|
I don't think I grasped that one, can you go more in depth?Series DD Funding posted:This is common knowledge that actually isn't supported by the studies I did more reading and found this. quote:...epidemiologic findings show that weight variability over time is associated with increased total and cardiovascular mortality (relative risk: 1.5-2.0), independent of a variety of possible confounding variables. Although these findings are consistent across studies, methodologic limitations of a lack of a uniform or standard definition of weight cycling, and the linking of weight variability to unsuccessful dieting raise serous questions about whether these findings should be interpreted as supporting the weight-cycling hypothesis. Which sounds like a definitive maybe. lol SlipUp fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Nov 29, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
sitchensis posted: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!" What possible solution to obseity could there be, other than eat less? Or do you mean just telling people to eat less and leaving ot at that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Walking a block or ten a day isn't a useful amount of calories burned to counteract obesity. I lived in an area with great public transit and i walked about 3 miles, each way, when using public transit to my job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
If people can lose and keep off weight with Army food and calisthenics, then couldn't anyone do it? There's no equipment, or special clothing required, not even weights. As for the food, it's pretty much the cheapest Grain-Protein-Vegetable you can think of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I lived in an area with great public transit and i walked about 3 miles, each way, when using public transit to my job. Which area is this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:If people can lose and keep off weight with Army food and calisthenics, then couldn't anyone do it? Most people don't live under the highly regimented environment that the military entails, and even so, the number one reason for early discharge in the military is due to obesity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Which area is this? Tokyo. On the train map, stations that have transfers can be more than 800m away, with about five or sets of stairs for stations really deep. It smells really loving bad in summer with everyone's BO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Personal responsibility is a scary thing. It has to be society's fault. If it was just a matter of "personal responsibility" it would not be a "growing epidemic." You can't look at a huge change like this and chalk it up to a wide spread lack of "personal responsibility" and get anything useful out of it, if you are looking for a solution. Why has there been such a wide shift in "personal responsibility?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:If it was just a matter of "personal responsibility" it would not be a "growing epidemic." You can't look at a huge change like this and chalk it up to a wide spread lack of "personal responsibility" and get anything useful out of it, if you are looking for a solution. Why has there been such a wide shift in "personal responsibility?" And again, by most standards people in the United States aren't "lazy." The labor force is highly productive and works more hours than those in many countries with less of an obesity problem. Both of those things are diametrically opposed to laziness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:And again, by most standards people in the United States aren't "lazy." The labor force is highly productive and works more hours than those in many countries with less of an obesity problem. Both of those things are diametrically opposed to laziness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGa6BPj3Mcw Further I would suggest that an extra 2 hours a day sitting in front of a computer monitor (at vastly reduced pay) is not meaningfully working "harder", even if it is far more productive thanks in large part to enormous advances in technology, technological assistance, and education
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Are people lazy because their office workplace has a traditional desk and chair, like every office forever until recently? It's not like the fact that your sitting makes any job automatically easy or relaxing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:If it was just a matter of "personal responsibility" it would not be a "growing epidemic." You can't look at a huge change like this and chalk it up to a wide spread lack of "personal responsibility" and get anything useful out of it, if you are looking for a solution. Why has there been such a wide shift in "personal responsibility?" Probably has something to do with the wide availability of cheap, available, calorically dense foods that are engineered to be eaten en masse. Or you could tell yourself whatever you have to so you can sleep at night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
is becoming fat and unattractive just an unavoidable fate for some people is that the verdict of this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
No? No one except the Fat-activits being mocked believes that.Canine Blues Arooo posted:Probably has something to do with the wide availability of cheap, available, calorically dense foods that are engineered to be eaten en masse. Obviously, simply telling people to eat less isn't working, so it's useful to look at the environment. People are moving less, that's bad, let's try and get people walking more through promoting mass transit. A lot of people are eating calorie dense food, okay, let's talk about gradually reducing that calorie density over time - if you do it slow enough and get all manufacturers on board, people won't even notice. As it is, food manufacturers are in an arms race - if they cut fat/sugar content, they'll lose out to competitors that don't, so the calorie count keeps going up overall. Change the dynamic and you solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Losing weight is more about the quality of your food, than the quantity - though it is definitely much harder to overeat with fruits/vegetables/nuts/seeds. 2000 calories from a diet that includes a variety of plant based foods is drastically different than 2000 calories of gummy bears. Your diet is far more than just a number that represents 'total food eaten' and trying to get a meaningful, positive change in health by adjusting that one variable downward is probably not likely to work. Also, we have an entire industry in America that depends on people consuming more snack foods than ever. To that end, processed foods are engineered so that they can override your biological feedback system to get you to eat way more than is healthy or necessary. Combine that with advertising that is near constant and it's really no wonder we're all fat. In my opinion, you should not be allowed to advertise anything to children that has 'sugar' listed as the first ingredient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Losing weight is more about the quality of your food, than the quantity - though it is definitely much harder to overeat with fruits/vegetables/nuts/seeds. 2000 calories from a diet that includes a variety of plant based foods is drastically different than 2000 calories of gummy bears. Your diet is far more than just a number that represents 'total food eaten' and trying to get a meaningful, positive change in health by adjusting that one variable downward is probably not likely to work. You're conflating health with losing weight. They're not the same thing. Losing weight is about the quantity of food you consume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're conflating health with losing weight. They're not the same thing. Losing weight is about the quantity of food you consume. Yes. Skinnyfat people are a thing, and not great icons of health either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:27
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
computer parts posted:You're conflating health with losing weight. They're not the same thing. Losing weight is about the quantity of food you consume. Okay strictly speaking you can starve someone down to a more normal BMI but it's a pretty bad idea and doesn't work in the long run. Also Obesity is directly correlated with a poo poo-ton of terrible ailments, so yeah, you can conflate health with weight in many cases. This is what 'Health at any size' is talking about, and it's wrong. Being fat will kill you (prematurely), it is unhealthy. blowfish posted:Yes. Skinnyfat people are a thing, and not great icons of health either. This is a false equivalency. There are skinny fat people, however - The National Institute of Health posted:More than one-third (35.7 percent) of adults are considered to be obese. More than 1 in 20 (6.3 percent) have extreme obesity. Almost 3 in 4 men (74 percent) are considered to be overweight or obese. The prevalence of obesity is similar for both men and women (about 36 percent). We don't have a skinny fat problem in America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Okay strictly speaking you can starve someone down to a more normal BMI but it's a pretty bad idea and doesn't work in the long run. Also Obesity is directly correlated with a poo poo-ton of terrible ailments, so yeah, you can conflate health with weight in many cases. This is what 'Health at any size' is talking about, and it's wrong. Being fat will kill you (prematurely), it is unhealthy. I always wondered how they are measuring that? I've never had my BMI or fat % taken in any official capacity and I don't know anybody who has (not that it ever really gets brought up), unless they are using the same BMI calculator you find on Google, which is horribly inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Okay strictly speaking you can starve someone down to a more normal BMI but it's a pretty bad idea and doesn't work in the long run. I'm not talking about starving, I'm talking about reducing food intake. There's no magical reason why the current amount of food eaten by people is the ideal amount, and indeed it's the main driver of why people are so fat. You also don't seem to have read the thread, since you post stuff like: Full Battle Rattle posted:This is what 'Health at any size' is talking about, and it's wrong. Being fat will kill you (prematurely), it is unhealthy. No one is disagreeing with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Cole posted:I always wondered how they are measuring that? I've never had my BMI or fat % taken in any official capacity and I don't know anybody who has (not that it ever really gets brought up), unless they are using the same BMI calculator you find on Google, which is horribly inaccurate. The BMI calculator on Google is perfectly accurate, it's the BMI itself which is a measurement of dubious usefulness on a personal level. Fat percentage, the more useful measurement, is something you can't measure on the Internet alone, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The BMI calculator on Google is perfectly accurate, it's the BMI itself which is a measurement of dubious usefulness on a personal level. I phrased it wrong. I should have said everyone has a different optimum BMI. But is BMI what they use for obesity statistics? Because I think that would skew the number a bit. Cole fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:I phrased it wrong. I should have said everyone has a different BMI. Obesity is BMI > 30 (I believe, it's on one of the graphs posted earlier in the thread). If you're using an average of the population, it's a lot less skewed. The main way BMI fucks up is if you have a lot of dense mass, and that only happens if you have a lot of muscle, which isn't a concern for much of the population. The way body fat percentage is calculated is really interesting too. Basically you step on a scale, and they do a test of electrical impedance by running a current through your feet and measuring the result. I just bought a scale which is supposed to do that, although obviously it'll be a lot less accurate than a professional piece of equipment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about starving, I'm talking about reducing food intake. There's no magical reason why the current amount of food eaten by people is the ideal amount, and indeed it's the main driver of why people are so fat. Found another good source. quote:A calorie is not a calorie, considering that protein is five calorie-burning steps away from body fat—convert into amino acids, convert to glucose, meet up with insulin, transform to fatty acids, and hook up with glycerol-3-phospate—while fat is only two calorie-burning steps away—convert into fatty acids and hook up with glycerol-3-phospate. Apparently just eating less is not the simple catch all solution you make it out to be. This is a crisis of health, not a crisis of ugliness. The only reason you support threat less mantra is because of it's simplicity but there is exactly zero scientific evidence to prove that it is an effective method of losing weight and keeping it off. We have unhealthy people that we want to make healthy due to the growing cost of healthcare we all share. Simply eating less does nothing to counteract the damage already done to the body as listed above. I've asked you to find sources that support your stance and you have failed to do so. Your stance is scientifically and ethically bankrupt. E: BMI is hilariously outdated. People are taller and have denser bone masses than we had in the 1950s. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Ultimately, barring an easting disorder, a mirror is the best way to tell if you're fat as gently caress or not, if you're being honest with yourself. If you see a lot of fat and no muscle definition: you're fat! Of all the issues with the obesity crisis, I think "can we tell if people are fat" is near the bottom in terms of poo poo we need to be worried about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Found another good source. So has your position morphed into "eat smarter, not just less?" Because that's what that article says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:And again, by most standards people in the United States aren't "lazy." The labor force is highly productive and works more hours than those in many countries with less of an obesity problem. Both of those things are diametrically opposed to laziness. Brannock posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGa6BPj3Mcw Once again, we return to the question of willpower and stress. Significantly altering your diet is hard. Exercising, when you start out, is also hard. Exercising while being subject to social derision is even harder. 'Eating less is an easy thing to do' is a falsehood for a lot of people. If someone is first stressed out by overworking, then returns home to a second shift with the children, they may simply lack the mental fortitude to force themselves into the additional hardship. (On the other thing, culture being what it is, I somewhat doubt that the sane solution of subsidised healthy takeouts and communal kitchens would gain any acceptance.) Also, I just want to laugh at all of you who talk about 2500 calories/day as the baseline. The daily intake on which I don't gain weight is around 1200, and this is after exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
My position has always been better diet, exercise, mental health, and fighting poverty. I feel that source directly contradicts your position, for which you still have supplied nothing but conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
meristem posted:
Ooh careful, SlipUp will call you an idiot. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about starving, I'm talking about reducing food intake. There's no magical reason why the current amount of food eaten by people is the ideal amount, and indeed it's the main driver of why people are so fat. If you reduce food intake by eating less of the garbage you already eat the odds of creating any sustained weight loss is low, sorry. The type of food that you're eating matters. People over eat because the majority of foods offered to them are nutrient poor, which encourages overeating, and sugar laden, which also encourage over eating. Incidentally, when you cut calories on a diet like that it tends to make you irritable because you're not getting your fix anymore. There are jobs where people just sit around all day and try to figure out how to alter Oreos chemically so that it's nearly physically impossible to stop eating them once you start. This whole problem stems from capitalism gone awry, because our economy doesn't work unless people are buying X bags of cheetos a day. Believing that people can just eat less is being really ignorant of what the problem actually is. The biggest lie that the food industry would like you to believe is: "Weight loss is just calories in vs. calories out!" Because this allows you to still eat their products, even if it's just less of them. It also allows them to market processed foods in pre-measured calorie packs and utilize the latest food science fads to convince you that eating THIS bag of chips won't make you fat. It also lets them shift the blame onto people not exercising enough, when one can of coca cola packs as many calories as a fairly intense workout, and people are drinking it by the gallon. Of course, they could just drink less, but mountain dew has had generations of engineers working on it to make sure that it's basically crack juice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
I don't disagree with that at all. It was one of your side who got probated for being a super aggressive blowhard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I don't disagree with that at all. Really? Because your stance the entire way was about how diet and exercise were totally easy because something something hunger pangs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Really? Because your stance the entire way was about how diet and exercise were totally easy because something something hunger pangs. Diet and exercise is better, yes. You have a better chance of success both in losing the weight and keeping it off. Do you have anything to defend your stance in light of my source showing that simply eating less does not work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:If you reduce food intake by eating less of the garbage you already eat the odds of creating any sustained weight loss is low, sorry. The type of food that you're eating matters. People over eat because the majority of foods offered to them are nutrient poor, which encourages overeating, and sugar laden, which also encourage over eating. Incidentally, when you cut calories on a diet like that it tends to make you irritable because you're not getting your fix anymore. There are jobs where people just sit around all day and try to figure out how to alter Oreos chemically so that it's nearly physically impossible to stop eating them once you start. This whole problem stems from capitalism gone awry, because our economy doesn't work unless people are buying X bags of cheetos a day. Believing that people can just eat less is being really ignorant of what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure if people were eating 2200kcal a day like they were in 1975 or so instead of 2600 or 2700, obesity rates would be lower. So in fact, eating less does lead to weight loss!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm pretty sure if people were eating 2200kcal a day like they were in 1975 or so instead of 2600 or 2700, obesity rates would be lower. So in fact, eating less does lead to weight loss! Here's an interview with a researcher who is a psychologist at the U of Minn. quote:You have worked at the eating lab for some time. What is the eating lab? What does one do at an eating lab? The concept of an eating lab is really cool, but I have to admit that I don't quite know what it is. Also feel free to read the source I posted earlier on this page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
meristem posted:Also, I just want to laugh at all of you who talk about 2500 calories/day as the baseline. The daily intake on which I don't gain weight is around 1200, and this is after exercise. There's no baseline which won't look ridiculous for a significant portion of the population, though. I need 2500-3000 calories per day, depending on how much activity I do, just to maintain my weight. I'm 6'1" and around 165 lbs, which I don't think is particularly "large" in any sense. You must have a really efficient metabolism or be much smaller than average.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm pretty sure if people were eating 2200kcal a day like they were in 1975 or so instead of 2600 or 2700, obesity rates would be lower. So in fact, eating less does lead to weight loss! People also ate a LOT less processed food in 1975. The high sugar foods themselves encourage overeating. Liquid calories (especially soda) barely even register at all despite being one of the most energy dense substances we consume, and they're super sugary so they really hit all the good feels in the brain. Once you pop you can't stop? That's not just a slogan, that's a goal. The average person is up against decades of chemical engineering and an advertising industry that basically rules modern society. In some cases, such as food deserts, these high sugar foods might be all that's available. Companies have also been slowly pushing average serving sizes up. A small does not mean the same thing as it did in 1975. The increased calorie intake is a feature of capitalism - not a bug. EDIT: In particular, the profit margins on soda are astronomical, so there's a huge impetus to get people to drink as much soda as possible. The reason 'dieting' doesn't work is that if you go back to eating trash you're gonna be trash again, there's no way to make yourself immune to trash Full Battle Rattle fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:"Weight loss is just calories in vs. calories out!" I haven't read the entire thread, but has this been discussed previously in the thread? Do the scientists studying nutrition actually understand it well enough to say that it is calories that only matter for weight loss, or can they definitively make an argument that eating certain kinds of calories change your metabolism in ways which make your body run more or less efficiently, therefore a calorie isn't just a calorie? I'm ignoring the important factor that you brought up in your post regarding it being easier to overeat calorie-dense foods rather than stuff like vegetables. I suspect that since the body is pretty complicated, nutrition scientists don't really know what they are doing, and the data they get from their surveys is pretty bad since people lie or don't understand how much they eat. This certainly doesn't help the case for people in this thread who want the government to mandate a healthy diet for every American because it is still pretty vague about what a healthy diet is. Probably it involves eating some vegetables and not eating too much, whatever too much is, but past that it is debatable, and the nutrition advice changes and contradicts itself all the time. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Stress has zero calories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Why are you conflating eating less to going on a diet? A diet infers some temporary arrangement and what I'm saying is that people need to eat less food for the rest of their lives
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:44
|
|