|
Re: Living Vegan as a healthy lifestyle choice. You will lose a ton of bodyfat being vegan. It requires slightly more planning than other diets, but is fine beyond that. B12 can be a problem, but most soy milks and energy drinks are fortified with B12. You also really don't need a whole lot. (Fishmech was right about the egg a month thing. Or soymilk or energy drinks or a supplement once a month is more than enough.) The reason most vegans are malnourished is because most of them are vegan not for health reasons but for ideological ones. (If you aren't doing it for ideological reasons, there's no reason you can't have a meat cheat day.) Being vegan isn't for everybody, but it could work for some people. Glad we could clear that up. (D&D disclaimer: Please note I do not mean "You will lose a literal ton" but a figurative ton.)
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
fishmech, do you mean that no single food is unhealthy out of context? e.g. a bar of chocolate is not unhealthy, but omitting all this broccoli by getting your kcals from the chocolate instead is unhealthy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's patently true. There are only ways to eat foods that may be unhealthy, not unhealthy foods (again, outside of foods that literally contain poison or other contamination). Well really we are talking about foods as they relate to the human diet. Obviously eucalyptus leaves are healthy food. For a koala. In order for your statement to have any semantic meaning, what you should have said was that there is no such thing as an unhealthy human diet. Which is clearly absurd. Again this goes back to the broader problem with all your arguments, which is that they are nearly always reduced beyond the point of absurdity. I don't know why you do this, it doesn't make you look smart even if it is sufficient to confuse most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Do you mean that literally? If someone gave you a study showing that foods containing—say, transfats—are unhealthy, would you respond by categorizing transfats as contaminants? Because that's what I would do if I had given your argument, and I suspect I know where you're coming from. I don't have a study prepared, I'm just going on intuition here. It's still perfectly ok to eat something that has a lot of trans fats, you just can't have a whole bunch of it every day. But it's also really bad to eat a ton of carrots every day. It's really bad to eat practically anything a whole bunch. A: is a meaningless statement. B: is correct, because there's no standard for what makes a food unhealthy, and there can't ever really be. None of the non-poisonous things in foods are things that will hurt you, even if you happen to eat a lot every so often. It's all stuff that becomes a problem with extreme consumption over long time periods. JFairfax posted:This is loving bullshit It's actually extremely correct. Stinky_Pete posted:fishmech, do you mean that no single food is unhealthy out of context? e.g. a bar of chocolate is not unhealthy, but omitting all this broccoli by getting your kcals from the chocolate instead is unhealthy? Yes. Food can only ever be unhealthy in the context of not even meals, but in terms of long term consumption. If someone really wanted to they could put together a working diet of ice cream, lard, and pizzas. It'd require weird portions and would probably be unpleasant. Flaky posted:Well really we are talking about foods as they relate to the human diet. Obviously eucalyptus leaves are healthy food. For a koala. In order for your statement to have any semantic meaning, what you should have said was that there is no such thing as an unhealthy human diet. Which is clearly absurd. There's nothing unhealthy about eating eucalyptus if you process it properly first. They'd taste pretty bad and make you poo poo a lot (but not at dangerous levels) but they're not unhealthy to eat when prepared correctly. That's not a problem. The things we're talking about are in fact simple: human bodies can have good health on a wide variety of diets, as evidenced by human culture's wide varieties of diets, and the only thing that really matters is getting in the ball park of recommended amounts. And to not get fat, you just don't eat a lot, period. fishmech fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Re: Living Vegan as a healthy lifestyle choice. I'm sure a large share of weight loss is due to people who make the change no longer ordering burger and fries. If someone went from (chicken) breast & broccoli & beer to beans & broccoli & beer they surely wouldn't see a drop in body fat. But I'm just being a stickler. The Average Joe would probably see benefits (unless they replace burger & fries with packing down pasta), I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Yes. We need an understanding of the issues that is based on scientific evidence so that we can do things like plan a food supply system that meets the nutritional needs of the population, for example, by incentivising food manufacturers to provide healthy foods. We also need to provide accurate information to people if they want it, and ensure that those who are in the care of others (the elderly, children) have adequate nutrition provided for them. Currently old people do not receive enough protein, which compromises their health quite profoundly for various reasons. Oh, okay. Well that makes any of our personal experiences or knowledge of other's experience with diets kind of irrelevant then. I guess it could be as simple as promoting foods that have high nutritional content for the calories, or is it not that simple? Anyway, fishmech, I think when people around here say unhealthy I think they mean poor nutrition to calorie ratio. If I had a certain calorie limit for the day, having a Big Mac leaves me little room for much else and that would suck. While HFCS are not going to give me cancer, I eliminate them from my diet because there are belter, more interesting, less calorically dense things to consume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's still perfectly ok to eat something that has a lot of trans fats, you just can't have a whole bunch of it every day. But it's also really bad to eat a ton of carrots every day. It's really bad to eat practically anything a whole bunch. Yeah so you're technically correct, but in a sort of pointless Sam Harris way. When someone says "<food> is unhealthy," they're using that as shorthand for "consuming <food> at the typically-served quantity with regularity is unhealthy," but that's a pain in the dick to have to say every time. You would do well to try and give people the verbal benefit of the doubt and seek clarification, instead of acting like a Hollywood robot who *brzzt* re-quires ad-di-tion-al pa-ra-me-ters *brzzt*
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Cutting any food or type of food from your regular diet will tend to cause you to to eat fewer calories than usual. Low-carb, no-meat, whatever. I remember an old saw about a Dad who invented a diet where he would stop eating white foods. So no rice or chicken breast, but flan was fine. It worked both as a diet and as a meta-joke about nutrition. (I tried to find where I first heard this story, but incredibly, some enterprising soul has since started actually selling the No White Foods diet, and the search results are crowded with it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Technically correct is the best type of correct
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
But also loving insufferable
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:
You're describing a thing that doesn't exist. A Big Mac is full of nutrition. That's why eating a lot of them will make you fat. And further, it's got a balance of micronutrients that are pretty on par with any random common meal across the developed world. And here you're doing the thing where you act like HFCS is different from other sugars, when it ain't. At least that's how it reads. Stinky_Pete posted:Yeah so you're technically correct, but in a sort of pointless Sam Harris way. When someone says "<food> is unhealthy," they're using that as shorthand for "consuming <food> at the typically-served quantity with regularity is unhealthy," but that's a pain in the dick to have to say every time. You would do well to try and give people the verbal benefit of the doubt and seek clarification, instead of acting like a Hollywood robot who *brzzt* re-quires ad-di-tion-al pa-ra-me-ters *brzzt* They're almost always wrong about that though! This shouldn't be so hard for people to get. The fact is the average person is over-consuming absolutely everything, and that's why they're also fat as heck. It's not people eating a whole bunch of burgers, it's that they're eating a burger AND x and y and z and a through g all throughout the day when if they just chopped any say 4 of those things out of that list they'd be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Fishmech takes all arguments completely out of social context. Or any of the context in which they are being used. "A minor dose of arsenic every 10 years is actually good for you therefore eating appleseeds is healthy". He's not even technically correct because i bet if i plan it right I can eat a small chunk of iron "healthily" in his metric. Everyone else should just continue to use the sliding scale as normal. Broccoli is healthy, a coldstone creamery sundae is not.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
I agree with fishmech on HFCS though. A lot of people get led to believe that high-fructose corn syrup (aka mostly "fruit sugar" from corn, dissolved in water and a lot of the water evaporated) is somehow worse for you than cane sugar (ooh how natural and raw) and buy some feel-good label cane sugar soda even though it's still just sugar dissolved in water. HFCS is sugar and it's okay to call it sugar and recognize that the entire sugar category is what's often metabolized into fat before the consumer can use it for physical activity, not one scapegoat with an industrial-sounding name. Also, do we have studies on how much snacking Americans do between canonical meals (because I know some people have 5 small meals per day)? I haven't kept up with the thread and just came back to it today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I agree with fishmech on HFCS though. A lot of people get led to believe that high-fructose corn syrup (aka mostly "fruit sugar" from corn, dissolved in water and a lot of the water evaporated) is somehow worse for you than cane sugar (ooh how natural and raw) and buy some feel-good label cane sugar soda even though it's still just sugar dissolved in water. HFCS is sugar and it's okay to call it sugar and recognize that the entire sugar category is what's often metabolized into fat before the consumer can use it for physical activity, not one scapegoat with an industrial-sounding name. Oh yeah, those people are the same people that think fukushima is going to wipe out all life in California in 3 years. its been "in 3 years" since it happened. gently caress those people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Fishmech takes all arguments completely out of social context. Or any of the context in which they are being used. "A minor dose of arsenic every 10 years is actually good for you therefore eating appleseeds is healthy". He's not even technically correct because i bet if i plan it right I can eat a small chunk of iron "healthily" in his metric. Eating a small chunk of iron is a good way to have a painful poo poo. Not my thing but if that's your fetish then go hog wild, bro. It's interesting though, that you think arsenic is comparable to any food. Like you're gonna get ice cream poisoning. Stinky_Pete posted:I agree with fishmech on HFCS though. A lot of people get led to believe that high-fructose corn syrup (aka mostly "fruit sugar" from corn, dissolved in water and a lot of the water evaporated) is somehow worse for you than cane sugar (ooh how natural and raw) and buy some feel-good label cane sugar soda even though it's still just sugar dissolved in water. HFCS is sugar and it's okay to call it sugar and recognize that the entire sugar category is what's often metabolized into fat before the consumer can use it for physical activity, not one scapegoat with an industrial-sounding name. It's also useful to remember that we don't use HFCS because of "corn subsidies" or whatever. We use it because in the 70s the farming lobbies got the US to put up ridiculously high sugar tariffs and import restrictions on sugar, with the goal of growing the sugarbeet industry and the minor domestic US sugarcane and other sugar crop industries (which are minor because there's minimal suitable growing area for that). As it turns out none of the regular refined sugar source crops could be grown enough to cover demand, so American industry turned to the HFCS method, which had been developed in Japan into a form suitable for mass usage. And so HFCS is price-competitive with regular refined sugar in this country, while being ludicrously expensive in comparison to conventional sugar in most other countries. This is because American refined sugar prices are roughly double the global normal price, and HFCS ends up trading between 5% cheaper and 5% more expensive than refined sugar on a yearly basis, for equivalent amounts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Cutting any food or type of food from your regular diet will tend to cause you to to eat fewer calories than usual. No, it won't, you will simply eat those same calories from other foods. You can try to eat fewer calories (conventional calorie-restricted diets, which are unsustainable), or you can force yourself to eat fewer calories (metabolic ward studies, which are unsustainable for different reasons). Neither will necessarily result in weight loss and or increased 'health'. Alternatively you could experiment with changing the ratio of the macronutrients in the diet. You can either get your calories from fat, protein or carbs. Eat more carbs, and you will spike your insulin and trigger de novo lipogenesis aka. fat storage (the body's response to elevated blood sugar), which leads to increased hunger and a host of metabolic diseases (overweight, high blood pressure, t2diabetes and the rest). Eat more fat, and you will stop being hungry, because animal fat is what your body evolved to eat (along with it's naturally occurring counterpart, animal protein from...animals). There is no dietary requirement for carbohydrate. There is no condition known as 'carbohydrate starvation'. Your liver can produce all the blood-sugar you need through gluconeogenesis... from either dietary fat or... body fat. Which is how you lose body fat. Exclusively in the absence of elevated blood sugar (induced most commonly by eating carbohydrate.) It's that simple, and no simpler. Flaky fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's still perfectly ok to eat something that has a lot of trans fats quoting this for posterity also fishmech posted:There's nothing unhealthy about eating eucalyptus if you process it properly first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Flaky posted:No, it won't, you will simply eat those same calories from other foods. You can try to eat fewer calories (conventional calorie-restricted diets, which are unsustainable), or you can force yourself to eat fewer calories (metabolic ward studies, which are unsustainable for different reasons). Neither will necessarily result in weight loss and or increased 'health'. Or you just track calories and exercise, instead of obsessing about your metabolism like a crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Flaky posted:No, it won't, you will simply eat those same calories from other foods. You can try to eat fewer calories (conventional calorie-restricted diets, which are unsustainable), or you can force yourself to eat fewer calories (metabolic ward studies, which are unsustainable for different reasons). Neither will necessarily result in weight loss and or increased 'health'. If you cut food from our diet you will lose weight. Your assumption that they will eat more is just that. That statement on it's face is true and is only false if you package it with your own assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Anyway, fishmech, I think when people around here say unhealthy I think they mean poor nutrition to calorie ratio. quote:If I had a certain calorie limit for the day, having a Big Mac leaves me little room for much else and that would suck. While HFCS are not going to give me cancer, I eliminate them from my diet because there are belter, more interesting, less calorically dense things to consume. And a big mac is 540 calories. That's a perfectly good meal size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:There are other factors, but that's a good starting point. Yes, most people's problem is they have the big Mac, and then they had the fries and a large soda, and their breakfast was a hearty plate of eggs and sausage and they had a couple of doughnuts on the way to work. Then for dinner they had a big meal and they had a beer or two after as well. Rinse repeat in roughly the same fashion for 10 years and "suddenly" they're really fat. Flaky posted:quoting this for posterity Gratz on quoting true statements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:And a big mac is 540 calories. That's a perfectly good meal size. Until you think "Well, I'd like something to drink with that too." Then there's another 220 calories. Then hey, you get free fries with that, another 350 calories. Now it's 1110 calories, or two meals. Of course you could just get water with it, which is the smart and sensible thing to do. But you are right, it's a portion problem, not a nutrient problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Flaky posted:quoting this for posterity He refuses to discuss outside of the context of "Rule One: Don't die. Rule 2: Less calories (and/or direct fat extraction)." Both of which I will stipulate are absolutely true. When I'm bored at work tomorrow I'm going to look for information about awareness of the degree to which people are endangering their health. Presumably their doctors are telling them, so how much of this comes from people not seeing a doctor regularly? What can we do to improve outreach about weight loss? Maybe we should treat it as a public health crisis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Until you think "Well, I'd like something to drink with that too." Then there's another 220 calories. Then he, you get free fries with that, another 350 calories. Now it's 1110 calories, or two meals. 1100 calories ain't two meals, that's more like 1 to one and a half (depending on height and activity level). 1650 calories a day isn't appropriate unless you're quite small or in the midst of drastic weight loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He refuses to discuss outside of the context of "Rule One: Don't die. Rule 2: Less calories (and/or direct fat extraction)." Both of which I will stipulate are absolutely true. Well that's a shame, because it isn't supported by science, and it leads necessarily to the assumption that because all calories are the same, people can eat 70% calories as carbohydrate and be fine. Which is clearly not the case, as not only do they then overeat because they are storing those calories as fat, but they develop life-threatening metabolic dysfunction aka the status quo. You overeat because you are fat (because you have eaten too many carbohydrates), you are not fat because you overeat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Well that's a shame, because it isn't supported by science, and it leads necessarily to the assumption that because all calories are the same, people can eat 70% calories as carbohydrate and be fine. Which is clearly not the case, as not only do they then overeat because they are storing those calories as fat, but they develop life-threatening metabolic dysfunction aka the status quo. And what happens when you overeat fat? It disappears into the aether?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
There are no people on earth that overeat fat. Those who eat fat exclusively are some of the thinnest - masai warrirors for example. What happens is you say "no thanks, I'm full".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:1100 calories ain't two meals, that's more like 1 to one and a half (depending on height and activity level). 1650 calories a day isn't appropriate unless you're quite small or in the midst of drastic weight loss. There's no caloric definition of a meal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Flaky posted:There are no people on earth that overeat fat. Those who eat fat exclusively are some of the thinnest - masai warrirors for example. What happens is you say "no thanks, I'm full". 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
How to become a sumo-wrestler: Eat white rice exclusively, otherwise you wont get hungry enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Flaky posted:How to become a sumo-wrestler: Eat white rice exclusively, otherwise you wont get hungry enough. Actually the sumo dojos all have their own carefully-guarded recipe for some kind of special calorie-dense udon, saw it in a documentary once.  To be clear, weight loss from ketosis is often mostly water weight. While I will note that, during a period when I got my carbs solely from nuts/legumes, I seemed to lose a substantial amount of fat, I ultimately rebounded because ketosis is unsustainable. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Actually the sumo dojos all have their own carefully-guarded recipe for some kind of special calorie-dense udon, saw it in a documentary once. At least that's what they tell you. You think any high-performance athlete just gives away information about what they eat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Flaky posted:At least that's what they tell you. You think any high-performance athlete just gives away information about what they eat? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
lol Usain Bolt is the fastest man ever and a giant manchild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
How is this thread 36 pages long when the answer to the thread topic is a resounding "No".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:How is this thread 36 pages long when the answer to the thread topic is a resounding "No". Kinda turned into the nutritional science megathread. The thread's rating accurately reflects the quality of the science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:lol Usain Bolt is the fastest man ever and a giant manchild. Presumably this at this partially validates fishmech's thesis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Presumably this at this partially validates fishmech's thesis. Ya well, we could also mention how much exercise he does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Ya well, we could also mention how much exercise he does. But clearly exercise doesn't matter when it comes to wight, as agreed by most people in this thread. By looking at how much those athletes eat, that then means you can eat lots of food and not be fat. So obviously how much you exercise and eat have nothing to do with being fat. Being fat is just like err a magic thing that noone understands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Exercise absolutely does affect how much you can eat when working out is your full-time job. That info isn't helpful for your average fat person
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:23
|
|