SlipUp posted:Oh hey more research. Success rates of 20% actually suggest this is worse than doing nothing, as obesity+overweight rates aren't yet at 80%. So, um, your data doesn't support your claims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted: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. They've said exercise is irrelevant to weight loss, that is factually false. They've claimed it's easier to just eat less than to eat less and exercise, long term weight loss trends suggest otherwise. I've provided proof, they've provided conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Best is not easiest. Again, learn to read. If you fail to keep the weight off, than it wasn't that easy was it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:They've said exercise is irrelevant to weight loss, that is factually false. I never said exercise is irrelevant, I said it was harder. Your data doesn't support the latter point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Success rates of 20% actually suggest this is worse than doing nothing, as obesity+overweight rates aren't yet at 80%. So, um, your data doesn't support your claims. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post, or do I need to show you how to use the "show posts by user" button again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I never said exercise is irrelevant, I said it was harder. Yes it does. Higher success rate = easier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:If you fail to keep the weight off, than it wasn't that easy was it? That's actually a completely different metric, which is relapsing. If eating less was so hard, you wouldn't see weight loss in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
SlipUp posted:If you fail to keep the weight off, than it wasn't that easy was it? So why do you assume that it's easier to get people to follow your program, fuckface? The data you've provided shows it to fail 80% of the time.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:24
|
|
SlipUp posted:I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post, or do I need to show you how to use the "show posts by user" button again. I'm not going to respond to a stupid lil dickweed's insane misunderstanding except in ways that are illegal to mention on this forum. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's actually a completely different metric, which is relapsing. Yes, I assumed keeping the weight off is part of the consideration of losing weight. Also, please consult my second article w/r/t to losing weight in the first place. Finally, post some sources, or shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So why do you assume that it's easier to get people to follow your program, fuckface? The data you've provided shows it to fail 80% of the time. Because people fail to keep the weight off they lost at an alarming rate all the drat time, regardless of method. The data I provided showed it was the most successful plan, more successful than just eating less. How about actually reading a thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Yes, I assumed keeping the weight off is part of the consideration of losing weight. Well, then you were wrong. We're not even at the "how do we keep relapses from happening after people stop being obese" stage, we're at the "how do we stop the gain in obesity rates" stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
hahaha, who gives a gently caress if they're healthy or if they keep the weight off. Real shining examples of humanity here people. You are still avoiding the second study I posted even after I drew your attention to it. e: here it is, again quote:Len Kravitz, Ph.D. posted: url in the original post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:30
|
|
SlipUp posted:Because people fail to keep the weight off they lost at an alarming rate all the drat time, regardless of method. The data I provided showed it was the most successful plan, more successful than just eating less. How about actually reading a thing? It shows greater weight lost in comparison to other methods, and doesn't say anything about relative success rates. In the absence of such data, we can assume that proposals which necessitate smaller modifications of lifestyle will be more successful, because they are, literally, easier to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:
The one that says you can keep on stuffing your face with Big Macs as long as you work out for an hour?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It shows greater weight lost in comparison to other methods, and doesn't say anything about relative success rates. In the absence of such data, we can assume that proposals which necessitate smaller modifications of lifestyle will be more successful, because they are, literally, easier to do. I agree, many smaller changes are much easier to implement than one massive change. Glad to see you agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I agree, many smaller changes are much easier to implement than one massive change. Glad to see you agree. Such as simply eating less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The one that says you can keep on stuffing your face with Big Macs as long as you work out for an hour? quote:It is well established that exercise and diet modification is the best method for weight loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Such as simply eating less. That would be one of the changes I myself have listed in conjunction with others, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:That would be one of the changes I myself have listed in conjunction with others, yes. And the fewer the changes, the easier the program is going to be. Therefore eating less is easier than eating less + ________.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:38
|
|
SlipUp posted:I agree, many smaller changes are much easier to implement than one massive change. Glad to see you agree. This doesn't follow from what I said. Your gotcha fails. Shameful, shameful. I guess you don't have anything else. You're almost totally used up, aren't you?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And the fewer the changes, the easier the program is going to be. Therefore eating less is easier than eating less + ________. You don't have to eat as much less as somebody not exercising but if you do it takes less time. You also won't have to do it as many times because it has a higher rate of success. quote:It is well established that exercise and diet modification is the best method for weight loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You don't have to eat as much less as somebody not exercising but if you do it takes less time. You also won't have to do it as many times because it has a higher rate of success. Changing your diet (of which eating less is a subset) is not a punishment, so it "not having to do it as many times" is nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. Not that much different. Bicycles convert energy into motion much more efficiently than walking: https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html quote:It takes less energy to bicycle one mile than it takes to walk a mile. In fact, a bicycle can be up to 5 times more efficient than walking. On a bike I can sit perfectly still and coast periodically. So say 16 miles a day is roughly equal to walking three miles a day. His mile out and mile back of walking is less, but it's not a whole other ballgame. Esp if he is carrying weight on his back in a backpack while I am carrying it in my panniers. Moving to panniers was a noticeable difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Changing your diet (of which eating less is a subset) is not a punishment, so it "not having to do it as many times" is nonsensical. Oh cool so you agree with the first part of my post. Weight yoyoing is super unhealthy so yes you are essentially punishing your body for your failure, so you should probably go with the most successful method.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Oh cool so you agree with the first part of my post. Weight yoyoing is super unhealthy so yes you are essentially punishing your body for your failure, so you should probably go with the most successful method. Once you're at a low weight, you don't need to exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Weight yoyoing is super unhealthy This is common knowledge that actually isn't supported by the studies
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
I agree that diet is overwhelmingly more important than exercise for weight loss but someone who does no exercise is still likely to be unhealthy and not look or feel very good. There's been pages of discussion about exercise and weight loss and I think it's pretty pointless, weight loss should not be the main point of exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Cole posted:No it isn't. There is a reason there are so many results from places like Michigan State on Google for "why is sugar measured in grams" with accompanying conversion guides. Even if it was, it'd be the only thing on the nutrition label that exists as a household item in a 100% pure form. The only thing similar is oils, which are about 100% fat, but that fails too if you start caring about saturation breakdown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This doesn't follow from what I said. Your gotcha fails. Shameful, shameful. I guess you don't have anything else. You're almost totally used up, aren't you? In case you forgot, our very first interaction on this was when you took issue with me saying there was a bunch of things we should do to combat obesity. You responded with 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? To which I quoted at least four other things I listed in this very thread and you slunk away until you felt confident enough to come back and take a baffling whiff on interpreting a scientific study. When I enquired about our earlier encounter, you responded with: Effectronica posted:I'm not going to respond to a stupid lil dickweed's insane misunderstanding except in ways that are illegal to mention on this forum. You are seriously unhinged, and frankly I don't feel like you have any legitimacy on this topic so I don't really feel bad for not engaging you any longer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
It's really weird and sad seeing people get caught up on loving stupid technical details cuz it's so important for them to be right and slip be wrong. Of loving course keeping the weight off matters. If at any given time 10% of the current obese population has dropped to a healthy weight, but overall everyone ends up yoyoing back then we haven't actually done anything but make a graph look nicer. Reading this thread the best way to lose weight is to stop eating. Period. Also the easiest. And best. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Reading this thread the best way to lose weight is to stop eating. Period. Also the easiest. And best. Not the easiest, although by the criteria presented earlier, you could make an argument for best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:This is common knowledge that actually isn't supported by the studies Really? I had no idea. I have more reading to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Okay Computer Parts, since we are actually having a discussion, I want to pose a question. If all we care about is the bar-nothing easiest way to lose weight, why not suggest smoking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Okay Computer Parts, we are actually having a discussion so I want to pose a question. If all we care about is the bar-nothing easy way to lose weight, why not suggest smoking? Because a government program to promote smoking among the population is bad. And eating less is still easier than smoking anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
I just don't think "eating less" is actually that easy. It requires you to remove a significant part of your intake and the willpower to see it through for months maybe years until the cravings subside, while setting yourself up for failure. (Being a failure is never easy.) Smoking requires no willpower and doesn't require the indefinitely long introspective struggle. Heck, if you're smoking you won't even have to think about weight loss and you'll still lose weight! In any case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
SlipUp fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
When there is actually a "rational actor" level of perfect information taught to everyone about nutrition, I'll accept the argument that "eating less" is the solution to the obesity epidemic. As it stands though, there is no such thing and there are literally hundreds of factors that go into why someone may or may not become obese. It's a "bootstraps!!!" argument if I ever heard one and it's useless to wipe your hands and say "well it's fixed now!" This isn't to reduce individual agency as being completely out of the picture, though. Because as human beings we live in this weird tension between our own self determination and the society and culture that we are influenced by. To discount either one of them as being a factor in obesity is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I just don't think "eating less" is actually that easy. It requires you to remove a significant part of your intake and the willpower to see it through for months maybe years until the cravings subside, while setting yourself up for failure. Oh, so just like quitting smoking. Too bad the US hasn't had significant success cutting smoking rates or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh, so just like quitting smoking. Too bad the US hasn't had significant success cutting smoking rates or anything like that. I'm sure they did it just by telling people to smoke less. No information campaigns, no hotlines, no stop smoking aids. Besides, smoking is an addiction, food isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:I'm sure they did it just by telling people to smoke less. No information campaigns, no hotlines, no stop smoking aids. Besides, smoking is an addiction, food isn't. Oh, so it should be easier to help with food then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:32
|
|