you longer lasting energy. Alcohol: Already enters your body as a 2 carbon chain. Can be converted directly to fat from there via alcohol and then aldehyde dehydrogenase. All of these pathways above have been very well-characterized. In short, it is well-understood how what you eat is turned into fat on your body. Ultimately every macronutrient you take in is either getting burned and breathed out as CO2, used to make protein, or turned to fat. Those are your 3 options. There are no others. Now that being said, the regulatory pathways for what goes where are admittedly complex and not completely understood, although great progress has been made in recent years with the discovery of the GLP-1 and leptin/ghrelin axes. But the actual physics and chemistry of the process are not at all mysterious, which is what it appears you're trying to claim here. Dieting, if done correctly, works 100% of the time for losing weight. 2. I have no idea what false dichotomy you're trying to draw between "temporarily fat" and "permanently fat" people. I assume your underlying argument is something about genetics creating people who cannot help but be fat. Again, see point #1. There are no permanently fat people, just temporarily fat people who are successful or unsuccessful with dieting. 3. I think one good proof of long term weight loss is weight loss surgery, which is supremely effective at getting people to lose weight and keep weight off. It can take a morbidly obese person and put them down to the overweight category and keep them there for years. There are definitely failures in the process, and it's not great at getting people to a normal BMI all by itself, but it works quite well. It has been well-studied and found that its primary effect is calorie restriction with some surgeries which take out part of the small intestine also contributing by calorie malabsorption. I think every weight loss surgery success story is proof of point #1, again. 4. I just read your bigfatscience blog FAQ here.. It contains no scientific information. I then went to read some articles on the blog. Let's start with this one: Dieting causes unhealthy stress. (their title). quote:bigfatscience: The link to the full text of the study in question. For starters, it was published in Psychosomatic Medicine. I have never heard of that journal before. It is a minor journal, at best, and certainly not JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, Nature, etc levels of good. It's not even a Journal of Neuroendocrinology level of good. This is at best a third tier journal study. Not a good start. Let's see what it says: quote:Abstract I just posted the abstract to spare those following along. If you want to go in depth like I did, check the link for the full text. Initial misgivings: 1. The study is using a secondary endpoint to make a primary argument not supported by their evidence. This study showed 2 things: restricting calories increased cortisol levels, and monitoring calorie intake was perceived as stressful. It did not go on to show anything about outcomes related to those two measures like success of weight loss, amount of weight loss, etc. 2. Restricting calories should physiologically increase cortisol levels. You can ask any doctor or medical student that. Among its many effects, cortisol functions to prevent hypoglycemia by activating gluconeogenesis in the liver. If I restrict calories by not eating during the day, my cortisol will increase. That is not in any way new information. That is demonstration of a known biological effect. 3. Most interestingly, monitoring calories by itself did not increase cortisol. That is, they failed to show the one thing they were trying to show--that dieting causes physiological stress! That also supports that the cortisol increase from restriction is a physiological and not psychological effect. In short, this study is from a poor journal, fails to show what it set out to do, and may actually show the opposite. Great science there. Let's take another one. There is little scientific support for the notion that diets lead to lasting weight loss. quote:bigfatscience: I won't belabor this one, as it's been discussed in the thread. Diets lead to temporary weight loss, and when the diet is stopped and old habits resume, the weight returns. What I think is funny is that even this study posted to the blog supports the notion that people can, in fact, lose weight. The post even admits that a 250 lb woman can typically lose 12-25 lbs by dieting. 25 lbs is good, actually! 10% weight loss has been shown to cause metabolic changes such as a decrease in insulin resistance. 10% weight loss is, in fact, clinically significant weight loss, and I would congratulate my patients if they achieved this. One more: A person’s weight is determined by how much they eat and exercise… or is it? quote:bigfatscience: This argument commits the cardinal sin of using population-level statistics such as variance in body weight on the individual level. That's a big statistical no-no. I don't doubt that BMI has high heritability. One's appetite and metabolism are definitely heavily influenced by genetics. But that makes weight loss difficult, not impossible. Again, see point #1. And it is definitely true that there are hormonal changes and neurological changes that accompany obesity. I do want to point out paragraph 4 specifically, though. "Furthermore, although environmental factors like greater availability of calorie-dense foods, increasing portion sizes, and less active work-lives may explain recent weight gains across the entire American population, these same large-scale studies of families reveal that some people are genetically more susceptible to such (generally uncontrollable by the individual) environmental factors." I would argue that eating calorie-dense foods, portion sizes, and amount of exercise are very much controllable by the individual. In conclusion, I don't fully disagree with your premise. Weight loss is difficult, though physically very possible. That doesn't mean that we should give up and allow overweight and obesity to become normalized in the general population. They are significant health problems with great personal and societal cost. I think instead what this means is that we should have a renewed focus on helping these people maintain healthier lifestyles in the long term, allowing for sustained weight loss. That means specialized clinics, dietician support, continued research into possible pharmaceutical help, financial support for healthier food choices, and a broader cultural shift towards healthy eating and exercise. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:The kinds of people who impulsively eat and don't really care all the way up to bonafide obesity are not the kinds of people who are really willing to make a major lifestyle change. Separately, obviously, stress fucks up your metabolism, altering gene expression patterns and encouraging you to, whenever possible, to gorge yourself on food. So, early in the day, you have plenty of iron will. You keep to your diet. Late in the day, after a whole day of dealing with everyone around - bosses, kids, husband... you're tired. Your mental resources are depleted. Your tissues are sending all the signals that you need food. Why wouldn't you eat? Just because in 10 years you might be healthier? That's why it happens pretty often that if someone goes to a weight-focused retreat, with prepared food, and all that, relaxes, loses weight... but then they return to the daily work/life grind, and recover it all. Personally speaking, the times I lost weight in my life, I did it without really doing anything - not going on a diet, not exercising more than usual - but these were always the times when I had the opportunity to relax. If one wants to solve the obesity epidemics, proper information about nutrition and access to good food are necessary. But equally necessary are work security, access to mental healthcare, strong and supportive social networks... The stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Wait, is JFairFax being serious? I thought that was just some copy/paste crap from thisisthinprivilage that was posted for humor on this here comedy website, but if it's a serious post, then loving lol.
Canine Blues Arooo fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Wait, is JFairFax being serious? I thought that was just some copy/paste crap from thisisthinprivilage that was posted for humor on this here comedy website, but if it's a serious post, then loving lol. I believe they're repeating posts from this tumblr blog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
That's a great post from Cantorsdust though, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Breatharianism. endlessmonotony posted:The problem is that your entire post is bullshit spoken from a position of privilege, aimed at blaming the marginalized for their own faults. quote:.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.  "diets don't work as well as we expect they would", "making a fat person thin doesn't magically cure all their heart and kidney and whatever problems on its own" and "stress makes you overeat and become fat" doesn't mean the answer is to go crying about  Thin Privilege, it means we should find out what makes people stay thin and finding out how to prevent people from becoming too fat in the first place
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
endlessmonotony posted:It's proof what we're doing is not working. First of all, saying that there is a "change in obesity" is not sufficient. First, you must identify when people started "preaching low-calorie diets and exercise" in order to give you the time frame. Then, you will need to demonstrate, using evidence, what the change in obesity was over this time period. You will also have to demonstrate what link, if any, there is between people saying you need to eat less and exercise to lose weight, and people eating less and exercising. You will also have to identify all other factors that could cause a change in obesity levels and either rule them out entirely or account for their effect on your numbers. Then there's some math stuff you need to do to see if there's a meaningful correlation, but I don't know enough about that to explain it in any detail. So, to start out, when did people start "preaching low-calorie diets and exercise"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
The key issue at play here is that if obesity was solely a matter of people overeating or developing bad habits, there would not be an epidemic of it. The epidemic means that there are societal factors that are, in the end, more important than all the diet advice people can toss out when it comes to dealing with this public health issue. The overall approach of telling people "eat healthier, exercise more" on an individual level and on national levels has been going for more than twenty years, and it has failed continually. Part of this, of course, is due to the exploitative diet industry and its promotion of useless and worse-than-useless diets, and another part of it is due to "common sense" bad advice circulating around. But these, too, are societal factors that must be overcome or circumvented.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:The key issue at play here is that if obesity was solely a matter of people overeating or developing bad habits, there would not be an epidemic of it. The epidemic means that there are societal factors that are, in the end, more important than all the diet advice people can toss out when it comes to dealing with this public health issue. The overall approach of telling people "eat healthier, exercise more" on an individual level and on national levels has been going for more than twenty years, and it has failed continually. Part of this, of course, is due to the exploitative diet industry and its promotion of useless and worse-than-useless diets, and another part of it is due to "common sense" bad advice circulating around. But these, too, are societal factors that must be overcome or circumvented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 21:33
|
|