|
Series DD Funding posted:I guess if you want to consider a 10% change a huge increase you can And lots of people do choose cardio instead of weightlifting for losing weight. It's not like the one works and the other is an urban legend.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:40
|
|
The time spent just maintaining that mass could be spent doing cardio to burn an equivalent amount
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Treating it as an addiction, though inferior for the purposes of dealing with the epidemic, would be superior to the religious narrative people have around obesity, where the people who manage to drop in weight and keep it off commonly hate those who haven't with the fervor of the fresh convert. I really don't understand why this is the case. If everyone out there were fit then your accomplishment of losing the weight would be basically invalidated. From a purely selfish standpoint I'd think you'd want more fat people around because you look better in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I really don't understand why this is the case. If everyone out there were fit then your accomplishment of losing the weight would be basically invalidated. From a purely selfish standpoint I'd think you'd want more fat people around because you look better in comparison. It's because we have a hosed-up relationship with food and our bodies, where we obsess about good and evil and morality as it comes to eating, drinking, and being merry, no matter if we are fat or thin. This is also a fairly recent phenomenon, and probably a large part of why the obesity epidemic is so impervious.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it's from this is thin privilege - which I check every few days for a good chuckle Ah, very good! I just know of it's existence but never really have gone there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's because we have a hosed-up relationship with food and our bodies, where we obsess about good and evil and morality as it comes to eating, drinking, and being merry, no matter if we are fat or thin. This is also a fairly recent phenomenon, and probably a large part of why the obesity epidemic is so impervious. That's not new at all. Victorians related physical appearance and well-being with the moral state. Many believed physical ailments, pimples, obesity, gout, etc were caused by moral "degeneracy." Literally that ugly people ugly because they were immoral. For a good example of this mindset see the Picture of Dorian Gray
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:11
|
|
Squalid posted:That's not new at all. Victorians related physical appearance and well-being with the moral state. Many believed physical ailments, pimples, obesity, gout, etc were caused by moral "degeneracy." Literally that ugly people ugly because they were immoral. For a good example of this mindset see the Picture of Dorian Gray I'm talking about our relationship with food and the body. Victorians didn't emphasize food-as-sin, because that was an insanity (and remains so) when starvation is an obvious issue. It's only in our world of glutted food that we can approach it like that.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nice job missing the sarcasm there chief. nerdz posted:Maybe you should rephrase it to lovely food addiction. What's hard for most obese people isn't to stop eating, but stop eating the awful stuff that at the same time has 2k calories and makes you crave for more. Totally unrelated: The focus on soda might be a red herring. While soda sucks, the increase of soda consumption from the past 3 decades has been almost entirely at the expense of milk and orange juice consumption. While that's obviously not an improvement nutritionally, the net calorie difference from that is almost nothing. People are drinking different liquid calories, not more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that? Free lipo under a national healthcare system on a regular basis
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
^^^ http://aspirebariatrics.com/about-the-aspireassist/OneEightHundred posted:Totally unrelated: The focus on soda might be a red herring. While soda sucks, the increase of soda consumption from the past 3 decades has been almost entirely at the expense of milk and orange juice consumption. While that's obviously not an improvement nutritionally, the net calorie difference from that is almost nothing. People are drinking different liquid calories, not more. Orange juice sure, but milk is different from other liquid calories. It's more satiating (due to the fact casein coagulates in the stomach) and its calories tend to be compensated for better in terms of eating less food. That makes it unique among caloric beverages (except protein shakes). Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that? Cultural revolution
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Nobody actually gives a poo poo about stranger's body shape or size, except inasmuch as it relates to their fapping. You care about your family. Your doctor has every right to care. You can care in the abstract about the potential economic effects of treating all these people. But when it comes to it on a day-to-day, personal basis, it's never about health, it's about bludgeoning people and making them feel like poo poo. It's about bullying them. So in all honesty while I don't think 'thin privilege' and healthy at any size are particularly good things, I can't really condemn them either. Their purpose is less about defending fat people for being fat, and more about defending fat people against the constant barracking they get from certain people. Which may not be the best way to actually improve people's physical health but it's better than adding mental health on top of it, and as people have been saying, nobody got over any kind of addiction or bad habit by being bullied into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Fat people are funny, they are the physical form and embodiment of the most destructive habits that our society shuns. Accept them? It'll be hard, it's like accepting a drug addict. Either leave them alone or engage them pro-actively, don't label them as diseased and give them medicine. They need to change their lifestyle.Series DD Funding posted:Cultural revolution
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that? Education, which would hopefully lead to a Cultural revolution about how we think about health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Lifestyle and diet changes are an individual-level solution, not a population-level solution.Mister Adequate posted:Nobody actually gives a poo poo about stranger's body shape or size, except inasmuch as it relates to their fapping. You care about your family. Your doctor has every right to care. You can care in the abstract about the potential economic effects of treating all these people. It's not only just the economic cost of medical treatment, it's also the cost of excessive consumption of resources; increased weight on transportation reducing fuel effectiveness and increasing wear-and-tear; the cost of retrofitting all those same transportation vehicles to both allow comfortable seating for the hordes of obese and to actually be able to structurally support them; similarly, the cost of redoing buildings for equal access and providing personal transportation vehicles; the lost productivity from increased proclivity to illness, stress, fatigue, and exhaustion; the higher rates of personal injury from falling; the reduced return on educational investment when they die decades earlier; injuries to medical staff from trying to handle obese patients; and the cost of new hospital and ambulance equipment to be able to actually intake and treat these patients instead of sending them to veterinary hospitals. Appearances aside, there are reasons that people dislike being near obese people on transportation: invasion of personal space (thus the aforementioned need to retrofit transportation vehicles) and odor. Either way, whether we solve the obesity epidemic, or just simply accept it, it will be very expensive. Mister Adequate posted:nobody got over any kind of addiction or bad habit by being bullied into it. Obviously, not all people respond the same to negative reinforcement, and many people escalate their habits or withdraw in response to negative reinforcement, but many people also have said that the negative responses were what pushed them from denial into realizing that a change was needed. There's also the issue that many people are conditioned into perceiving positive reinforcement or frank appraisals as bullying or harassment. You need look no further than the HAES movement's response to doctors telling them that they need to modify their lifestyle and diet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I think the biggest change is societal acceptable of weight loss and dieting, not fat acceptable. It can be a long frustrating process and people will try to sabotage you along the way. Over the past 8 years I have gone from 380 to 270, with the personal awareness that I'm not done yet. It was hard and a lot of people along the way made it harder for no real reason. I grew up being taught abysmal habits that I had to break and with an undiagnosed thyroid condition that may not have caused the problem but certainly exacerbated it. First off most people will give you terrible advice about diet and exercise. My childhood physician put me on a low fat diet with the exception of large amounts of mayonnaise. I am not making this up. This man was a real medical doctor and that was his medical advice. Beyond that every chucklefuck who has heard the phrase "calories in minus calories out" thinks that's the be all and end all of diet advice. It's more a goal than a method. It's like telling someone that you build a house by nailing boards together or that you run a marathon by continuing to run for a while. It's not untrue but it's also useless. When you've been raised from childhood to adulthood with terrible food habits you need a much more detailed understanding of what you're doing wrong. A lot of people are surprised to find that fruit juice contains calories. That's the level of nutritional education I grew up with. The person that actually helped me lose weight was a doctor I found after college. He diagnosed my thyroid disorder, gave me a copy of the south beach diet to read, and recommended that I try a running program that was similar to couch to 5K. That detailed approach was immensely helpful and without the whole picture I would have struggled to actually get there on my own. I think the biggest reason he was able to help was that he actually listened to the problems I was experiencing rather than regurgitate one liners. After that there were a ton of people who tried to sabotage me. I've had people point and laugh in the gym. I've had people throw drinks and scream at me about my weight while I'm out for a run. Those people aren't nearly as bad as the ones who recite, "one _____ can't possibly matter." There were times I'd have that conversation 5 or 6 times per week where someone would take personal offense to the fact that I'm not eating what they deem to be enough. It's emotionally exhausting to have to work with someone who insists that you need to eat their pancakes because you're diet is a fad. The fat acceptance movement is a terrible idea because it's not healthy to be obese but a lot of people in this thread are just as bad. People will treat you like poo poo for being fat and they will treat you even worse for trying to change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Strong people don't put people down, they lift people up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that? nothing. you can lead a fat person to the trough of good health (slowly, with difficulty) but you can't make them drink unless you pour mountain dew into it
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm talking about our relationship with food and the body. Victorians didn't emphasize food-as-sin, because that was an insanity (and remains so) when starvation is an obvious issue. It's only in our world of glutted food that we can approach it like that. Ah, my mistake. I'm still skeptical of the claim that moralizing consumption is a modern innovation. Gluttony is of course an ancient concept in Christianity and I see ancient Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of bodily purity manifesting in modern American veganism and West-Coast fad diets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
I'm surprised to see this forum suddenly start preaching personal responsibility as the solution to problems that effect hundreds of millions of people and cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars in the US alone. "Cultural revolution" is a fig leaf for the obvious truth that asking people to consume less hasn't worked; "cultural revolution" just means "asking people to consume less works somehow." It's in no way a course of action much less a solution. Global food consumption is a huge and complex part of an even-more-massive whole: the work of civilization feeding itself. Again, I'm surprised to see this forum approach the problem from such an individualist and moralistic perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
For most of recorded history food has been at such scarcity that to commit the sin of gluttony was not just taking more than your fair share, it was literally taking food out of the mouth of someone else. The world has more food now than it knows what to do with. So much is wasted that it's unbelievable. Scarcity does not enter the picture, the main problem is distribution. The sin of gluttony has shifted from being a legitimate detriment to the health and well-being of others but to that of being considered a perceived display of lack of self control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Scarcity does not enter the picture, the main problem is distribution. This has always been true. Distribution has been the bottleneck since intensive agriculture began. It's an important insight, but it predates capitalism and the modern food industry. If you think obesity doesn't affect the welfare of others you don't understand (or have momentarily forgotten) social insurance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
I don't think social insurance is such a burden and I happily pay the price for people to get treatment for whatever illness befalls them because I like the assurance that should something ever happen to me or someone I love that it will be there for that. Looking at the crisis of obesity through the filter of your pocketbook probably won't produce the results people are hoping for. e: The only way to really tackle the obesity crisis is through regulation of poo poo food through certain financial incentives or other measures, so at the end of the day a true humane (i.e. not letting people die in the streets) solution is going to cost money, it just really depends on whether you want prevention or cure, the latter of which only after extensive suffering of people affected. Which may be the goal, given how the belief that addiction and other such vices are moral failings for which people should be punished is still very much prevalent, despite much evidence to the contrary. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Treating it as an addiction, though inferior for the purposes of dealing with the epidemic, would be superior to the religious narrative people have around obesity, where the people who manage to drop in weight and keep it off commonly hate those who haven't with the fervor of the fresh convert. So lure morbidly obese people into conference rooms where their family can take turns telling the obese person that while they love them they cannot abide or enable their destructive lifestyle and offer them an ultimatum of legitimate reform or total severance, then prescribe them numbing drugs to reduce their dependency on their addiction and follow it up with extensive urine and blood testing to ensure they aren't relapsing. That's what you meant right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
How effective would set a of economic policies be? There was (possibly untrue) report of some airlines requiring especially obese people to purchase two seats. How effective would a more universal set of those policies be? If you are overweight, you pay more your health insurance, not unlike the way tobacco users currently pay more. If you are require the use of a retrofitted seat on a public bus because of your weight, then you pay more for you ticket. If you ever incur a cost on society in some form because of your weight, you pay for it. Some casual searching seems to suggest that higher taxes on tobacco products are correlated to lower tobacco use in an area. Is this something that'd actually work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:: The only way to really tackle the obesity crisis is through regulation of poo poo food through certain financial incentives or other measures, so at the end of the day a true humane (i.e. not letting people die in the streets) solution is going to cost money, it just really depends on whether you want prevention or cure, the latter of which only after extensive suffering of people affected. Which may be the goal, given how the belief that addiction and other such vices are moral failings for which people should be punished is still very much prevalent, despite much evidence to the contrary. There is no coherent and legally or medically supportable definition of "poo poo food", is the problem with just trying to ban or regulate "poo poo food".
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no coherent and legally or medically supportable definition of "poo poo food", is the problem with just trying to ban or regulate "poo poo food".
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
I think another big issue, and it's largely a culture-wide issue, is our dependence on cars. Walking can actually burn a fair amount of calories if you do it all the time, and it doesn't really seem like exercise because it's not really something you do on purpose, but rather a thing you do because you have places to go and things to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no coherent and legally or medically supportable definition of "poo poo food", is the problem with just trying to ban or regulate "poo poo food". This isn't much of an obstacle. People don't support policies because they're scientific. Let's not derail the thread to prove a point on a minor technical issue though Fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:The current initiatives to show added sugar will help people ID them. New York City has had some success with regulation. Added sugar is effectively meaningless. It gets really easy to argue that a given product's sugar content is "integral" or whatever you want to call sugar that isn't "added". Arglebargle III posted:This isn't much of an obstacle. People don't support policies because they're scientific. Let's not derail the thread to prove a point on a minor technical issue though Fishmech. It's a pretty big obstacle because food companies would have all the money and reason in the world to sue over attempted regulations, and could probably win handily. Doesn't matter what the public supports, it's what lawyers could bite into. It's easy to do things like ban intentionally adding something like lead into foods, and require that industrial contamination in the food preparation doesn't add more than x amount per million. It's a whole nother thing to work out "ok well we can't ban any basic nutrients, and we don't actually have a good idea for what should be a limit broadly applicable across foods". fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's a pretty big obstacle because food companies would have all the money and reason in the world to sue. This is a real issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Once you establish a causal link between terrible food and public health detriment it would probably be a slam dunk, assuming various governmental panels to insure the safety of food actually do their drat job and don't bow to lobbying pressure. I guess the tobacco industry is the big elephant in the room as to why that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Probably nothing short of banning foods that fit the fast food profile would solve this problem. Let obesity fairies eat their beautiful selves into premature death if they want it so badly. They don't care about themselves so who am I to argue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:41
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Ddraig posted:Once you establish a causal link between terrible food and public health detriment it would probably be a slam dunk, assuming various governmental panels to insure the safety of food actually do their drat job and don't bow to lobbying pressure. First, define terrible food in a consistent way. DeusExMachinima posted:Probably nothing short of banning foods that fit the fast food profile would solve this problem. Let obesity fairies eat their beautiful selves into premature death if they want it so badly. They don't care about themselves so who am I to argue? What's the fast food profile? What meaningfully distinguishes it from the same dish made at home or at a different kind of restaurant?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I hate to say it but Fishmech is basically right, few foods are inherently "bad" like trans fats are. Even things with a bunch of added sugar aren't inherently unhealthy, what's unhealthy is how people eat too much of them and not enough of other things.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Fast food isn't even the problem. Most fast food is healthier than most people think they are, and besides it's way too expensive (yes, even for the poor) to eat fast food for every single meal. The problem, I think, is more the sheer prevalence of preprocessed meals and snacks, along with a general inability to cook for oneself. Go to your local grocery store, look at how much of the store space is devoted to basic raw ingredients or minimally processed food vs how much is devoted to brand-name boxes of highly processed and engineered food. (I'm aware that I'm stepping into a minefield of pedantry about basic foods like cheese or bread going through a bunch of processing but I trust that people will extend me some benefit of doubt and know that I mean stuff like Hungry Man dinners, Pop-Tarts, Doritos, etc, and not buckets of sour cream or cans of soup stock.) Multiple generations of Americans have forgotten or were never taught how to cook, and not only do they not have the knowledge of how to, they don't have the time to devote to learning how nor do they have the motivation to go and look up the thousands of recipes and videos online of how to do so. This sort of awareness of how to eat and how to prepare your food really needs to be instilled into people at a young age, or else they spend far too much time and effort teaching themselves later in life -- if they ever do so. Home ec classes are often one of the first-cut in public schools when budgets are tight. Anecdotally speaking, I was raised in a white school system in the 90s/00s and the home ec classes were absolutely awful and barely taught me anything. I can't imagine what it was like for poorer schools, or how bad it's become since then. It's too bad there was such a strong backlash against Michelle Obama's health programs because that sort of thing is what we need and what would be needed to build any larger initiatives on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Here's a simple example of why defining "bad foods" is hard: Let's just say, we will ban full calorie soda. Simple right? But if we're going to be consistent on that, say, drinks with a bunch of sugar and calories, well, that bans a lot of the most popular sorts of coffee people actually drink, milk, most juices without sugar added in from the natural juice, and nearly all of them with, energy drinks, a whole bunch of alcoholic drinks. Well, people are liable to riot if you ban that much stuff. And if you say "ok, well we'll tweak that so they have to have vitamins and minerals" then poo poo, the soda companies are just going to add the legal minimum into their drinks, hell, that'll only add 1 cent per 20 ounce bottle!You'll probably get those changes from other drinks to qualify, and hell, some of those energy drinks out there already have a goodly grip of vitamins and minerals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Have we considered the infrastructure angle? For me to get ice cream would require traveling to Jeni's 1.5 miles away by bike, bus, or car. Car is right out because gently caress parking in the central west end. By bike you're guaranteed to burn at least 3 miles worth of calories even after you stuff your face. Meanwhile out in suburbia my boss lives half a mile from work but drives everyday because she doesn't want to get mowed down on a 4-lane arterial where cars are moving at 40 mph. This despite the company installing racks and showers for cyclists. It's like hello, if you wanted more cyclists maybe you should move your headquarters out of a campus at the intersection between of two interstates and into a more dense area? 30% of the company is obese and about half are prediabetic or diabetic, according to the results of the latest mass biometric screening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
There's not really a single "bad food" you can point to and say that this is inherently unhealthy. You would have more success regulating dosage/portions, but to do that requires rationing which is never going to be a popular method as long as the food actually exists. Brannock posted:
Well, anecdotally for me it's a lot more than what you seem to be presenting. Here is a floor plan of the grocery store I shop at (not the exact store, but the same general design): https://www.heb.com/static/pdfs/guide-sanantonio-102.pdf Ignoring the inedible stuff, the vast majority of the layout is devoted to fresh produce, minimally processed things like cheeses and meats, and a wide variety of other basic things like canned foods or pastas. Meanwhile, frozen items have a small handful of shelves (there are also more shelves devoted to things like cookies & soda, but it's still not really that much in the grand picture). Certainly there are other grocery stores that do things differently, but I notice this quite a bit. Even Walmart has major chunks of its floor plan devoted to fresh produce & bread instead of just pre-processed stuff, and the latter is much more attractive for them. computer parts fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I argued eating less does not work for losing weight, as you'd have noticed had you quoted the entire line. I know this is a leap back in time, and sorry I haven't gotten through everyone's posts yet, but I just wanted to point out that for quite a while in this thread, endlessmonotony has repeated that "eating less does not work for losing weight," while in the same post recognizing that, when someone takes in less than their body uses, they do indeed lose weight. Endlessmonotony, did you mean to say that "eat less" is not a reliable strategy to give to someone who is trying to lose weight? If so, I hope you can see why everyone thought you meant something else. It's different from saying that eating less does not work, because it implies that the person has no problem applying the behavior. You might want to examine how you articulate your thoughts, and see if there are other areas where it feels like people are failing to comprehend your meaning, as there may be a clearer way to explain it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Probably nothing short of banning foods that fit the fast food profile would solve this problem. Let obesity fairies eat their beautiful selves into premature death if they want it so badly. They don't care about themselves so who am I to argue? You think the obesity epidemic is caused by a sudden increase in people who consciously decided they don't care about themselves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:09
|
|
