|
lol your study uses self selected people, 77% of which are women and 95% of which are white, self reporting their weight and how they lost it. If that's not scientific rigor I don't know what is!
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
PT6A posted:You must have a really efficient metabolism or be much smaller than average. Anyhow, one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned in the thread yet, and which I think really deserves to be mentioned, is early-life starvation leading to accelerated adiposity rebound. Basically, if someone experiences a lack of nutrients as a fetus/infant, they are programmed to have a tendency to stay overweight, if not obese, later in life. That would mean, first of all, poor people, wouldn't it? Doesn't this throw a bit of shade on the whole 'it's a choice' thing? It did, for me. More to the point, it seems that it's one more factor to be considered in preventing future obesity, if not exactly managing the current epidemic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Actually people who do lipo still feel that hunger, you're thinking of stomach banding. No. You can either spend months at a time slowly losing weight in a non-health-threatening manner, which is a lot of hunger, or you can drop that weight in a few days through lipo and thus experience much less hunger. If eating less does not work then it's impossible for anything to work. Either you're massively misreading studies or the studies are really bad: it's impossible to not lose weight through cutting your food intake enough. And the best way for the population to lose weight is to eat less, because it's way harder to get everyone to exercise a ton as well. Eating less food is literally the only thing that can work long term, since to get the same weight loss and maintenence of weight without reducing food intake is to require strenuous exercise for long time every day. No. You don't understand anything you're taling about to claim that if something has a higher success rate when done correctly, it's easier to do. Brain surgery is the most reliable way to fix many conditions, for instance, but it's also extremely hard to do. Yes, guy who apparently doesn't believe in physics, biology, or psyhology, basic human biology indicates that eating less food will reduce weight. 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 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. Why are you so pissed off that people who are unequivocally incorrect are being informed they are wrong. Are you some kind of journalistic false balance fetishist? 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 Yeah this is correct. It is by far easier to say, continue to sit on your butt all day but eat less then yo eat the same and do a lot of exercise, enough exercise to counteract your overeating and then some. Frosted Flake posted:It's not like beans, rice and spinach are luxury goods. It is because such things are so cheap, that it is so easy to get fat! SlipUp posted:As I said before, it doesn't matter if it's 5 pounds or 100. That actually matters a ton. It's quite easy to lose 5 or even 10 pounds and stop there, because to do such a thing requires only minor changes that quickly result in a new equilibrium. Toget out of the obese range into the normal range, techniques that halt at a low amount of weight loss are useless, ya schween. If we just got all the obese people to lose 5-10 pounds we'd have done very little to reduce obesity (we'd only drop people out who had been just at the border), and the overweight rate would still be high as hell. meristem posted:Yeah, obviously. I'm female, 5'0" at 123 pounds and around 23-24% fat (and it obviously took me a lot of work to get even this far, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here). Truth be told we've made major strides towards reducing malnutrition during pregnancy and early childhood - WIC has been a very successful program. But we're going to need another like 20 years at least for that to really start proving its effectiveness against whole-population obesity and overweight rates
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
It's a good thing we live in a frictionless sphere of social existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's a good thing we live in a frictionless sphere of social existence. What are you even trying to get at, at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:lol your study uses self selected people, 77% of which are women and 95% of which are white, self reporting their weight and how they lost it. If that's not scientific rigor I don't know what is! This is a major problem with nutrition science. People consistently lie and deceive themselves about how much they eat. These studies have to rely on self-reported data because actually controlling these studies is borderline unethical. The studies also pretend to know exactly what the caloric expenditure of the participants' exercise, which is probably derived from numbers made up by a treadmill manufacturer, who is obviously motivated to give optimistic numbers. It's really hard to determine actual caloric expenditure during exercise and the advice given in the SA health forum is not to track it. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Exercise has several major problems from a social standpoint. First of all, the kind of exercise necessary to put a significant dent in a 3500-4000 Calorie diet is not practical to expect a lot of people to do, so any program would be dominated by reducing food intake for morbidly obese and obese people. Second of all, obese and overweight people have an appetite adapted to their current diet. Exercising more would make them hungrier, which means that reducing food intake would still be dominant. Third of all, reducing the amount you eat has immediate benefits that exercise doesn't inherently have, and is inherently easier to do for the vast majority of people. Finally, the basic problem here is that despite constant calls for people to exercise, they aren't doing it, or aren't doing it enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
This thread was really informative like ten pages ago but now its kind of just people seeing who can be the rightest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What are you even trying to get at, at this point? Cole posted:This thread was really informative like ten pages ago but now its kind of just people seeing who can be the rightest. But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Example: "Calories in matter, but calories out don't. If you increase calories out people just eat more. If you reduce calories in the pounds just melt away." Hahha or effectronica. Jesus. "Calories out is hard therefore they don't matter." Health? wellbeing? Actual long term change created through a combination of a number of good habits slowly built up over time? Nah, gotta be pedantic and win that internet. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
All the people who were stick thin in Japan that I knew smoked heavily. Let's reintroduce tobacco. Do I win?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. This is a discussion on a thing with known facts. It is in fact true that it's way easier to reduce calories taken in then to increase calories expended to the same effect, especially on the long term. Sorry that mewling little babies who hate being disagreed with think being called on their bullshit is pedantry I guess? People like that should stick to something more their speed, like YouTube comments, or posting on GameFAQs. Cole posted:This thread was really informative like ten pages ago but now its kind of just people seeing who can be the rightest. Ten pages ago, there was only one guy who spouted outright bullshit and refused to accept it, a gentleman who happened to actually be brain damaged (he got in some sort of accident recently) and he stopped posting. Unsurprisingly, when no one's posting total bullshit while being unable to accept being proved wrong, things can be a lot more informative then with people going "eating less doesn't lead to weighing less". fishmech fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:All the people who were stick thin in Japan that I knew smoked heavily. Let's reintroduce tobacco. Do I win? No, I've known plenty of obese heavy smokers. If smoking was making them thinner than they'd be otherwise, the probably wouldn't be ambulatory without the cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Don't forget being passive aggressive to people! (I forgot, since I'm actually quoting you instead of mentioning you off-hand).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Could you stop lying about what people say before you are condemned to Hell for 1.2 trillion years of torment before being reborn as a bacterium? I said that from a social perspective, reducing what people eat is easier. This was put forward as part of a conversation, you sack of poo poo. Instead of offering a response, your decaying brain cogitated mightily and spat out passive-aggression and lies. So, do you have a substantive response, or does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment, illegal under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to demand one of your minuscule intellect?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Mental resources are limited. Stressed people have less self control re eating because their mental resources are tied up dealing with whatever is causing stress. http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/fruit-salad-chocolate-cake-cognitive-control-and-poverty It's easy to control your eating when things are going well in life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Comically enough that's what poster endlessmonotony was trying to say at the beginning of this thread, albeit not very coherently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ten pages ago, there was only one guy who spouted outright bullshit and refused to accept it, a gentleman who happened to actually be brain damaged (he got in some sort of accident recently) and he stopped posting. Unsurprisingly, when no one's posting total bullshit while being unable to accept being proved wrong, things can be a lot more informative then with people going "eating less doesn't lead to weighing less". See? You have to be right about everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Cole posted:See? You have to be right about everything. And yet, he always is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:See? You have to be right about everything. Normal people do try not to be wrong, friend. It's not exactly a good habit to be consistently wrong!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Normal people do try not to be wrong, friend. It's not exactly a good habit to be consistently wrong! There's a difference between trying to be right and trying to shove it down people's throats with such vigor that people hope the sky will suddenly turn brown just because you said it is blue and everyone hates you. E: or, for example, when someone throws out a random number (ten pages ago, was what I said) and you have to prove why that random number is false, so much so that you actually go back ten pages to gather evidence as to why the random number was wrong, even though it was completely random and without merit. What I am saying is, trying too hard to be right is annoying as gently caress, even if you are right. Cole fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Cole posted:There's a difference between trying to be right and trying to shove it down people's throats with such vigor that people hope the sky will suddenly turn brown just because you said it is blue and everyone hates you. When people are wrong, in a forum about debate and discussion, it does no good to let them sit there and repeat wrongness. They are free to stop themselves from being clowned on at any time. I also didn't say the 10 pages ago thing was false, I explained why it was true. You must have misread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Answering the thread question, I feel it's unnecessary, cruel, and unhelpful to be rude to fat people's faces or act like they are moral failures. There are also a ton of mixed messages and confusion about the difference between the "ideal" body and an average healthy body. It's fine to look chubby if you are within a reasonable weight range and healthy, and people diagnosing others as obese based solely on the fact that they don't find them physically attractive do exist and only add fuel to the fire of the "thin privilege" types. That's about all I agree with from the movement. We should be focusing on reducing obesity and helping people lose weight healthily, as others have said, while acknowledging that having a problem with weight doesn't make one a failure in all aspects of life. A lot of fat people end up hating themselves and giving up because they label themselves as failures. The assertion that being overweight is not associated with ill health is just denial. The idea that there is systemic discrimination against fat people doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Many people are very rude about fatties, but they are not barred from any kind of job or public social scene as long as they are physically able to participate. They aren't forbidden to reproduce or marry, although occasionally doctors will advise against becoming pregnant or health reasons. Clothes, furniture and public transport don't cater to fat people as much as average-sized people, but this is more of an issue with supply and demand- and as the obese population grows, businesses are catering to them more and more. They don't suffer from elevated levels of abuse, incarceration, homelessness or violence. As for the oft-cited medical discrimination, it's not just overweight people who are affected by any potential overfocus on weight. A 98-pound friend of mine with high cholesterol was told to lose weight by her doctor, even though she was clearly underweight and the cholesterol levels were due to being sedentary. Sometimes doctors are just lazy. meristem posted:Anyhow, one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned in the thread yet, and which I think really deserves to be mentioned, is early-life starvation leading to accelerated adiposity rebound. Basically, if someone experiences a lack of nutrients as a fetus/infant, they are programmed to have a tendency to stay overweight, if not obese, later in life. That would mean, first of all, poor people, wouldn't it? Doesn't this throw a bit of shade on the whole 'it's a choice' thing? It did, for me. It's more of a psychological issue than being "programmed" by malnutrition. Poor people grow up with a scarcity of food and are told to clean their plate or they'll go hungry later. You can give them a huge plate full of bad poo poo and they'll still really want to clear that plate. That doesn't mean it's a "choice" or anything. It's also not a choice to have a predisposition to gain weight easily. We should be putting more effort into giving people the tools to overcome their unhealthy attitudes and habits regarding eating, through psychotherapy and training as well as initiatives to educate. It's possible to be compassionate about the hill some fat people have to climb and still encourage them to make progress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:When people are wrong, in a forum about debate and discussion, it does no good to let them sit there and repeat wrongness. They are free to stop themselves from being clowned on at any time. If they keep repeating their wrongness and you keep trying to fix it you are a dumb person who is only clowning on yourself by wasting your time. And you look dumb trying so hard. Like right now, who are you trying to convince? Me? My mind is already made up about you. E: oh I get it. You're just clowning me. Lol. Cole fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
These threads are always interesting reads. It's a pretty personal topic for me right now. A favorite uncle of mine recently has his foot amputated due to diabetes. He has been overweight for decades and, despite constant warnings from family and doctors, has continued to eat himself to death. It really does look like drug addiction. He would lie about his eating habits, or sneak food when he thought no one was looking. He has been "dieting" for the last 20 years, but it's more to put on a show to get people off his back than to actually accomplish anything. It sucks because he's a great loving guy and I would really hate to see him die alone at 50. My dad is basically Effectronica and would always ride his rear end about his weight to absolutely no constructive result. Dear old dad lost a bunch of weight and got into great shape several years ago and for a while had a hard time understanding why everyone doesn't do it because he did and now he feels great. Like drug addiction, we should look at this as a public health issue, and one that has many causes and needs a multi-faceted solution. Also, like drug addiction, it will never really go away, but there are some things we can do to mitigate some of the damage. As with smoking, progress lies with policy. When I am grand czar of the federated states of America this is what I shall do: 1. Ban Trans Fats if KFC can phase out trans fats then everyone can. This is low hanging fruit, let's get on it. 2. Ban Sodas larger than 16oz and free soda refills I know beer and juice have just as much calories as sodas, but they aren't as cheap and people don't consume them so incredibly mindlessly. If you really want to drink a poo poo ton of soda then you will have to open cans 16 oz at a time and pay for each soda. Restaurants will make a killing. The south will secede. 3. Set aside a pool of money for federal grants to create wellness oriented green spaces and community fitness programs in places that suffer the most from obesity My town recently opened a large park with walking trails, playgrounds, and multi use paths right between a low income area and downtown. Since it opened I see an amazing number of overweight people walking, biking, or doing yoga and aerobics in the common areas. I have nothing to back this up, but I have a pet theory that just seeing people out and about being active makes a sedentary person more likely to become active. Especially if the person working out looks like them. We've already established that losing weight is hard. Why not make it easier bit by bit in any way that we can?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
It's not just seeing people acting healthy. It's also about peer pressure. If all of your friends are sticking to a regime, you're more likely to as well. Creating a community of health will work better than talking down to people. Unfortunately, I feel this thread has been overtaken with fishmech's obnoxious low content posting. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Starting from factually correct premises is important when debating policy prescriptions otherwise we get things like eating low fat diets super high in carbs will lead to weight loss being the prevailing wisdom
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's not just seeing people acting healthy. It's also about peer pressure. If all of your friends are sticking to a regime, you're more likely to as well. Creating a community of health will work better than talking down to people. This is why I think our work culture is also a contributing factor. Good luck sticking to that regime or staying a new one if you're working either a lot of hours or unstable schedules (split shifts, unscheduled overtime).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
This entire thread is just finding any reasons people are fat aside from "you eat too much and like poo poo and you need to exercise more"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Leroy Diplowski posted:
A park near where I used to live had bars, benches and other things meant for adult fitness. gently caress the gym, I did my prison workouts in the park. Now I often supplement my home gym by working out on the monkey bars at parks but people think you're weird. I think what's socially acceptable also undermines people's fitness effort. Unless you're jogging or in a gym people feel comfortable heckling you. I've also seen fat people catch grief for even trying. What the the hell is that about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This entire thread is just finding any reasons people are fat aside from "you eat too much and like poo poo and you need to exercise more" As it turns out, the reasons people eat too much, eat like poo poo, and don't exercise enough are more complex than "fat people are weak willed and therefore morally abhorrent" so it makes sense that a discussion of a societal trend towards obesity would need to discover and investigate those reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Jhanez posted:As it turns out, the reasons people eat too much, eat like poo poo, and don't exercise enough are more complex than "fat people are weak willed and therefore morally abhorrent" so it makes sense that a discussion of a societal trend towards obesity would need to discover and investigate those reasons. I don't think he's saying that the underlying reasons why people eat too much is easy, but rather that the solution really is as simple as, 'Eat Less™'. Making excuses for doing anything else isn't productive and wrapping it in a package of, 'Well it's not an individual problem, it's a societal problem' is a great way of continuing to do nothing while we spin our wheels. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to support a measure where you treat obesity like smoking: You actively discourage it, you have programs available to people who want to quit, and you charge more because by smoking, you are a tax on society and society shouldn't have to foot that bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Ervin K fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I don't think he's saying that the underlying reasons why people eat too much is easy, but rather that the solution really is as simple as, 'Eat Less™'. Making excuses for doing anything else isn't productive and wrapping it in a package of, 'Well it's not an individual problem, it's a societal problem' is a great way of continuing to do nothing while we spin our wheels. If we're agreed that the causes of the trend are not simple individual failures of will, why on earth would we expect the solution to be the same? Regardless of the various levels at which one can approach the problem(one of which is surely to individually encourage people in our lives to take steps towards weight loss), the fact that this is a broad social trend indicates that the causes of rampant overeating would need to be addressed on that level. Ignoring that in order to demand that individuals overcome their social circumstances is just as silly as demanding that poverty be eradicated by people just bucking up and working harder. So sure, the final endpoint is that eating less is a requirement for sustainable weight loss. That is simple, and true, and uncontroversial, and mostly useless in attacking a public health problem. Instead, we need to figure out why entire nations full of people are finding it difficult to take that action even in the face of broad social condemnation. Your own suggestion takes the tack of altering incentives and providing social support systems, though for some of the reasons pointed out previously it's much less simple to create tax incentives and costs for "food" than it is for "cigarettes". Any useful solution is going to have to understand and alter the various systems that play into the reasons people overeat and ameliorate those stresses, and just repeating "eat less" doesn't do that, which is why it will continue to be a useless statement because it is telling you what we need people to do, and ignores the reasons that they don't do it and how we can get them to do it. The point is not to tell any particular person in our lives that they don't need to do anything to lose weight because society is structured such that losing weight is extremely difficult, so they should give up. The point is that society is structured that way, and any solution to rising rates of obesity will need to deal with that, even though the solution to obesity for any given individual is eating less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This entire thread is just finding any reasons people are fat aside from "you eat too much and like poo poo and you need to exercise more" What you say is trivially true about individuals, but useless as a driver of public policy. You don't deal with an epidemic like you deal with that one guy you know. That position is just as absurd and counterproductive as the pro-austerity comparison of a national budget to a small family's bills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Well this is rather lovely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
she probably gave it to herself
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:she probably gave it to herself (This isn't the UKMT you should probably specify you're joking.  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
j/k I wonder if they've bothered to register at companies house
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
quote:Steve Burton, of Transport for London, said this "sad and unpleasant" form of anti-social behaviour "would not be tolerated", and urged any people affected to report it to police or a station officer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Jhanez posted:If we're agreed that the causes of the trend are not simple individual failures of will, why on earth would we expect the solution to be the same? Because the ultimate solution is the same: whatever you do, it results in eating less food. Whether it's counseling to get people into eating less food or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:17
|
|