|
rscott posted: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 A diet can be a long term thing. You should always have a healthy diet, for example.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
A diet is the collection of things you eat. Dieting, as a verb, is stupid as gently caress. "Changing your diet" to be healthier makes a lot of sense, and it's not a temporary thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Yes but the term "going on a diet" in the American vernacular implies a temporary arrangement or plan to achieve a goal
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
rscott posted: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 The distinction is made within the very url I linked and the very passage I quote. But since you didn't read it I guess I'll just have to re quote it. quote:What people tend to think is that if only Joe had self-control then he could succeed on his diet forever. And that's not accurate, as it turns out. That's not true. Maybe try actually engaging the material this time instead of mistakenly slapping down the first idea that comes your head so that you don't even have acknowledge the evidence against your claims. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
rscott posted:Yes but the term "going on a diet" in the American vernacular implies a temporary arrangement or plan to achieve a goal Well, if you want to lose weight, then you have to adjust your diet to a point where there's a calorie deficit so you lose weight, and then upon achieving your target weight, you should adjust your diet to maintain that weight. The calorie-deficit phase has to be temporary, but the changes to your diet overall must be permanent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Nah for most people you can pick a calorie budget that will maintain the desired body weight and just eat that much until you hit your body weight goal. Their rate of weight loss will start out steep and then slow down as they slim down but they will eventually reach that weight
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
I'm reposting this so that my previous post on the bottom of a page doesn't get missed in a fast-moving thread.silence_kit posted: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. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:Nah for most people you can pick a calorie budget that will maintain the desired body weight and just eat that much until you hit your body weight goal. Their rate of weight loss will start out steep and then slow down as they slim down but they will eventually reach that weight *Citation needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Brannock posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGa6BPj3Mcw Those advances in technology, etc are just as available (if not moreso) in countries that have significantly lower productivity. Workers in the US destroy themselves for their employers. There is no indicator that really shows otherwise. In general I'm really wary of the idea that weight has the perfect correlation with virtue that a lot of people seem to think it does. I see myself lazy as hell and currently am at my highest BMI ever around like 21 or so. I have plenty of friends who are edging into overweight or obese who spend a hell of a lot more time and energy than I do on dieting and exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
rscott posted:Nah for most people you can pick a calorie budget that will maintain the desired body weight and just eat that much until you hit your body weight goal. Their rate of weight loss will start out steep and then slow down as they slim down but they will eventually reach that weight You could do that but it would take a lot longer to reach the target weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:
You linked some random website by someone who capitalizes random syllables in words to emphasize their point, can you show me where the actual evidence lies because all I see is random unsupported assertions
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You said it yourself, these people will have to feel hungry. Feeling hunger causes stress, which is a detriment to human health. 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. Ok but your point is? Unless you figure out some way to re-engineer human bodies to only eel hunger to the point of maintaining weight then everybody who's really fat is gonna have to be hungry for a long time while they lose weight. And if they further take up exercise or anything like that it will only exacerbate the feeling of hunger. The only way to avoid a long period of hunger is to say gently caress it and do lipo, which hey that's a valid thing but it would require a lot of decisions by the government to afford. Making people "healthy" does not make them not fat without making them hungry for a while while they drop hundreds of pounds. You seem to be under some misconception that "obese" means "like 4 pounds overweight" to be saying this stuff really. 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. Yeah the external factor is that we drastically reduced prevalence of starvation through the combination of cheap abundant food and also providing food aid to most people who still couldn't afford it. As a result, it's way easy to get fat but hey, easier to fix fat then it is to fix death by starvation. It's really a good problem to have. 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. [/quote] This is a dumb assumption, because most fat people are getting fatter. And their plateau weight isn't being sustained by 2500 calories a day - that's a sustaining weight for a normal weight and height man, or an above normal height woman who's also a normal weight. Kajeesus posted:by your own admission, your estimate of 140 calories was completely arbitrary and you'd brought up the 2000 calorie baseline You're not even reading. I gave the specific parameters: 280 pound male, an example of an obese person at the average male height. SlipUp posted:I'm more interested in actually being helpful to people than justifying my smugness. Informing people that the fastest way to lose weight is to eat all the things they do now, just less of it, is in fact helpful as compared to demanding they do an exercise routine (that they probably wouldn't keep up with) or to tell them they need to do fad diet x. SlipUp posted:Yes it does. Higher success rate = easier. This is absolutely not true. MaxxBot posted: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. But when we're talking about solving obesity, it's way more important to simply drop dozens to hundreds of pounds first and then think about additionally improving health in other ways. As mentioned before, over or under a certain range of weights, it's impossible to be really healthy as all, just a lesser level of health that's the best you can do. 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!" Literally all of those factors tie back into "you ate too much for your conditions" though? Eat less is always the solution, it's plain as day. Especially for most people, they don't have the time or energy in their day to day lives to lose weight without eating less, through exercise or any other mean. 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. This isn't true. There is no magic foods that continue to get you fat even when you eat significantly less. You're parroting fad diet bullshit. Full Battle Rattle posted:People also ate a LOT less processed food in 1975. This is absolutely untrue. The 1950s through 1970s were absolutely rank with processed food. And processed food isn't actually worse for you to begin with - in large part because there is no unifying characteristic behind processed food other than some people call it that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Awful app hosed this post up. Double post 
Cole fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ok but your point is? Unless you figure out some way to re-engineer human bodies to only eel hunger to the point of maintaining weight then everybody who's really fat is gonna have to be hungry for a long time while they lose weight. And if they further take up exercise or anything like that it will only exacerbate the feeling of hunger. The only way to avoid a long period of hunger is to say gently caress it and do lipo, which hey that's a valid thing but it would require a lot of decisions by the government to afford. At dinner time, I am loving starving and can't wait to eat. It is rare that I am not starving at dinner time. I am also very hungry for every meal throughout the day (except breakfast, which I force myself to eat regardless of appetite because i read that eating when you wake up jumpstarts your metabolism). Even people who maintain their weight can be hungry a lot of the time. That isn't specific to fat people losing weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:You linked some random website by someone who capitalizes random syllables in words to emphasize their point, can you show me where the actual evidence lies because all I see is random unsupported assertions From that website with random capitialized words: quote:Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, James L. Groff, and Sareen S. Gropper Read all the way to the end next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And processed food isn't actually worse for you to begin with - in large part because there is no unifying characteristic behind processed food other than some people call it that. Yeah, most posters on this forum are quick to reject the appeal to nature on any other subject, but the idea is firmly entrenched in the diet advice world. Really, it doesn't make that much sense when you think about it. Some people take this to the extreme and go on fad diets like the Paleo Diet, which tells you to eat like pre-historic Man before the advent of agriculture, which is absurd in the 21st century first world, and gets a ton of facts wrong (it is believed that Man pre-agriculture ate a lot of bugs). You could go even further and only eat raw food, since at some point Man did not discover how to use fire. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ok but your point is? Unless you figure out some way to re-engineer human bodies to only eel hunger to the point of maintaining weight then everybody who's really fat is gonna have to be hungry for a long time while they lose weight. And if they further take up exercise or anything like that it will only exacerbate the feeling of hunger. The only way to avoid a long period of hunger is to say gently caress it and do lipo, which hey that's a valid thing but it would require a lot of decisions by the government to afford. Actually people who do lipo still feel that hunger, you're thinking of stomach banding. I've listened four different studies that show that not only does eating less not work due to the neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes a reduced caloric intake causes, but that eating healthier and exercise in combination is the best way to lose weight, and there is a scientific consensus of this. I am under no misconceptions. If you are five pounds overweight or 100, the scientific consensus is that the best way to lose weight is diet and exercise. quote:Informing people that the fastest way to lose weight is to eat all the things they do now, just less of it, is in fact helpful as compared to demanding they do an exercise routine (that they probably wouldn't keep up with) or to tell them they need to do fad diet x. This is disproved by the sources I listed on this page. Demanding people eat less food is also something that people probably won't keep up with, but that doesn't stop you from championing it. quote:This is absolutely not true. Yes it is. The more people fail at something, obviously the harder it is.The more people succeed at it, the easier it is. That is like the definition of those words. Does your method of weight loss have any scientific merit, and if so can you please provide it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:From that website with random capitialized words: I read to the end but there are no in line citations and all the other links seem to be to other articles on that guy's blog so it seems difficult to figure out if those papers even say the things that guy is saying that they're saying without doing way more research and effort than this post is worth. I did find out that SANE is an acronym and not that guy just capitalizing random poo poo at least!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I've listened four different studies that show that not only does eating less not work due to the neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes a reduced caloric intake causes, but that eating healthier and exercise in combination is the best way to lose weight, and there is a scientific consensus of this. None of the sources the SANE page cited were studies. Two were books and two were review articles on fructose. I'd note that none of them were actually cited in the SANE page, instead being tacked on at the end, and the SANE page didn't specifically mention fructose at all. SlipUp posted:This is disproved by the sources I listed on this page. Did you read them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
SlipUp, you should really just give up. Fishmech and computer parts don't care about people, they don't care about health or who is losing weight or how to keep weight off, they care about you being wrong. That's their only goal in this thread, to 'beat' you in this 'debate'. Everyone arguing with any good faith at all knows that if it were as easy as "just eat less durp" then obviously we wouldn't have a massive public health crisis looming. Edt- not on the thread, but on those two. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I don't think that anyone has made the claim that eating less is easy, it's just easier in a relative sense to the other solutions posted in this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:SlipUp, you should really just give up. Fishmech and computer parts don't care about people, they don't care about health or who is losing weight or how to keep weight off, they care about you being wrong. That's their only goal in this thread, to 'beat' you in this 'debate'. Everyone knows that if it were as easy as "just eat less durp" then obviously we wouldn't have a massive public health crisis looming. But then people like you read my posts.  In any case I do have a busy day ahead of me starting in like 30 minutes so don't worry, I'm not going to sink all of my time into this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
It's not like beans, rice and spinach are luxury goods. Not everyone can shop at Whole Foods but drat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
rscott posted:I don't think that anyone has made the claim that eating less is easy, it's just easier in a relative sense to the other solutions posted in this thread None of this is supported by scientific fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Frankly, I'm not convinced that the scientists studying human nutrition really understand all that well their subject or collect good data or can actually make non-vague prescriptions about what is a healthy diet. I maintain that all of this study name-dropping and appeal to scientific fact is kind of a waste of time.
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:None of the sources the SANE page cited were studies. Two were books and two were review articles on fructose. I'd note that none of them were actually cited in the SANE page, instead being tacked on at the end, and the SANE page didn't specifically mention fructose at all. So your issue is with the sources editing, well okay then. I did read them. What do you think of the study I posted earlier regarding our conversation about the health effects of yoyo weightloss? That is something of which there isn't a consensus but there is some research that does indicate that it exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Frankly, I'm not convinced that the scientists studying human nutrition really understand all that well their subject or can actually make non-vague prescriptions about what is a healthy diet. I maintain that all of this study name-dropping and appeal to scientific fact is kind of a waste of time. Do you apply this kind of cynicism to other areas of scientific research, climate change for example? I mean that's pretty complicated too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:None of this is supported by scientific fact. I'm sure you have the studies to support your assertion and you're not just googling "eating less doesn't lead to weight loss" and posting the first link you click on
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm sure you have the studies to support your assertion and you're not just googling "eating less doesn't lead to weight loss" and posting the first link you click on That's some pretty hardcore projection that does nothing to counter my criticism of your argument. Typical deflection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Everyone arguing with any good faith at all knows that if it were as easy as "just eat less durp" then obviously we wouldn't have a massive public health crisis looming. Only if you assume "just eat less" means "use your willpower to eat less, and don't count on the state to do anything".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if you assume "just eat less" means "use your willpower to eat less, and don't count on the state to do anything". So you deny that eating less causes neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes to the body that make it harder to lose weight?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Do you apply this kind of cynicism to other areas of scientific research, climate change for example? That's not really relevant to this thread. You should be really skeptical of diet science since they can't do controlled experiments for ethical reasons, and their theory is pretty bad/non-existant. This is kind of a blow to people in this thread who want the government to mandate healthy diets for Americans, because it's kind of vague about what a healthy diet is. I guess they could make up a bunch of arbitrary rules and see some improvement, if such a thing could be enforced, since anything is probably better than massively overeating, silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:So you deny that eating less causes neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes to the body that make it harder to lose weight? Nope, just that it's the easiest solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Physiological factors making it difficult lose weight through eating less is not mutually exclusive with eating less being the most effective way to get 75% of the adult population to lose weight
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That's not really relevant to this thread. You should be really skeptical of diet science since they can't do controlled experiments for ethical reasons, and their theory is pretty bad/non-existant. It is relevant to your anti-intellectual stance. The experiments that these conclusions have been drawn from are sound, perhaps you could take some time and identify the specific areas of these studies you take issue with rather than discounting all of science. If we can't refer to science, than we are arguing pure conjecture all around. Here are my favs, you can get started here: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.long https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/exandwtloss.html SlipUp fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
rscott posted:Physiological factors making it difficult lose weight through eating less is not mutually exclusive with eating less being the most effective way to get 75% of the adult population to lose weight I feel the most effective way for people to lose weight is by pursuing the most successful strategy. According to the two studies I reposted above, that is diet and exercise. You have yet to post any research to support your stance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I feel the most effective way for people to lose weight is by pursuing the most successful strategy. Yes, this is a tautology. Most effective is not easiest. And again, we're talking about a nationwide program, not "convince your friend Jimmy to lose 20 pounds".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:So your issue is with the sources editing, well okay then. I did read them. Yes, there are a few epidemiological studies. More studies have been done (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205264/), and while the evidence isn't conclusive it appears that confounding factors were causing the apparent unhealthiness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, this is a tautology. Most effective is not easiest. Eating less to lose weight is not easy, you have no evidence to support this. As I said before, it doesn't matter if it's 5 pounds or 100. The best way to lose weight is diet and exercise. Your way is overly simplistic and will cause more harm than good. Psychologically when they fail and physically as the bounce around between weights suffering from neurological, hormonal, and metabolic imbalances. e: reposting from an earlier source: quote:And the third biological change, which I think people do sort of know about, is that there are metabolic changes. Your metabolism slows down. Your body uses calories in the most efficient way possible. Which sounds like a good thing, and would be good thing if you're starving to death. But it isn't a good thing if you're trying to lose weight, because when your body finds a way to run itself on fewer calories there tends to be more leftover, and those get stored as fat, which is exactly what you don't want to happen. e:Are you ready for some football? I am! Later chaps. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:Eating less to lose weight is not easy, you have no evidence to support this. Doesn't have to be, just has to be more easy than the alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:00
|
|