|
fishmech posted: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. But yes, to not be obese you're going to have to deal with feeling hungry at times. Malnutrition and stress are serious health problems. It was covered, whether you feel it's relevant or not doesn't mean people didn't talk about it. lmao what the gently caress are you even talking about.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:Malnutrition and stress are serious health problems. Malnutrition has not caused obesity, and stress is irrelevant to eating less. You simply do have to eat less, or get the fat cut out of you. There are no other options. It was a covered in a way that reinforced that it's not meaningful towards losing weight. I'm sorry you're so stubborn you will refuse to admit the truth that eating less is the only true way to long term stay not really fat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
No. Being fat is totally changeable and unlike other protected classes you can transcend all the attached disadvantages by making the conscious choice and effort to not be fat. e: I lost 75lbs after joining the Army and kept it off for 6 years so it's doable and it's not like Army food and PT is the ideal diet and exercise. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:So I think we're all aware of the tidal wave of fat that seems to be flooding most of the planet by now. Its spreading into areas where obesity was never an issue in decades past, especially non-first world countries, for example poor Mexico has been fatter than America for the last few years. It also hasn't stopped spreading in places that are traditionally seen as generally overweight, such the United States where more than a third of adults are now considered obese. Is it so hard not to be a bully to people who are different from you? People come in different sizes. People struggle with different things. Maybe there are reasons they are fat that are not your business to rag on them for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Malnutrition has not caused obesity, and stress is irrelevant to eating less. You simply do have to eat less, or get the fat cut out of you. There are no other options. You said it yourself, these people will have to feel hungry. Feeling hunger causes stress, which is a detriment to human health. Eating the same and working about will cause you to lose weight, and you have offered no reason that it wouldn't that wouldn't also apply to eating less. If you do a bunch of little things, they will be easier than one massive change and people will have a better chance at success. Time is a factor in weight loss, no matter what option you pick. If a guy who weighs 260 walks an hour every day for a year barring any other changes to lifestyle he will he closer to 215 and that is still success. As far as I'm concerned, your answer to the obesity question is make people not fat. My answer is to make people healthy. I'm bored and done repeating myself, so I'll leave you the last word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Maybe instead of bullying people or using them as an object of mockery we should look at the root causes of the problem. If obesity is growing, then it cannot merely be a matter of personal choice. There are external factors causing obesity to grow. Consider the rat park experiment. Long story short, it was a study on addiction and addictive substances that recognized that rats don't normally live in cages and put rats in more natural settings an observed that they rarely touched heroin when they could play and eat and gently caress and be free. If we see overeating as an addictive behavior, consider the other things that have happened in the past several decades. Wages have been stagnant even as corporate profits and productivity have increased. We are working, longer, harder, and for less pay than we used to. At the same time, lovely food is subsidized and time to cook and exercise is at a premium. More broadly I think we need to move away from shaming people for their bodies. Its speaks volumes about who we are when we engage in mockery and bullying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Maybe instead of bullying people or using them as an object of mockery we should look at the root causes of the problem. If obesity is growing, then it cannot merely be a matter of personal choice. There are external factors causing obesity to grow. Personal responsibility is a scary thing. It has to be society's fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Maybe instead of bullying people or using them as an object of mockery we should look at the root causes of the problem. If obesity is growing, then it cannot merely be a matter of personal choice. There are external factors causing obesity to grow. Obesity is not a result of food addiction. There are no withdrawal symptoms and food is a necessity of life. Would you support interventions for obese people, or body fat % screening as a employment requirement? I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your post but I don't take any particular issue with it. I do disagree with the concept of food addiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You said it yourself, these people will have to feel hungry. Feeling hunger causes stress, which is a detriment to human health. It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. From the post you quoted: quote:burning an extra 400 calories per day (some of which could easily come from walking, even if it's not the majority) Of course it's not going to be just walking, but walking can be a part of being more physically active and it's very easy, if you're presently leading a very sedentary lifestyle, to burn an additional 400 calories through physical activity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no. You are technically correct. Stress is a part of our physiology and has beneficial aspects to the human experience. So does pain. If somebody said "This would cause pain and that would be detrimental." and you said "It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no." it would be overly semantic, as it is here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You are technically correct. Stress is a part of our physiology and has beneficial aspects to the human experience. So does pain. If somebody said "This would cause pain and that would be detrimental." and you said "It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no." it would be overly semantic, as it is here. Well, you're also assuming the stress is chronic, when instead it would be temporary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, you're also assuming the stress is chronic, when instead it would be temporary. Would it not impede weight loss in some way? It's like the marshmallow experiment except this time, there's an extra person in the room. For one subject they encourage them to eat the marshmallow, for the other subject they tell them that they don't need the marshmallow and it's kinda gross anyway. Who has a better chance of not eating the marshmallow? For laughs, if the subject walked to the experiment they could eat the marshmallow and experience neither loss or gain, or leave the marshmallow and lose weight. Also if they walk there the person is less likely to encourage the subject to eat the marshmallow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Would it not impede weight loss in some way? Yes, but so does the stress generated by extra exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, but so does the stress generated by extra exercise. The difference is that the person who is exercising is pre occupied with something and generally consumes a lot of fluid(Hopefully water.) which inhibits the feeling of hunger. The person focusing on not eating is the person trying not to think of camels. Boredom causes stress and hunger too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The difference is that the person who is exercising is pre occupied with something and generally consumes a lot of fluid(Hopefully water.) which inhibits the feeling of hunger. The person focusing on not eating is the person trying not to think of camels. Boredom causes stress and hunger too. I don't see why someone not eating can't drink water too. Oh and it's not like they're skipping a meal, they're just ordering 1 Big Mac instead of 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Personal responsibility is a scary thing. It has to be society's fault. When fully 75% of adults are overweight and nearly 33% are obese it points to a societal issue, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't see why someone not eating can't drink water too. Okay so here is the problem, you are directly addressing points I was making to fishmech, and I don't feel like those are the points you were trying to make? If you are trying to follow fishmechs reasoning I would say that 1 big mac is only 257 calories and while I think that would be a good start by his own definition is not "meaningful" weight loss. If you're following your own reasoning, I would point out that you could work out, drink water, and kick it back to 1 big mac and you'd lose double to triple the calories, not feel hungry, (Less likely to overeat.) and not feel bloated by just drinking water without sweating it out. (Ironically gaining weight due to water retention.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
A big Mac is 563 calories what are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Okay so here is the problem, you are directly addressing points I was making to fishmech, and I don't feel like those are the points you were trying to make? If you are trying to follow fishmechs reasoning I would say that 1 big mac is only 257 calories and while I think that would be a good start by his own definition is not "meaningful" weight loss. If you're following your own reasoning, I would point out that you could work out, drink water, and kick it back to 1 big mac and you'd lose double to triple the calories, not feel hungry, (Less likely to overeat.) and not feel bloated by just drinking water without sweating it out. (Ironically gaining weight due to water retention.) Yeah and the point is that it's easier to just not eat a Big Mac instead of doing all of that. Like here's the point: If a Big Mac has 250 calories, and working out for an hour burns 250 calories, then not eating a Big Mac is equivalent to working out for an hour. It's much easier to not eat a Big Mac then to work out for an hour. Yes, if you did both you can reduce your net calorie intake even farther, but that's not the point. The point is that between two activities that reduce your caloric intake by the same amount, one of them is much easier than the other. Because it's much easier, it's much easier to sell to the general populace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
rscott posted:A big Mac is 563 calories what are you talking about Oops, I was looking at calories per 100 grams haha. It's an easy mistake to make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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). I'm assuming that people are eating whatever amount of calories it would take to maintain their current weight, or at least not significantly more than that. 140 calories is how much an average adult male would burn spending an hour walking, since, by your own admission, your estimate of 140 calories was completely arbitrary and you'd brought up the 2000 calorie baseline (I'm going with a 2500 calorie baseline for an adult male, for the record). If you wanna contest any of the math people are doing, at least have the courtesy to provide a proper baseline to argue against. How much does the average obese person you're trying to cure weigh? How many calories above their weight maintenance baseline are they consuming? What is their daily level of activity? fishmech posted:Strength building has nothing to do with weighing less. Uh, strength gain is like the best thing you can do for long term weight loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah and the point is that it's easier to just not eat a Big Mac instead of doing all of that. It's not easier though, it's just easier said than done. Working out will absolutely help with the hunger side of things. If you believe in personal responsibility at all we should give people the best methods to leading a healthy lifestyle. What you guys are doing is like advocating abstinence. Morally righteous, simplistic, and I guess technically true, but all in the name of having to avoid doing the hard things. Which like I said earlier is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:It's not easier though, it's just easier said than done. No, it's objectively easier. Doing Nothing is always easier than Doing Something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Your body is not doing nothing, at any time. It's the difference between resisting the urge and not having the urge at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Your body is not doing nothing at any time. It's the difference between resisting the urge and not having the urge at all. Not Doing Something is easier than Doing Something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Enjoy your abstinence only approach, they have been so successful in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Enjoy your abstinence only approach, they have been so successful in the past. The abstinence of only eating one Big Mac instead of two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
The abstinence of intelligence apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
It's literally not an abstinence program, it is asking people to moderate their intake of food. Why do you persist on being factually incorrect all the time
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The abstinence of intelligence apparently. I see you've had a headstart on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's literally not an abstinence program, it is asking people to moderate their intake of food. Why do you persist on being factually incorrect all the time I'm more interested in actually being helpful to people than justifying my smugness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Applying logic to an incorrect set of facts leads to incorrect conclusions which don't help anyone, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
What does science say about all this?American Society for Clinical Nutrition posted:SUMMARY Oh look at that, research from the society for researchers and practitioners in nutrition directly supports what I've been saying w/r/t successful weight loss and directly contradicts the just eat less crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:When fully 75% of adults are overweight and nearly 33% are obese it points to a societal issue, yes It's a societal issue because it's on a huge scale and affects things like how we build infrastructure and what not, but on an individual level, it's an individual's responsibility. Society didn't make you fat. You made you fat. Poverty is something that you can more firmly blame on society, not being overweight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:What does science say about all this? They're not saying "just eat less" and literally nothing else. Of course exercise comes into it, that's why they've had a pedantic slapfight over walking or whatever as well. "People being unsuccessful" in the long-term says nothing about whether or not it's impossible. It's not an easy task solely because of the human element and it's on the human to change that poo poo about themselves. Or die earlier and live shittier than I will assuming I don't get creamed by a bus. I mean, it's their life not mine if they really want to do that more than they want to put out the heavy effort it takes I guess. e: tldr it's going to take tons of work =! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE GUYS DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:09
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
SlipUp posted:What does science say about all this? That's a self selection bias. For people in current society, if you lose a lot of weight you're likely to both do constant exercise and eat less. It says nothing about the relative ease of doing so for people in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Oh hey more research.Len Kravitz, Ph.D. posted:The applications from this review article are consequential to the personal trainer and fitness professional for two important reasons. It is well established that exercise and diet modification is the best method for weight loss. However, Ross and colleagues and Sopko and associates also show the efficacy and worth of exercise only programs for promoting weight loss (in overweight and obese populations). Also, from a health perspective it is quite meaningful to emphasize that aerobic exercise independently decreases the risk of CAD and related comobidites. For health benefits, Ross et al. (2000) confirm established recommendations of regular, moderate-intensity physical activity, such as brisk walking, for 30 to 60 minutes on most days of the week. The also suggest that “substantial reductions in obesity and related comorbid conditions will result when daily exercise is performed at a moderate intensity for 45 to 60 minutes a day without deceasing caloric intake.” However, since most of this health benefits research has been done in predominantly male populations, more research is needed with overweight and obese female populations to validate these benefits in women. All the scientists are saying the best way to lose weight and keep it off is diet AND exercise. Wow that's totally different from what you guys have been saying! I wonder where ya'll got your information from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's a self selection bias. For people in current society, if you lose a lot of weight you're likely to both do constant exercise and eat less. It says nothing about the relative ease of doing so for people in general. I think successfully maintaining the weight loss corresponds to it's relative ease.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:Oh hey more research. Best is not easiest. Again, learn to read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:15
|
|