|
Where are we getting 145 calories? The numbers I've seen are more like 100 calories per mile for running, which is less energy efficient than walking
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:A 260 pound, 5'9 25 year old sedentary man needs to eat about 2800 calories to maintain that weight. At about 2400 total calories he will begin to lose a pound a week. If that person walk a full hour every day but maintained the same diet they would burn about 450-500 calories and end up with 2400 total calories, burning a pound of fat a week. Why are you making the assumption that he's eating the exact amount to maintain the weight though? The reality is that people are eating way more than they need to maintain their weight. That's why they got fat to begin with, and why they continue getting fatter. You're the one who isn't doing the "basic math" because doing the math your way would lead to nobody getting fat to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:
Also, I got my weight down by biking to work. 8 miles each way, Sends the pounds away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Where are we getting 145 calories? The numbers I've seen are more like 100 calories per mile for running, which is less energy efficient than walking It depends on weight, pace, and environment. An obese person speed walking uphill will burn more calories than a skinny person leisure strolling on a warm day. Weight is the biggest variable in how much calories are burned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Also, I got my weight down by biking to work. Biking 16 miles each day is a whole lot different than walking a mile total or less a day in while spending most of the travel using transit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why are you making the assumption that he's eating the exact amount to maintain the weight though? The reality is that people are eating way more than they need to maintain their weight. That's why they got fat to begin with, and why they continue getting fatter. Eventually they hit the upper limit of the caloric intake derived from their lifestyle though. Very few people keep eating and eating as they balloon, many overweight people have simple settled in a comfortable but unhealthy routine. I made the assumption that he's eating exactly the same to show that weight lose is in fact possible through exercise, which you contest. Finally, I find it hilarious that the person who sole idea to contribute to combating the epidemic is "don't eat so much" can turn around to other people and say if their idea is so good, why is there fat people at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Eventually they hit the upper limit of the caloric intake derived from their lifestyle though. Very few people keep eating and eating as they balloon, many overweight people have simple settled in a comfortable but unhealthy routine. I made the assumption that he's eating exactly the same to show that weight lose is in fact possible through exercise, which you contest. Finally, I find it hilarious that the person who sole idea to contribute to combating the epidemic is "don't eat so much" can turn around to other people and say if their idea is so good, why is there fat people at all. Not meaningful weight loss though. Not weight loss sufficient to get out of the obese range. And therefore not useful for ending the obesity epidemic. Your assumption is extremely stupid because most people haven't reached their plateau weight yet, so saying that if they even if they had, if they do this thing they can drop a few pounds when they need to drop 100 ain't exactly useful! Also, hello, "don't eat so much" literally is the only working solution. Eating too much is literally the problem. So sorry that you want to try gimmicks instead and get mad that it gets shot down rightfully!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Eventually they hit the upper limit of the caloric intake derived from their lifestyle though. Very few people keep eating and eating as they balloon, many overweight people have simple settled in a comfortable but unhealthy routine. I made the assumption that he's eating exactly the same to show that weight lose is in fact possible through exercise, which you contest. Finally, I find it hilarious that the person who sole idea to contribute to combating the epidemic is "don't eat so much" can turn around to other people and say if their idea is so good, why is there fat people at all. I guess the question is, what makes you think this person won't eat more to compensate? Especially since we're talking about less than 300 calories, which is like a large soda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, it would not. There is no benefit to replacing "added" sugars with "non-added" sugars. There are no improved health consequences for 20 grams of sugar being "natural" or "expected" versus "refined" or "added" - it's literally the same molecules. This is nonsensical. We are discussing extra sugar added beyond non-native amounts. It is, by definition, less sugar if you do not add sugar. fishmech posted:You are recommending "adding" information that is actually useless, and stands a pretty good risk of confusing people into consuming more calories because it implies that added sugar is bad, but naturally having the same amount of sugar is good. There also isn't a lot of native fiber in cooked foods either, cooking tends to break that poo poo down. In fact, it's a major reason cooking is done for many forms of food! Bolded is case by case. And no, it isn't 'useless' to know how much sugar was added to your food for flavoring, and how much is native to the ingredients. But keep beating that drum
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Not meaningful weight loss though. Not weight loss sufficient to get out of the obese range. And therefore not useful for ending the obesity epidemic. Your assumption is extremely stupid because most people haven't reached their plateau weight yet, so saying that if they even if they had, if they do this thing they can drop a few pounds when they need to drop 100 ain't exactly useful! Losing weight is a lifestyle change and such a simplistic solution ignores the intersectionality of modern factors that have led to the rise of obesity. Combating it means adding several different methods of weight loss, including not eating as much. (Which I hinted at in an earlier post but you obviously missed it.) Lol at the idea of losing weight to exercise not coming fast enough to be relevant but the weight lose from not eating being so. You have no idea what you are talking about. All significant weight loss is painfully slow, save say liposuction. I'm glad that you settled on the most simplistic idea possible, those are the easiest to shout about over the internet. computer parts posted:I guess the question is, what makes you think this person won't eat more to compensate? Especially since we're talking about less than 300 calories, which is like a large soda. SlipUp posted:Maybe it's a dozen small changes that solves the obesity epidemic rather than one massive change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
It would be nice if people complaining about simplistic solutions didn't offer simplistic platitudes themselves in response. Jabbering about "a dozen small things" and promoting one of those things alone does not make you look like saints of reason repelling the archdemon fishmech, it makes you look like a monomaniac with an inexpert disguise.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It would be nice if people complaining about simplistic solutions didn't offer simplistic platitudes themselves in response. That was the one fishmech wanted to talk about, are you actually interested or are you just here to cheerlead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:07
|
|
SlipUp posted:That was the one fishmech wanted to talk about, are you actually interested or are you just here to cheerlead? You're a terrible liar, thinking people can't look back ten, eleven posts and see that this was the only idea your quite limited brain could put forth. Since you're a liar, and so bad at it, discussion doesn't seem fruitful, now does it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're a terrible liar, thinking people can't look back ten, eleven posts and see that this was the only idea your quite limited brain could put forth. Since you're a liar, and so bad at it, discussion doesn't seem fruitful, now does it? Here lemme help you out:   
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This is nonsensical. We are discussing extra sugar added beyond non-native amounts. It is, by definition, less sugar if you do not add sugar. Less sugar than the exact same item without sugar, no where near less sugar than a different item. E.g. various popular fruit juices naturally have more sugar than a can of Coca Cola in the sizes they're actually served in. Or things like how it's not meaningful to say a cookie has added sugar, because sugar is a required ingredient to make a cookie in the normal fashion. Case by case, but still true so often that it makes laser focus on added sugar meaningless. It is useless to know that. Everything in your food is partially or fully towards flavoring. Whether it's native has nothing to do with the health. Get that through your head. 20 grams of native sugar is not better than 20 grams of "added" sugar! SlipUp posted:Losing weight is a lifestyle change and such a simplistic solution ignores the intersectionality of modern factors that have led to the rise of obesity. Combating it means adding several different methods of weight loss, including not eating as much. (Which I hinted at in an earlier post but you obviously missed it.) Losing weight is a lifestyle change. But the change in the lifestyle is that you eat less. Deal with it. Everything else is just minor tweaks to the one main thing you do: eat less. Because walking a small amount a day does not really count as exercise. And at small amounts, it accomplishes nothing to actually lose wight beyond a few easy pounds after which you plateau, if you were even eating little enough for it to take you below break even to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Less sugar than the exact same item without sugar, no where near less sugar than a different item. E.g. various popular fruit juices naturally have more sugar than a can of Coca Cola in the sizes they're actually served in. Or things like how it's not meaningful to say a cookie has added sugar, because sugar is a required ingredient to make a cookie in the normal fashion. "Losing weight is a lifestyle change. Exercise doesn't really work. Okay a little bit, but it doesn't count."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:"Losing weight is a lifestyle change. Exercise doesn't really work. Okay a little bit, but it doesn't count." Buddy if you think walking a mile or less a day counts as meaningful exercise towards weight loss for the average obese person, you are simply not good at math. Sorry that you're so bad at math that you think a hundred calories above driving or sitting for the same time period each day is going to work for a big ol' tubbo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Less sugar than the exact same item without sugar, no where near less sugar than a different item. E.g. various popular fruit juices naturally have more sugar than a can of Coca Cola in the sizes they're actually served in. Or things like how it's not meaningful to say a cookie has added sugar, because sugar is a required ingredient to make a cookie in the normal fashion. I have never once said it was. 20g of sugar in an apple is better for you than 20g of table sugar, however. Objectively. Because of bioavailability. What *is* useful is knowing how much sugar was added by the manufacturer. Nor do I think there needs to be 'laser focus' on sugar. But choosing between multiple similar products, knowing which ones have more added sugar is useful for making healthier choices, because knowing how much sugar is innate to the ingredients is not always intuitive. I, and many others, would find that information very useful. You are literally arguing directly past me at a point I was not making.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Buddy if you think walking a mile or less a day counts as meaningful exercise towards weight loss for the average obese person, you are simply not good at math. that math barb really stung you huh (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I have never once said it was. 20g of sugar in an apple is better for you than 20g of table sugar. Objectively. Because of bioavailability. What *is* useful is knowing how much sugar was added by the manufacturer. That is objectively wrong, and people aren't eating whole apples to begin with, not to mention there aren't added sugar apples sold in stores that aren't candy coated - and if you need someone to inform you putting melted candy over an apple is added sugar, you might be functionally mentally handicapped! They're drinking apple juice or they're eating something with cooked apples in it. It is NOT useful to know about the added sugar. Choosing between multiple similar products and picking the one with the least added sugar is worse than choosing the one with the least total calories. You aren't making any valid points. SlipUp posted:that math barb really stung you huh Yeah the fact you couldn't do your own math, and projected it on me, sure made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That is objectively wrong, and people aren't eating whole apples to begin with, not to mention there aren't added sugar apples sold in stores that aren't candy coated - and if you need someone to inform you putting melted candy over an apple is added sugar, you might be functionally mentally handicapped! They're drinking apple juice or they're eating something with cooked apples in it. It is NOT useful to know about the added sugar. You never pointed out any error with my math, you only criticized my initial assumption. =/=
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
 can we stop talking about increased exercise solving the obesity epidemic since it's pretty obviously not going to work on a systemic scale?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I have never once said it was. 20g of sugar in an apple is better for you than 20g of table sugar, however. Objectively. Because of bioavailability. What *is* useful is knowing how much sugar was added by the manufacturer. That's great, but talking about added sugars won't lead to selling apples, it'll lead to selling things like apple juice. We've already see McDonald's push it as the ~healthy alternative~ for kids. It'll lead to sweeteners like maple syrup and honey used to get around "no added sugar." Food manufacturers will never care about health when accouterments of health work just as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
rscott posted:
For the love of Christ, it's one of like six things I've mentioned in this thread that obese people should do to become healthy. If you do all of them, you have a better chance of losing the weight and keeping it off then sticking to one strategy and putting all your eggs in one basket. Just as assuredly as fishmech points out that eating less will help you lose weight, so will exercise. If your response is to just cry about how long it takes, that's kinda part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place. (Intersectionality of causes.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You never pointed out any error with my math, you only criticized my initial assumption. =/= Since your initial assumption is faulty, your math based on it is faulty. QED. You can't do correct math with wrong starting values, garbage in garbage out. SlipUp posted:For the love of Christ, it's one of like six things I've mentioned in this thread that obese people should do to become healthy. If you do all of them, you have a better chance of losing the weight and keeping it off then sticking to one strategy and putting all your eggs in one basket. Sorry whiny guy, but in actual fact "eat loving less" is the only thing that works consistently and it works the most by far towards losing weight. Everything else is meager help on top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:That's great, but talking about added sugars won't lead to selling apples, it'll lead to selling things like apple juice. We've already see McDonald's push it as the ~healthy alternative~ for kids. It'll lead to sweeteners like maple syrup and honey used to get around "no added sugar." Food manufacturers will never care about health when accouterments of health work just as well Maple Syrup and Honey are still added sugar when put in apple juice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Maple Syrup and Honey are still added sugar when put in apple juice. Most apple juice bought isn't sweetened, because it's already mad sweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Maple Syrup and Honey are still added sugar when put in apple juice. Not if you market it as "Apple Juice with Honey".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Since your initial assumption is faulty, your math based on it is faulty. QED. Your criticism is I that I used a constant value for his diet as a control. If you walk a mile you will lose weight however small, none of your little tantrum here changes that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Most apple juice bought isn't sweetened, because it's already mad sweet. I'm just speaking to the example given. I haven't seen anything that points to using less-refined sugars as a loophole to avoid the 'added sugar' valuation. E: Skipped an important hyphen there. computer parts posted:Not if you market it as "Apple Juice with Honey". I think this falls under the 'candy apple' clause, and you're dumb if you're worried about how much sugar is in this. LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Your criticism is I that I used a constant value for his diet as a control. If you walk a mile you will lose weight however small, none of your little tantrum here changes that. You will not lose weight unless the walk added up to enough additional calories versus sitting to bring you below break even. For vast amounts of obese people it won't. For even more obese people, it will only take you down a few pounds and then it's no longer counteracting enough of your overeating to continue losing weight. For nearly all obese people, these means it's useless to stop being obese, and thus it's useless to ending the obesity epidemic. That's why your math fuckin' sucks mate. So stop whining. LeeMajors posted:I'm just speaking to the example given. If you market something as the aforementioned "apple juice and honey", the honey is an integral part and wouldn't be considered added sugar. Given current packaging requirements, the drink would say APPLE flavored and have a line in smallish print ont he bottle saying "apple juice and honey product". Keep in mind that under current USDA/FDA regs, apple juice with more than like a gram of sugars added per cup already may not be marketed as 100% apple juice. SlipUp posted:Aboslutely zero of this is in conflict with my math. It is, because you tried to use that math to claim it's workable for long term weight loss. This thread is not about "try to make people still obese, but they lost a few pounds". fishmech fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You will not lose weight unless the walk added up to enough additional calories versus sitting to bring you below break even. For vast amounts of obese people it won't. For even more obese people, it will only take you down a few pounds and then it's no longer counteracting enough of your overeating to continue losing weight. For nearly all obese people, these means it's useless to stop being obese, and thus it's useless to ending the obesity epidemic. Aboslutely zero of this is in conflict with my math.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it isn't, it's closer to 5% for the average person (the 2000 calorie base used for nutrition labels doesn't apple to most people in the least), and they're also already overeating significantly more than the "recommended" intake regardless. That's why they're fat as hell. Uhh, you do know that most calories are burned without any activity, right? If you're at a 2500 calorie baseline, you need about 800 calories of activity in a day. 140 is closer to an hour of walking, but burning 17% of your daily calories in one hour would a pretty big change, regardless of your activity level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Uhh, you do know that most calories are burned without any activity, right? If you're at a 2500 calorie baseline, you need about 800 calories of activity in a day. 140 is closer to an hour of walking, but burning 17% of your daily calories in one hour would a pretty big change, regardless of your activity level. And it's unconscious exercise, too. No one who lives in an area that's easily walkable thinks about the fact that they are exercising when they go out the door to walk to the corner store. Just like cutting out an extra soda a day can add up to long term weight loss, so too can becoming more active in the least conscious way possible. And the best way to encourage that is to shift urban planning policy away from building environments where you have no option but to use a car to do anything. That is one part of the myriad policy responses we can take to address the obesity health crisis (it isn't the primary reason we should reorient urban planning towards less auto-oriented development, but it's certainly a positive outcome of such). sitchensis fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:And it's unconscious exercise, too. No one who lives in an area that's easily walkable thinks about the fact that they are exercising when they go out the door to walk to the corner store. Yeah, it's not an alternative to exercising or eating less, it's an incremental benefit on top of that. I walk most places and go to the gym regularly and eat a reasonable diet. Diet is important, but physical activity is also really important too. Just lol if you don't think burning an extra 400 calories per day (some of which could easily come from walking, even if it's not the majority) would make a difference to an individual trying to lose weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Uhh, you do know that most calories are burned without any activity, right? If you're at a 2500 calorie baseline, you need about 800 calories of activity in a day. 140 is closer to an hour of walking, but burning 17% of your daily calories in one hour would a pretty big change, regardless of your activity level. You're also making the stupid assumption that very obese people are eating a relatively small number of calories compared to what they must actually be eating to be at the weight they have. Also I've no idea how you work one hour of exercise/activity out of a total of one mile or less of walking a day, you'd have to walk quite slow for that to happen, and the 140 calories is an overly optimistic estimate based on a quite fat person (over 100 pounds overweight for the average height male). sitchensis posted:Just like cutting out an extra soda a day can add up to long term weight loss, so too can becoming more active in the least conscious way possible. Sorry it actually can't. If the extra exercise remains low, you quickly reach the point where it no longer helps after a few pounds, and maintaining that extra activity level will at best allow you to plateau at that slightly lower weight. The math simply doesn't work for it leading to long term weight loss. PT6A posted:Yeah, it's not an alternative to exercising or eating less, it's an incremental benefit on top of that. I walk most places and go to the gym regularly and eat a reasonable diet. Diet is important, but physical activity is also really important too. Just lol if you don't think burning an extra 400 calories per day (some of which could easily come from walking, even if it's not the majority) would make a difference to an individual trying to lose weight. An extra 400 calories per day would require significantly more walking then having a good transit system would result in. That's on the order of 3 miles a day walking for a very heavy person, as much as 4 or 5 for lighter but still obese person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It is, because you tried to use that math to claim it's workable for long term weight loss. This thread is not about "try to make people still obese, but they lost a few pounds". I've listed cognitive behavioural therapy, combating poverty, and strength building as ways not only lose weight but to make people healthy too. Skinny people can be unhealthy too. Making unhealthy obese people into unhealthy skinny people does not solve the health crisis. Also, you do realize that even if you start eating eating less you'll still plateau at some point, unless you continuously cut intake to zero. But if you were to cut eating and walk 3 miles, your plateau would be even lower! SlipUp fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I've listed cognitive behavioural therapy, combating poverty, and strength building as ways not only lose weight but to make people healthy too. Skinny people can be unhealthy too. Making unhealthy obese people into unhealthy skinny people does not solve the health crisis. The CBT is for sticking to eating less. The combating poverty is about adjusting things so that you can eat less. Strength building has nothing to do with weighing less. Nobody cares about skinny people because that's not the topic of this thread, and it takes an awful lot of eating less to bring someone who is obese down to "unhealthily skinny". You have enough trouble getting to eat enough less that they can get down to normal range after a few years, and development of clinical anorexia is unlikely from just getting people to eat less. SlipUp posted:Also, you do realize that even if you start eating eating less you'll still plateau at some point, unless you continuously cut intake to zero. But if you were to cut eating and walk 3 miles, your plateau would be even lower! More basic math. It is unrealistic to expect the mass of people to switch to commutes that require walking 3 miles total a day. They're going to just drive. Most people who currently walk to work as their primary mode of commute walk an average of 1 mile round trip a day, as a fun lil' tidbit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The CBT is for sticking to eating less. The combating poverty is about adjusting things so that you can eat less. Strength building has nothing to do with weighing less. But it is realistic to expect people to cut their caloric intake, in some cases by half, and not indulge in more food under the stress of constantly feeling hungry. Exercise and controlled meals allow people to feel full and burn off the energy taken in. "Who cares if it causes another crisis, we solved this one!" lol. Also, strength building is relevant to weight loss. It was covered earlier in the thread. The science behind it is sound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:But it is realistic to expect people to cut their caloric intake, in some cases by half, and not indulge in more food under the stress of constantly feeling hungry. You only need to cut your calorie intake in half if you're one of the very few people whose current overeating puts you on track to hit like 600 pounds. There are probably no more than a thousand of those people int he country and they are irrelevant to solving the obesity epidemic. But yes, to not be obese you're going to have to deal with feeling hungry at times. It's not going to cause another crisis though. So we shouldn't care about a scenario that will never happen, where we go from 60%+ overwieight and obese to 60%+ anorexic No, it was not covered, because it's not relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:32
|
|