|
Probably, but that's well beyond what I'm willing to invest. I suppose you and I simply attach different levels of importance to whether people believe they need to eat kale or acai to be healthy, Effectronica. It's no big deal.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
Zodium posted:Probably, but that's well beyond what I'm willing to invest. I suppose you and I simply attach different levels of importance to whether people believe they need to eat kale or acai to be healthy, Effectronica. It's no big deal. It's funny how you use "I can't be damned to dig up any supporting evidence" as a way to talk down. Almost as though you don't feel very confident when people don't immediately knuckle under to you. I guess I'll file away that fun little tidbit.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
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. Compliance is least of a problem in eating less than in anything else, what don't you get? Especially since eating less is the primary thing driving the weight loss in all weight loss strategies besides "engage in an extreme amount of exercise for the rest of your life". That's because "diets" are almost always useless, which is why the focus should just go right to eating less. Since all diets to lose weifht only work when you follow the restrictions and those restrictions cause you to eat less! The exception of course being diets that instead of targeting losing weight are instead targeting the avoidance of something that a person is allergic to, or which will aggravate a real condition. Zodium posted:Well, I don't know what you think they're relevant to, but it's not weight management. How is people becoming convinced that they can eat all the food they want as long as it's not %fad diet restriction here% not relevant to weight management? The misconceptions this brings lead to people continuing to overeat versus what they should be eating to stay in the normal range. This leads to either them failing to lose weight at all, losing weight somewhat but halting the loss still in the obese or overweight ranges, or rarely to gaining weight. Zodium posted:Probably, but that's well beyond what I'm willing to invest. I suppose you and I simply attach different levels of importance to whether people believe they need to eat kale or acai to be healthy, Effectronica. It's no big deal. You're really not familiar with the phenomenon of people who think they can eat a lot of food so long as it's "healthy"? And how that can easily sabotage losing weight or keeping weight off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
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. fishmech posted:How is people becoming convinced that they can eat all the food they want as long as it's not %fad diet restriction here% not relevant to weight management? The misconceptions this brings lead to people continuing to overeat versus what they should be eating to stay in the normal range. This leads to either them failing to lose weight at all, losing weight somewhat but halting the loss still in the obese or overweight ranges, or rarely to gaining weight. Do you know of any surveys on this? People beliefs about diets and calories and whatnot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:21
|
|
katlington posted:Do you know of any surveys on this? People beliefs about diets and calories and whatnot? I don't. This is entirely from listening to people talk about food, reading people talk about diets, looking at how diets portray themselves and are portrayed by their practicioners.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's funny how you use "I can't be damned to dig up any supporting evidence" as a way to talk down. Almost as though you don't feel very confident when people don't immediately knuckle under to you. I guess I'll file away that fun little tidbit. I'm ceding the point because you demanded evidence (which you may, but didn't have to), which will require me to rifle through literature, which I'm simply not interested in, so this is where our conversation stops. That's how a normal discussion goes, you don't just get to keep pushing beyond what the other party wants to invest in the discussion. Please allow me to cede the point.  fishmech posted:Compliance is least of a problem in eating less than in anything else, what don't you get? Especially since eating less is the primary thing driving the weight loss in all weight loss strategies besides "engage in an extreme amount of exercise for the rest of your life". You need to stop thinking about weight management as a function of the diet, somehow independent of the person. "Diets" are always useless, yes, but usually because of compliance first and foremost. You can't divert focus from diets towards eating less when eating less is itself a diet that suffers from the same problem as every other diet. You'll have to see my response to Effectronica regarding why I don't think it's relevant (i.e., compliance dwarfs diet quality in terms of effect). It would be disingenuous of me to continue the same line of discussion with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:32
|
|
Zodium posted:I'm ceding the point because you demanded evidence (which you may, but didn't have to), which will require me to rifle through literature, which I'm simply not interested in, so this is where our conversation stops. That's how a normal discussion goes, you don't just get to keep pushing beyond what the other party wants to invest in the discussion. Please allow me to cede the point. I don't know how you got "I want to continue the conversation" out of "You're talking down while ceding the point, you worm of a man". I'm beginning to suspect incompetence on your part. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know how you got "I want to continue the conversation" out of "You're talking down while ceding the point, you worm of a man". I'm beginning to suspect incompetence on your part. Could very well be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
katlington posted:Do you know of any surveys on this? People beliefs about diets and calories and whatnot? It was in my high school home ec class, in the section on cooking and nutrition. Zodium posted:You can't divert focus from diets towards eating less when eating less is itself a diet that suffers from the same problem as every other diet. This isn't true. It's literally required to lose weight and keep it off, unless you're up for routine liposuction or are the 0.0001% of people who will actually sustain sufficient physical activity day in day out for the rest of their lives to eat a massive amount more than is needed to maintain the healthy weight range. You either comply with eating less, or you'll never stop being in the obese range and stay in the normal range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You either comply with eating less, or you'll never stop being in the obese range and stay in the normal range. Right. And more and more people fall into the second category because people don't understand how to regulate their eating behavior, and we don't understand how to teach it with consistent success. The people for whom being told 'eat less' works are already in the first category, because someone already told them that. That's easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It was in my high school home ec class, in the section on cooking and nutrition. Do you remember what it was called?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Right. And more and more people fall into the second category because people don't understand how to regulate their eating behavior, and we don't understand how to teach it with consistent success. The people for whom being told 'eat less' works are already in the first category, because someone already told them that. That's easy. Tons of people think they don't have to eat less so long as they follow the latest One Weird Trick, is the thing. They need to be taught that the only way to lose weight from the obese and high overweight levels and have it stay lost is to eat less, and that eating only x, y, and z won't let them continue to eat as much food as they currently do. katlington posted:Do you remember what it was called? Not a clue, it was on part of an explanation of why the nutrition facts labeling system was developed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:03
|
|
katlington posted:Do you know of any surveys on this? People beliefs about diets and calories and whatnot? I'd need to go find it again, but yes, there's tremendous base-level misunderstanding of nutrition and the interaction of calories and weight loss, at least in the US. This is part of why what I referred to upthread as type 2 diets- interventions that are based on manipulating things other than caloric intake- work. The general problem is in part what Effectronica is concerned by- the nutritional discourse is polluted with incorrect, minimally impactful or spurious beliefs about what causes weight loss -one weird tricks, or worse, methods that are "effective" by hurting the user in other areas. You guys are mostly talking past each other about a set of problems that include 1) the behavioral/psychological issues that would make a type 1 diet effective, 2) public misconceptions of the mechanisms of weight loss(and those who benefit from them), and 3) policies that can be generalized to address 1 and 2. There isn't a public policy which will universally address problem 1, because individual differences account for efficacy of type 1 diet compliance. That's why a focus on problem 2 is probably a more feasible first step. The study I'm working on right now involves something called the "information dilution effect" and weight loss beliefs. What follows is a grossly simplified description of it. Basically, the idea is that if you expose an individual to additional incorrect or spurious claims, they are no longer able to prioritize the correct ones- the importance of the main piece of information is diluted. We applied it in the context of weight loss- participants were asked to allocate points representing importance between a couple valid weight loss methods (eat fewer calories and burn more), as well as 4, 8, or 12 other, spurious or invalid methods that we collected from the lay press and literature (e.g. avoid MSG). Participants in the 4 claims condition still didn't have particularly high allocation to the valid methods. The more additional options, the fewer points they allocated to the valid claims- even. This effect was resistant to every moderator we could throw at it, with one possible exception that's really hard to effectively test. The main problem we're having right now is that our effect was so strong and so resistant, we're worried reviewers will think that the effect is a statistical artifact of the condition difference. We're setting up another study with completely meaningless garbage methods (e.g. wearing primary colors causes weight loss). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
The nutritional discourse is polluted because the behavioral discourse is polluted, because we know basically none of the things we would like to know, or would need to know in order to solve the obesity problem, or any of our behavioral problems. In the absence of a scientific consensus answer (or just, you know, an answer we're quite confident in) for an everyday problem, people will grasp at straws; leave them without one long enough and they'll gather a whole bundle of them. We are 8th century BC peasants trying to work out why our bridge keeps falling down, and we can't decide whether it's the gods cruelly toying with us or if it's because they're testing us.
Zodium fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Can people on this thread attest to having been insulted in a gym for being fat? When I started bicycling and was still over 200 lb I had a truck with 4 guys in it throw an empty beer can at my head as they passed while yelling something about a "fat bitch" out the window. They also passed way to close. I nearly fell and it scared the poo poo out of me. It didn't stop me from cycling, but I do not cycle in the road anymore. Sidewalks or paths please. Even when it's technically illegal to use the sidewalk. Had I taken up cycling alone it would have stopped me from cycling but I took it up with my spouse ( who had also been slowly putting on weight since college ) as a together activity so I had constant positive feedback to balance out the dipshits. Although to this day he gets frustrated by my preference for sidewalk over bike lane. A curb offers more protection against assholes than a line of paint. For the amateur psychologists in this thread, this is how negative stimulus works. One moment of intense fear changes behavior for a lifetime. It doesn't matter that I am no longer heavy enough to be a socially acceptable target for jack asses. At a very instinctive lizard brain level I simply don't trust that people in cars won't bump me on purpose anymore. Innocence lost etc. Now, while I never set foot in a gym while significantly overweight, do we think that the kind of person who would throw cans at a cyclist's head wouldn't be a jackass in a gym setting? You can be an rear end in a top hat without talking directly to someone. Pointing/looking/laughing for example. I have been passed by tens of thousands of cars while cycling I the last 8 years. I remember only that truck. And I remember it in slow motion and high def. Likewise the gym goers who passively aren't jerks will not in any way balance out the ones who actively are. I find this entire line of argument to be attempting to equate morality to fitness ... The fit people at the gym are "good" and so wouldn't do a "bad" thing. Bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I find this entire line of argument to be attempting to equate morality to fitness ... The fit people at the gym are "good" and so wouldn't do a "bad" thing. No one said that. Biking on the sidewalk if you have any sort of speed at all is super dangerous. You might need a therapist or something, not kidding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
McAlister posted:For the amateur psychologists in this thread, this is how negative stimulus works. One moment of intense fear changes behavior for a lifetime. It doesn't matter that I am no longer heavy enough to be a socially acceptable target for jack asses. At a very instinctive lizard brain level I simply don't trust that people in cars won't bump me on purpose anymore. Innocence lost etc. This is not "the way negative stimulus works." A healthy response to any stimulus, positive or negative, is proportional to the consequence, not "change your behavior forever because assholes." It sounds more like the way PTSD works to me, which is a serious problem, but not a majority response to traumatic events, and the traumatic event has to do with the inherent danger in a bunch of assholes in a truck aggressively driving too close while throwing poo poo at you, not with "negative stimulus." I'm sorry for what happened to you, though, those people were criminal scum. You should probably seek help in case you have PTSD, walking it off isn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Exercise is half of the equation, and if people can exercise without worrying about scheduling it around work then all the better. Most office parks have a shower in them somewhere. It might not be your building but building management will know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
McAlister posted:When I started bicycling and was still over 200 lb I had a truck with 4 guys in it throw an empty beer can at my head as they passed while yelling something about a "fat bitch" out the window. They also passed way to close. Every single cyclist and jogger has a bad experience with traffic. Everyone. Large or small.You will make an rear end of yourself at some point in the gym too, and people may laugh. Large or small. Giving up cycling because of this one thing would be a bad thing. Riding on the side walk in total fear is also a bad thing. Seek cognitive behavioural therapy, it will help you immensely. You said it yourself, you were passed by tens of thousands of cars, dwelling on this one particular negative instance is not productive. e: Please don't take this as a dismissive sarcastic "Get Therapy" either. A really lovely thing happened to you once. In response, you've decided to break the law, what, every other day for a couple years and put hundreds of people in potential danger. That is not a rational or healthy response and while your battery was terrible and elicits sympathy, your reckless disregard for other people does not. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Now, I'm no amateur psychologist, and far be it from me to suggest that my views are in any way backed by evidence I would care to provide you with, but it strikes me that, perhaps, the obesity crisis is caused not by any quality of the affected individuals or their associated diets as such. Perhaps — and believe me, this is a stretch — perhaps the measurable increase in obesity rates is rather caused by a growing minority of increasingly isolated individuals, who, lacking the basic social structure necessary for effective behavioral self-regulation, increasingly struggle to regulate any behavior over the long term, with obesity simply representing a particularly noticeable characteristic of this cultural development, rather than any isolated aspects of the individual persons or diets as such. This gradual decline in self-regulatory ability then causes further social isolation, causing further isolation, and so forth. I call this phenomenon, "Goonification." That's just me, of course, and what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
I've mentioned before in this thread that part of the problem is that people have no clue anymore what actually being overweight looks like, is like for regular people. Looks like it's not a problem restricted to America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I've mentioned before in this thread that part of the problem is that people have no clue anymore what actually being overweight looks like, is like for regular people. Looks like it's not a problem restricted to America. apparently people from Saudi Arabia are idiots Edit: quote:66 percent of American adults are classified as being overweight HAHA WHAT Marijuana Nihilist fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Ok, I'm trying to catch up honestly but the ridiculousness is to much for me. When I left college I stopped doing a very small amount of exercise. I stopped walking to classes carrying a backpack. Since I had been a largely sedentary person my whole life this amount of exercise was an appreciable fraction of my total exercise. For the next six years I gained roughly 0.8 lbs a month. This is incredibly slow weight gain and yes, it snuck up on me. The removal of that tiny amount of daily walking was enough to put my energy in > energy out ever so slightly and over time it added up. Now, which is easier, decreasing what you eat such that you consume 0.8 lbs less in a month OR adding a teeny tiny bit of exercise to burn that much more a month? The latter, clearly. 0.8 lbs over the course of a month is a finicky teeny tiny number that would require tremendous amounts of bookkeeping/effort to track from a calorie intake monitoring perspective. Esp when you consider the reality that different people metabolize differently so you can't actually tell if you are meeting such a high precision goal even with fancy scales and charts. Adding enough exercise to burn 0.8 lbs a month, otoh, takes far less attention/effort. Climb the stair instead of using the elevator. Walk to lunch. Hell, get a dog and walk said dog. Now, I didn't want to take six years to lose the weight so I added more exercise than the minimal amount of walking which would have eventually gotten me there. But I would have never left there if I'd just added the teensy tiniest bit of exercise to my day after college. You guys keep talking about diet as if fat people typically get there quickly through suddenly deciding to nom nom everything. And all they have to do is stop. This is not the majority case. Most heavy people got there slowly over the course of many years because their calories in ever so slightly exceeded their calories out. You keep dismissing exercise saying it doesn't do enough quickly enough. But it doesn't actually take much exercise to absorb slight caloric surpluses. Maintaining the weight of an entire population as a policy goal involved thinking in terms of defense, not just offense. Yes, stomach stapling to prevent intake is the most effective course for Chris Christie now. But it would have been even better had he not put on the weight in the first place. And that's where exercise - even very small amounts of it - shines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
0.8 pounds per month is not an impossible to calculate amount in terms of diet. Cutting out a single can of soda per day would be more than enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
A lot of people aren't keeping track of any of it though and that's who he is talking about. They do more or less the same thing food-wise but get sedentary without thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
What do people make of this article? Obesity isn’t the half of it: fat or thin, our eating is disordered
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:33
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people make of this article? Massively overstated where it's not just plain wrong. Yes, BMI is an imperfect health proxy- that's hardly news. It's still a very strong predictor of poor health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. The psychological elements, "eat when you're hungry and stop when you're not", being "interrupted" by society is just naturalistic fallacy with a fresh coat of paint. Googling the author reveals she's a feminist psychoanalyst with no particular scientific training and a number of books published on female body image issues. Those are a problem (although in the US my understanding is they're not as prevalent as about a decade ago). They have little to do with larger systemic health problems. It's a bit rich for her article to bemoan "the agenda of the various health, fitness and diet businesses mixed up in this", when that's what her column is. The discussion of "industry-peddled" "non-food foods" that "drench our tastebuds with fat, salt and sugar" is particularly offensive and fact-free. edit: turns out she's one of the founders of a HAAS group in the UK. Frustrating and disappointing that these people are still given column space. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Can I drink a lot of diet soda or not??
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:14
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:Can I drink a lot of diet soda or not?? Yes. It's fine. Count your other calories to be sure that you're not loading up somewhere else, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Do you know of a good resource to look at for the dangers of ketosis-based diets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:22
|
|
TheBalor posted:Do you know of a good resource to look at for the dangers of ketosis-based diets? No single comprehensive source exists that I'm aware of, even in the scientific literature, which as I've mentioned is a mess. A lot of invalid research is done in this area, and there are plenty of people (South Beach, Atkins, "Keto" et al) that benefit from its promotion. The wikipedia page I linked earlier summarizes the general risks/harms associated with the clinical version of such interventions. Note that the problems become serious with long-term use- but then again, that's what you'd need to do to keep the weight off. edit: Here's a systematic review that generally seems to argue against the proposed ketosis mechanism. The usual caveats against systematic reviews have to apply, though- and I don't have the time ATM to try to read through it. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
to be fair to nutrition research, Most Published Research Findings Are False™
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No single comprehensive source exists that I'm aware of, even in the scientific literature, which as I've mentioned is a mess. A lot of invalid research is done in this area, and there are plenty of people (South Beach, Atkins, "Keto" et al) that benefit from its promotion. The wikipedia page I linked earlier summarizes the general risks/harms associated with the clinical version of such interventions. Ketosis as an evolutionary adaptation did not evolve to be a permanent state - it's induced by starvation or carbohydrate restriction and can be thought of as getting the body to make energy from body fat when little or no other food is available. You wouldn't need or expect to be in ketosis permanently at all, and that isn't how it is used clinically. Flaky fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
McAlister posted:When I started bicycling and was still over 200 lb I had a truck with 4 guys in it throw an empty beer can at my head as they passed while yelling something about a "fat bitch" out the window. They also passed way to close. When I used to walk to work alongside a busy road I had idiots say horrible things to me and throw things (eggs, beer cans.) I'm an average weight, but you can be sure they'd have called me a "fat bitch" if I had been overweight. They were just looking for the nastiest thing they could say to me. If I had been tall, I suppose they'd have called me a "beanpole" or red-headed they'd have shouted "Ging-geeeeeer!" or if I'd been non-white, they'd have yelled a racial slur. They just pick the insult most likely to wound. McAlister posted:Now, while I never set foot in a gym while significantly overweight, do we think that the kind of person who would throw cans at a cyclist's head wouldn't be a jackass in a gym setting? You can be an rear end in a top hat without talking directly to someone. Pointing/looking/laughing for example. I have been passed by tens of thousands of cars while cycling I the last 8 years. I remember only that truck. And I remember it in slow motion and high def. Likewise the gym goers who passively aren't jerks will not in any way balance out the ones who actively are. I don't think the people who go to the gym are the same sort of people as the assholes who roar by in trucks insulting and endangering passers by. They are honestly not the kind of people who are interested in self-improvement and healthy living. If they were to join a gym it'd be a "meat head" gym which are easy to avoid. Look for gyms that advertise classes in things like yoga and zumba and that sort of thing. If you go in the gym and there are only muscle-bound men, walk right back out again. Most likely you will see a mix of body types and genders and they don't insult people in the way you fear. You are no more likely to get an insult than walking down the street (ie a non-zero chance, but no higher than anywhere else.) I have never seen any pointing or laughing and if you do see that, try not to assume it is about you - people just do that as a part of conversation and if you got close you'd be more likely to hear "Can you belieeeeve the cheap bikes over there? I broke a pedal just warming up!" not "Look at that heifer! What does she think she is doing in our palace of pretty people. People like her should be banned from this place before we get a bad reputation." (or whatever you think they are saying)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think the people who go to the gym are the same sort of people as the assholes who roar by in trucks insulting and endangering passers by. They are honestly not the kind of people who are interested in self-improvement and healthy living. If they were to join a gym it'd be a "meat head" gym which are easy to avoid. Look for gyms that advertise classes in things like yoga and zumba and that sort of thing. If you go in the gym and there are only muscle-bound men, walk right back out again. Most likely you will see a mix of body types and genders and they don't insult people in the way you fear. You are no more likely to get an insult than walking down the street (ie a non-zero chance, but no higher than anywhere else.) Honestly, the so-called 'meatheads' are too obsessed with their own bodies at the gym to worry about other people. A lot of people build up this idea in their mind that guys who work out a lot are very judgmental about other people's bodies and will make fun of you to your face about it. This fantasy (maybe the wrong word here) is so commonly-believed that there are even chain gyms which cater to it, but I'd be shocked if it were a real issue. It's almost certainly people projecting their own insecurities about their bodies onto other people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Honestly, the so-called 'meatheads' are too obsessed with their own bodies at the gym to worry about other people. A lot of people build up this idea in their mind that guys who work out a lot are very judgmental about other people's bodies and will make fun of you to your face about it. And even if they might be mean when drunk and trying to impress their idiot friends, they are unlikely to be so when alone and sober at the gym in the morning. The most muscular men are unlikely to be into driving around drunk, whooping. They'll be at home planning their optimal macrobiotic weight-gain diet, and getting drunk would throw all their stats out (carbs!) And, ahem, a lot of them are gay, so they don't have the same issues with women as the truck guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
Flaky posted:You wouldn't need or expect to be in ketosis permanently at all, and that isn't how it is used clinically. Yes, you would. Clinically, ketogenic diet is used continuously in most patients. In weight loss, leaving a ketosis diet results in the return of lost weight. An interventionist, temporary diet change is ineffective.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Honestly, the so-called 'meatheads' are too obsessed with their own bodies at the gym to worry about other people. A lot of people build up this idea in their mind that guys who work out a lot are very judgmental about other people's bodies and will make fun of you to your face about it. If you can walk into a gym 2 days in a row every regular will respect you. No one starts out big, and the actual powerlifters and bodybuilders at your gym view strength as greater than thinness, you can be a huge man that people probably will think your fat, but most wont open their mouths because there are people on rascals who cannot walk and literal human mountains and we all know the difference right away. Gym culture is way different than some vague cultural body image acceptance vs. looking good fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
It's not common but gym douchebags exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
plus if your gym is like a YMCA or something similar you have a mix of young and old, all shapes and sizes just doing their thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:26
|
|