|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, the report, including this quotation, was viewed as being a significant overstatement of the relevant literature. Go away, fishmech. You've demonstrated an incredible capacity to be right about some things, then instantly destroy all your goodwill by refusing to acknowledge error on other things. You're like a horrifying funhouse mirror version of my own posting- a me without self-awareness, humor, the capacity to love, or research database access. Thanks for posting a bunch of things that prove my position right, shame about the strawman you were attacking. Maybe you should study better in general? Just a thought! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Please explain how your position is different from his alleged strawman?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Please explain how your position is different from his alleged strawman? His strawman is that I said salt has no effect at all on anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It is rather the people who sit and say there must be a so My only objective in these comments is to get you to stop making GBS threads up the thread on yet another one of your pointless crusades to be right about a trivial point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:My only objective in these comments is to get you to stop making GBS threads up the thread on yet another one of your pointless crusades to be right about a trivial point. You're the one making GBS threads up the thread because you insist on exclusively meta discussion. It's also interesting that you think hundreds of millions being healthy or not is "trivial" but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're the one making GBS threads up the thread because you insist on exclusively meta discussion. It's also interesting that you think hundreds of millions being healthy or not is "trivial" but whatever. As far as I can tell your solution to the problem is billboards that say "Eat less food, fattie." everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:As far as I can tell your solution to the problem is billboards that say "Eat less food, fattie." everywhere. It's the only thing that actually applies to all overweight people, or even a plurality, let alone a majority. But specifically "keep eating what you love to eat now, just eat less of it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's the only thing that actually applies to all overweight people, or even a plurality, let alone a majority. But specifically "keep eating what you love to eat now, just eat less of it". Why do you insist on only the broadest possible approach to the point of absurdity? Why cannot others engage in a discussion of other approaches and their possible effectiveness? For example, more focused mental health efforts for those on who are depressed, possibley suicidal, due to their obesity? http://www.suicide.org/morbid-obesity-depression-and-suicide.html Perhaps even exercise regimes, which are show to help with depression and will help build exercise habits to encourage health when goal weight is eventually reached. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Why do you insist on only the broadest possible approach to the point of absurdity? Why do you, apparently, want to focus on solutions that will only work for a tiny fraction of the population in question and backfire or do nothing for the rest? Nevvy Z posted:Why cannot others engage in a discussion of other approaches and their possible effectiveness? For example, more focused mental health efforts for those on who are depressed, possibley suicidal, due to their obesity? http://www.suicide.org/morbid-obesity-depression-and-suicide.html The entire thread has been about discussing other things. Turns out they're kindly worthless once you go beyond the individual. Here's the problem with attempting to "focus mental health efforts" on those people: many of them actively refuse offered mental health care. Often it's a matter of simple pride, other times they would accept it if they think they had a "real problem" but they don't have a "real problem". Still others disbelieve in mental health care entirely. And to get past willing acceptance, well let's just say that forcible mental health care has a really sketchy history in this country. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why do you, apparently, want to focus on solutions that will only work for a tiny fraction of the population in question and backfire or do nothing for the rest? What makes you think I want to do that? I'd like to have a discussion about anything other than "eat less, fattie." at this point. The meta discussion you so loathe is a refreshing change. Do you have some data on what works on various portions of the population? I'd be interested to read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What makes you think I want to do that? Because you express anger at the discussion of the real, globally applicable, solution. And the rest are what I described. Nevvy Z posted:Do you have some data on what works on various portions of the population? I'd be interested to read it. Eating less. It works for everyone. Because biology and physics still function. As to everything else, well, the history of study of weight loss shows that all the various diet plans beyond "just eat less" only function when the particular allowed/disallowed sets of foods work for a certain person to stay on target with the reduced calories. Low carb, high fat, the aforementioned "only eat foods of a certain color" diets. And take that thing you brought up just now of targeted therapy for people who are suicidal over they fatness - that can only possibly work on people who are in that condition, and many will be resistant to your treatment methods. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because you express anger at the discussion of the real, globally applicable, solution. And the rest are what I described. No. Accusing other people of anger on the internet is a silly and childish thing to do since tone can't be read as easily as you pretend. fishmech posted:
Hmm. Perhaps efforts to incentive people would be effective. At my workplace our healthcare coverage includes small cash rewards for engaging in some basic data gathering and health rewards for people who start engaging in their program. The goal of the program is clearly long term cost reduction. Perhaps a government backed, wider spread version of the same thing could work. It could help bring individualized help to people as well as create environments where people could feel a sense of community in achieving their health and weight goals. Obviously it should be paired with further outreach to destigmatize mental health.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I have genuinely enjoyed this conversation. Perhaps now that it's clear what you think the thread can carry on without you bringing it up every time anyone says anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No. Accusing other people of anger on the internet is a silly and childish thing to do since tone can't be read as easily as you pretend. The question is: can we even come up with individualized help that's more effective then just saying "hey, I know you love pizza, so just eat a bit less and you don't got to give up your pizza"? Sure some exercise advice can help for someone just at the edge of getting overweight to stay in normal range, but it ain't ever fixing obesity or high range overweight. I mean there's kinda whole industries based on that that don't seem to manage that better than chance, and the only large scale effective force has been things like armed forces with strict controls on what's available and the ability to straight up punish you for stepping out of the line. Or as mentioned, countries under prolonged states of food rationing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Fishmech, you can't seem to handle being right. You just go on and on even when no one really disputes or even cares about your point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Fishmech, you can't seem to handle being right. You just go on and on even when no one really disputes or even cares about your point. Congratulations! it took you almost ten years, but you noticed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's the only thing that actually applies to all overweight people, or even a plurality, let alone a majority. But specifically "keep eating what you love to eat now, just eat less of it". No, it doesn't "apply to all overweight people" without qualification. "Eat less" falls under the same efficacy category as many other diets, namely "It would theoretically work for all overweight people, if we could ensure compliance," but we can't, like every other diet. People are yelling that you're a moron because you're obliviously ignoring the compliance issue, which is actually the only issue worth discussing. hth you're not wrong, but you're not right either, and it's not enough to not be wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Zodium posted:No, it doesn't "apply to all overweight people" without qualification. "Eat less" falls under the same efficacy category as many other diets, namely "It would theoretically work for all overweight people, if we could ensure compliance," but we can't, like every other diet. People are yelling that you're a moron because you're obliviously ignoring the compliance issue, which is actually the only issue worth discussing. hth Sorry but it does work. And it is the most effective thing, because you're going to have even less people who, say, continuously exercise enough to lose weight and keep weight off all the way down to being non-overweight while still eating the same. Or who keep up with whatever other complicated set of practices you come up with to avoid eating less. You're wrong, because you try to conflate "people won't comply" with "will it work". And that's about as stupid as saying chemotherapy doesn't work because some people refuse to take it. And you're also wrong, because you act like it's the hardest to comply with when it's the easiest to comply with long enough to exit obesity and enter normal weight ranges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're wrong, because you try to conflate "people won't comply" with "will it work". And that's about as stupid as saying chemotherapy doesn't work because some people refuse to take it. And you're also wrong, because you act like it's the hardest to comply with when it's the easiest to comply with long enough to exit obesity and enter normal weight ranges. Easy is not a productive word in this conversation. You've already acknowledged in the thread that different approaches work for different people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Easy is not a productive word in this conversation. You've already acknowledged in the thread that different approaches work for different people. Eating less is the common trait to all working approaches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Fishmech is basically Dr. Rudi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-jy3OtZAss
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Fishmech is basically Dr. Rudi Sometimes he says smart things but for now he's going on ignore forever. Shut the gently caress up, fishmech. Zodium posted:No, it doesn't "apply to all overweight people" without qualification. "Eat less" falls under the same efficacy category as many other diets, namely "It would theoretically work for all overweight people, if we could ensure compliance," but we can't, like every other diet. People are yelling that you're a moron because you're obliviously ignoring the compliance issue, which is actually the only issue worth discussing. hth I still like the idea of wider spread incentivization of health improvement. Everyone likes money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:02
|
|
Zodium posted:No, it doesn't "apply to all overweight people" without qualification. "Eat less" falls under the same efficacy category as many other diets, namely "It would theoretically work for all overweight people, if we could ensure compliance," but we can't, like every other diet. People are yelling that you're a moron because you're obliviously ignoring the compliance issue, which is actually the only issue worth discussing. hth On the other hand, "eat less" doesn't have the externalities of many other diets, and their associated negative social consequences, so it's still superior. Nevvy Z posted:Sometimes he says smart things but for now he's going on ignore forever. Shut the gently caress up, fishmech. Only a lickspittle would brag about this.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
"Incentivization of health improvement" ain't gonna drop 100 pounds. In fact just focusing on "improvement" is the "health at any size" bullshit in the first place!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the other hand, "eat less" doesn't have the externalities of many other diets, and their associated negative social consequences, so it's still superior. quote:Only a lickspittle would brag about this. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No. It's interesting how angry you are about the fact that eating less is required to stop being obese.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:01
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No. It, um, really does, though. There can be specific dietary approaches to consuming fewer calories, but what I referred to as a "type 1" diet, reducing calories in, is pretty much categorically the best diet to use unless you have fairly specific health conditions. On exercise- I haven't had an opportunity to read it yet, but there's a very recent IOM document on exercise and obesity interventions. This was a workshop report, not a full IOM report, so it's less meaningful than a full report (which can itself have problems, i.e. the salt one), but it may be a good starting place for discussion. Added bonus: IOM's updated so that you can read reports online! It's right here.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It, um, really does, though. There can be specific dietary approaches to consuming fewer calories, but what I referred to as a "type 1" diet, reducing calories in, is pretty much categorically the best diet to use unless you have fairly specific health conditions. I think you are misunderstanding what I was disagreeing with. Well, that and wanting to discuss the approach without continuous bombardment of "HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS I CLAIM DONT WORK" but that problem is solved now. Eating less overall is the way to go, but it's difficult for people. The approach is what I was arguing. It needs to be broader than "eat less fatty." Perhaps "Try combinations of diet and activity til you find one that produces results while building good habits both health and nutrition-wise. Here are some starting points..." and maybe a bit of "way to go not gaining any significant weight this year, here's a $100 gift card" as well. edit- This is a super interesting thing you shared. Random bit I liked quote:Ross described evidence from his work showing what happens when people in the regulated zone both increase their physical activity and consume more calories relative to baseline. He and his research team found that when participants, both men and women, exercised an additional 50-60 minutes daily for 4 months and consumed an additional 500-700 calories Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think you are misunderstanding what I was disagreeing with. Well, that and wanting to discuss the approach without continuous bombardment of "HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS I CLAIM DONT WORK" but that problem is solved now. If you are obese, no amount of activity you're physically capable of sustaining is going to get you down to a normal weight without cutting your food a lot. you can keep wishing this isn't true, but it is true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
When I eat more (esp. donuts and pan-asian cuisine) and ride my bicycle less, I weigh more. When I eat less and more of it is good leafy green vegetables, and ride my bicycle more, I weigh less. And poop better. Please add these data points to your discussion, TIA
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
I think the issue is that people take the words "diet and exercise" to be way more life transforming than they actually have to be. A staggering amount of people do nothing in terms of physical activity - absolutely nothing. No walking anywhere, ever, no bicycle riding, and they top it off by shoving their faces full of pasta and greasy, processed meats. There's no mystery here - for the most part, people lack the faculties to make complex decisions, or they lack the desire to expend cognitive energy to better themselves. That, and there's still this absolutely infantile stigma against vegetables that aren't carrots, broccoli, potatoes, corn and cauliflower. Eat some goddamn spinach, or kale, or whatever the gently caress. I would wager that in America, close to half the population eats very little vegetables outside of what you find in a Birdseye freezer bag, and even then they're probably drenching it with salt and butter. I mean, perhaps this is a consequence of not being a total mouth-breathing shitlord, but I was able to drop 45 pounds from ages 18 to 20, primarily from cutting out idle consumption of soda (no more 20 packs of pepsi), replacing that with good ol' tap water, and just ambling about on foot and bike an eensy weensy bit more. I refuse to believe that the entirety of humanity has come down with metabolism/glandular/lipid disorders over the past 20 years - because that totally ignores the way people have completely abandoned 5000 years of cooking knowledge in the name of chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and TV dinners. At that rate, do people learn to cook in other countries during public education tenures? Every single thing I've learned I had to glean from my family, and I would say that close to a third of my peers just don't know how to cook, period. The closest they get is boiling water for their kraft dinner, which I find appalling. It's almost enough to bemoan the death of traditional gender roles, because I feel there's a tremendous amount of untapped cultural heritage that's being cast away by lazy jerks who want their freezer section White Castle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Broccoli and Kale are actually the exact same species.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Just getting rid of soda and other high-sugar beverages can shave almost an entire meal's worth of calories off of your daily intake. Also, load up on some interesting hour-long podcasts and listen to them while walking around. There's roughly half a meal's worth of calories burnt right there. Please don't bother crunching the numbers on these, I don't give a gently caress if they're technically correct or not
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Broccoli and Kale are actually the exact same species. Along with cauliflower and mustard, and a litany of other popular vegetables. The point wasn't about biological diversity, but the way these things taste. People don't like eating the same thing, over and over, unless you're Scott Walker 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sorry but it does work. And it is the most effective thing, because you're going to have even less people who, say, continuously exercise enough to lose weight and keep weight off all the way down to being non-overweight while still eating the same. Or who keep up with whatever other complicated set of practices you come up with to avoid eating less. Yes, you are ignoring the difficult problem (compliance) in favor of a trivial problem (whether eating less makes you lose weight given compliance). This is what everyone has been telling you, and which I am now telling you once more. Effectronica posted:On the other hand, "eat less" doesn't have the externalities of many other diets, and their associated negative social consequences, so it's still superior. All diets have the same problem, which is inadequate compliance. I don't think it's at all important to talk about which thing is the best at something unless at least two things are adequate for the purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:44
|
|
Zodium posted:Yes, you are ignoring the difficult problem (compliance) in favor of a trivial problem (whether eating less makes you lose weight given compliance). This is what everyone has been telling you, and which I am now telling you once more. If one diet convinces people that there's no relationship between caloric intake and their weight gain/loss, it's all a matter of eating the right foods, it's manifestly inferior because of the negative externality of fostering this belief.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If one diet convinces people that there's no relationship between caloric intake and their weight gain/loss, it's all a matter of eating the right foods, it's manifestly inferior because of the negative externality of fostering this belief. Yes, that is true, but this is still dealing with the easy part of the problem, and it doesn't actually solve anything. Even if you get people to understand the relationship between caloric intake and weight change, that's not the problem most people have, it's compliance with any diet. Many people don't understand how to regulate their eating behaviors, whether that attempted regulation comes from an educated or misinformed place. Think of compliance as a very low multiplier that essentially erases the effect size from whatever beliefs people hold about eating or dieting, be those beliefs good or bad. That's why talking about which diet is the best is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:55
|
|
Zodium posted:Yes, that is true, but this is still dealing with the easy part of the problem, and it doesn't actually solve anything. Even if you get people to understand the relationship between caloric intake and weight change, that's not the problem most people have, it's compliance with any diet. Many people don't understand how to regulate their eating behaviors, whether that attempted regulation comes from an educated or misinformed place. Think of compliance as a very low multiplier that essentially erases the effect size from whatever beliefs people hold about eating or dieting, be they good or bad. That's why talking about which diet is the best is pointless. Actually, a lot of people have developed the belief that carbohydrates, fats, sodium, etc. are "bad foods" that they need to eliminate. A lot of people have developed the belief that they need to eat "good foods" like kale or acai to be healthy. Now, you believe that these beliefs are irrelevant, but given that they drive how people view food as a matter of sin and redemption, they are actually extremely relevant. Sorry.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Actually, a lot of people have developed the belief that carbohydrates, fats, sodium, etc. are "bad foods" that they need to eliminate. A lot of people have developed the belief that they need to eat "good foods" like kale or acai to be healthy. Now, you believe that these beliefs are irrelevant, but given that they drive how people view food as a matter of sin and redemption, they are actually extremely relevant. Sorry. Well, I don't know what you think they're relevant to, but it's not weight management.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:06 |
|
Zodium posted:Well, I don't know what you think they're relevant to, but it's not weight management. And you of course can prove this negative claim.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:04
|
|