|
Goons I drink Soylent, it helps me lose weight and only costs $7.75 a day.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:1. a negligible fraction of people are truly "fat due to their genes" in the sense that with their genes, it would be nearly impossible to be both alive and not fat. This is so incredibly rare as to basically not matter. 1. I agree, I mentioned this because it's one of the key points a lot of fat activists make and I felt like the same conversation could be had without even addressing the genetic component at all. 2. I agree, I intentionally oversimplified to try to focus on societal-level discussion. 3. I agree. We agree with each other so far, I think. Fat people are fat as a result of "natural inclinations" or whatever term we want to use for it. We can't change people's genes, we don't really understand magical spirit power, which leaves us with changing environment as our only tool for dealing with obesity. A lot of adults generally don't want to dramatically change their environments, it would be ethically wrong to force them to do so in order to make them less fat, and so the vast majority of the already fat population will most likely continue to be overweight their entire lives. There are almost certainly cases in which adults do want to change their environments but lack the tools to do so, in which case society should probably try to help them. What do those cases look like and what (if any?) form should that kind of help take?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Goons I drink Soylent, it helps me lose weight and only costs $7.75 a day. How do you like the extra lead, cadmium and mold in your diet? Why don't you just buy Ensure and other such drinks in bulk, which is cheaper and less poisoned by far?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Crystal Geometry posted:1. I agree, I mentioned this because it's one of the key points a lot of fat activists make and I felt like the same conversation could be had without even addressing the genetic component at all. A great deal of it just has to do with bad habits, poor food education, and misinformation from the food industry, really. Being non-fat isn't really hard; it's all about habit. But Americans have a bad habit of eating garbage all day while being sedentary. We're bombarded with advertisements for fast food and soda everywhere we go. It's also easy to just not think about food. It also doesn't help that the food industry crams as many calories into everything as possible because that's what tastes best. Processed food is probably the real killer; compare pictures of things like 200 calories of honeydew to 200 calories of corn chips.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Processed food is probably the real killer;
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Presumably in the sense that it has a calorie density generally not found in raw ingredients. As in, highly refined food or food which uses highly refined ingredients which has a lot of calories in a very small volume, such as processed sugar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Define "processed food" in a way that isn't the naturalistic fallacy writ large. I'm referring to heavily processed, industrial food that is crammed full of calories but has little nutritional value. I'm not making naturalistic arguments or saying it's inherently bad just that Americans eat poo poo loads of it because it tastes good and isn't all that filling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Then talk about caloric density. "nature", "rawness" and "processing" have nothing to do with it.ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm not making naturalistic arguments or saying it's inherently bad just that Americans eat poo poo loads of it because it tastes good and isn't all that filling. Yeah, the satiety argument keeps coming up in this thread, but it's still not a well-supported claim-certainly not for "processed" foods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Then talk about caloric density. "nature", "rawness" and "processing" have nothing to do with it. It's not that there's anything magical to it and generally, when people try to explain why exactly brown rice is supposedly better than white rice, they say stupid things, but it's an empirical and very important fact that traditional diets work better than the modern diet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Or at least, it is much harder to overeat if you are limited to naturally occurring foods, because there are not many naturally occurring foods which have sufficient caloric density to make you fat before they make you full. Overeating is much easier when you have access to modern food processing because it allows the creation of far more nutritious food in a smaller package, and which is easy to acquire in volume. It's not really an appeal to nature I think to suggest that modern industrial processing of materials creates products which are more functional than the raw materials which go into making them. And that this is true of food, to the extend that "is extremely edible, and nutritious" is the function of food. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A great deal of it just has to do with bad habits, poor food education, and misinformation from the food industry, really. Being non-fat isn't really hard; it's all about habit. But Americans have a bad habit of eating garbage all day while being sedentary. We're bombarded with advertisements for fast food and soda everywhere we go. It's also easy to just not think about food. It also doesn't help that the food industry crams as many calories into everything as possible because that's what tastes best. Processed food is probably the real killer; compare pictures of things like 200 calories of honeydew to 200 calories of corn chips. We have to remember that having the mental energy to care about calories is itself often a symptom of privilege, not "thin privilege" but "easy, high-calorie food isn't the only pleasurable thing in my lovely life privilege" It's a dubious claim that such food (pizza, fried chicken, nachos, whatever) is better tasting than less calorie-dense food, or cheaper, but I think it's a pretty safe claim that in terms of money, ease (lack of skill or knowledge of nutrition/cooking) and time spent, it is by far easier for most people to have escapist food pleasure from "unhealthy" foods. The "but you could eat rice and bean mush and kale 3 meals a day for less money" argument that always comes up misses the point entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Trent posted:I won't get into the "processed food" thing since others have, but I agree with the rest. I'd like to add that food can be a pleasant and easy escape from a lovely stressful life. Eating "unhealthy" (read: calorie dense) food is very pleasurable, sometimes the most pleasurable thing in someone's day by a wide margin. Continuing to eat yummy escapist food after you reach an abstract calorie limit is extremely easy (and rewarded immediately by our natural mechanisms), and in fact even thinking about calories and nutrition makes the experience less fulfilling and pleasurable. Fixing this probably means means fixing the lovely low-education and/or wage-slave lives of the underclasses. Stress eating also has a lot to do with it. America is, overall, a stressed nation. Our standards are impossibly high and we're increasingly living in a society that denies opportunity to many. Thanks to how cheap corn is it's very easy to make cheap, calorie-dense food and take a wild guess what poor folks eat. It's dirt cheap to eat large amounts of stuff that's basically just corn, sugar, and salt but more expensive and harder to eat healthy. The other thing is that some people just live too far away from a supermarket to go frequently so they have to buy what keeps. Often that will be the cheap garbage that comes in a box. It doesn't help that a great many Americans have no clue about anything nutritional and also don't know how to cook. Sometimes willfully so; why cook when you can just eat Hot Pockets every day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm referring to heavily processed, industrial food that is crammed full of calories but has little nutritional value. In real definitions, you're trying to talk about an oxymoron. Food is calorie dense because it has a lot of nutritional value. If it has little, then it is calorie light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:why cook when you can just eat Hot Pockets every day? Why cook when I don't know how to make something as palatable as hot pockets? Why cook when I don't enjoy it and I've just done things I don't enjoy for eighteen hours? Why cook when I have limited resources and I may ruin the food, but hot pockets always come out the same? Why cook when I'm tired as hell from working two or three jobs and hit pockets take zero effort? Why cook when getting "raw unprocessed ingredients" requires an hour each way on the bus and they sell hot pockets at the corner store? Why cook when I'd have to turn on the oven or stove and heat up the place when a hot pocket can just go in the microwave? Why cook and just make dishes to clean when a hot pocket doesn't need any at all? Why cook when I'll have to go to the store more often to have fresh ingredients but I can have a months worth of hot pockets the day I get my food stamps? Why put in the effort to try to cook when I'm just a poor piece of poo poo who doesn't deserve nice things? There are a number of pervasive issues well beyond laziness
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:In real definitions, you're trying to talk about an oxymoron. Food is calorie dense because it has a lot of nutritional value. If it has little, then it is calorie light. Your intentional oversimplification implies that I can just eat bags of flour or sugar and nothing else and be fine since they are full of "nutritional value" There is more to value in nutrition than mere calories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Trent posted:Your intentional oversimplification implies that I can just eat bags of flour or sugar and nothing else and be fine since they are full of "nutritional value" If you crush up multivitamins in the gallons of Coca Cola you drink in a day, it's neither going to make you less fat nor help you feel any fuller. "Empty calories" is an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or at least, it is much harder to overeat if you are limited to naturally occurring foods, because there are not many naturally occurring foods which have sufficient caloric density to make you fat before they make you full. Overeating is much easier when you have access to modern food processing because it allows the creation of far more nutritious food in a smaller package, and which is easy to acquire in volume. It's not natural to just eat "naturally occurring foods" unless you're from like 50,000 BC. Flour - processed food. Cooked meat - processed food. Jam - processed food. Alcohol - processed food. And so on and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you crush up multivitamins in the gallons of Coca Cola you drink in a day, it's neither going to make you less fat nor help you feel any fuller. "Empty calories" is an oxymoron. Isn't that the exact proof of empty calories? You are consuming calories that aren't going to help you feel full or give you the proper nutrition you need in a day. If I drink 2000 calories of coke in a day, I've hit or exceeded the maximum calories I can have, but I'll still be deficient in a lot of things (protein, fibre, fat, various vitamins, etc.). If the food that you eat is going to get you to that calorie limit without giving you the rest of what you need in a day then they are empty calories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods are those that have a lot of energy nutrients but little else. They're a massive problem in American diets and is where the phrase "empty calories" originates. Look at the labels on foods. There's a lot of heavily processed food available in America that has a lot of calories but is deficient in most or all of the other things needed. Soda comes under fire for just that reason. This is also why there's those "eat a drat vegetable or piece of fruit once in a while holy gently caress" movements going on. I've met a ton of people who eat junk food pretty much all day and constantly lament that they're fat and have no idea why. Calorie-dense food also sneaks in in ways most people just don't think about. Some sauces and dressings have a gently caress load of calories but get slathered over everything and not thought about. Mayonnaise and ranch dressing are probably the biggest. I've seen a ton of people say "I'm eating healthier now it is salad time!" then douse the salad in ranch dressing which is basically spiced mayonnaise. I also worked in a restaurant for five years and you have no idea how often people would come in and order fried chicken then get french fries with it and want extra ranch for all of it and the rolls while complaining it's not their fault they're fat! It's genes, I swear! edit: The other thing I noticed when we got a latte machine is that a lot of people would suck down 800 calories of coffee drinks regularly and not realize it was making them gain weight. Some people knew what was up and just didn't care; for some people it was "yes I know this is why I am fat and I'm OK with that." But it was truly amazing how often I saw people that didn't realize they were consuming 3,000+ calories a day while living an inactive lifestyle and complain that their diets weren't doing anything. Or people who wanted some magical way to eat deep fried stuff covered in ranch all the time while being sedentary and still being thin. Sorry folks, it just doesn't work that way. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Isn't that the exact proof of empty calories? You are consuming calories that aren't going to help you feel full or give you the proper nutrition you need in a day. If I drink 2000 calories of coke in a day, I've hit or exceeded the maximum calories I can have, but I'll still be deficient in a lot of things (protein, fibre, fat, various vitamins, etc.). Nope. All sorts of "calories" don't make you feel full. Also you really don't seem to get that proper nutrition is about evening out to the reccomended daily values of things in the ling term - nothing bad happens if say you take care of your trace mineral and vitamin needs only every few weeks,. No, that's meaningless. "What you need" is generally just calories on a day to day basis, unless you're deliberately avoiding one or more of fats, carbs and protein on a routine basis. All that supposedly horrible for you food nevertheless has plenty of various trace minerals and vitamins in the long run, and most people who actually end up deficient in them either have other health conditions that make it hard to absorb certain things from foods, or are people who are extremely poor and simply cannot afford enough food. ToxicSlurpee posted:Calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods are those that have a lot of energy nutrients but little else. There is no such thing as calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food. It is literally impossible. The things you most need to get every day or nearly every day is carbs, proteins, and fats, and those are your so-called  energy nutrients. All other things you only need very small amounts of, and further it's not like people eat until they happen to fill up on the micronutrients. Further, the vast majority of people get more than plenty of all of them, unless they're doing weird things like going vegan or extremely restrictive fad diets.ToxicSlurpee posted:Soda comes under fire for just that reason. And yet most of the people who whine about soda are mysteriously silent on juices and tons of other drinks that might as well be a soda with a bit of a vitamin tablet crumbled in - and often as not even more sugar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no such thing as calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food. It is literally impossible. The things you most need to get every day or nearly every day is carbs, proteins, and fats, and those are your so-called This is not true at all. It is extremely easy to consume thousands of calories a day and not hit daily recommendations of one or more of carbs, fat, and protein. Especially protein. There are a lot of high calorie foods that are very easy and cheap to consume and provide almost no protein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you crush up multivitamins in the gallons of Coca Cola you drink in a day, it's neither going to make you less fat nor help you feel any fuller. "Empty calories" is an oxymoron. I didn't say "empty calories", you did, oxy. You can't seriously be arguing, though, that an all coke and multivitamin diet would make a person healthy, right? Or like I mentioned, bags of nothing but sugar (plus multivitamins just to put that one to rest)? I'm sure monodiets would never lead to constipation or diarrhea, right? Or intestinal blockages or other digestive issues? Or do you want to reconsider the extreme statement that there is more to value in nutrition than calories (and multivitamins)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:"Traditionally processed" is a reasonably good, and perhaps right now for many contexts the only practical, proxy for a good ratio of caloric density to undersupplied nutrient density, satiation, and, in general, conduciveness to a healthy lifestyle. "traditionally processed" doesn't mean jack poo poo, and there's no need to make it a proxy for calories when we have calories. You don't know what you're talking about. It's not hard to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Here's a pro gamerguide: STOP USING THESE WORDS "natural" "traditional" "processed" They're bunk. ToxicSlurpee posted:I also worked in a restaurant for five years and There's this thing called scientific research, and it tends to work better than intuition and anecdote. The phenomenon you've described is called a health halo effect and has nothing to do with naturalness or processing or genetic determinism, it's the number of calories people consume. That's all that matters for weight gain and loss outside of rare edge cases and bizarre freako diets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not natural to just eat "naturally occurring foods" unless you're from like 50,000 BC. Yes, but I would argue that the more involved the processing method, the more calorie dense the result. So as industry has made processing food on a large scale more economic, so has humanity had access to high calorie density food with comparative ease. Cooking meat and milling flour lets you make things more calorie dense than eating raw meat or grains, but things like refined sugar which are integral components of jams and alcohols are what make them quite so dense as they are. And sugar is quite labour intensive to refine, so it's a comparatively new thing that we have access to it enough to eat it in everything. It's not perfect but making food from unrefined ingredients where possible is a fairly good way of keeping a more balanced volume/calorie ratio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
I'm gonna take a guess and say that refined sugar isn't an integral component of alcohol if the former is a "comparatively new thing".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Brb, frying up some pork belly for lunch. Good thing it's all natural!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Gummi bears and a multivitamin, diet of champions *teeth fall out like piano keys*
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm gonna take a guess and say that refined sugar isn't an integral component of alcohol if the former is a "comparatively new thing". It's a pretty major feature in a lot of alcohol you can buy nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, but I would argue that the more involved the processing method, the more calorie dense the result. So as industry has made processing food on a large scale more economic, so has humanity had access to high calorie density food with comparative ease. No. Stop it. "processing involvement" isn't a thing. You're making up concepts to justify a pointless atavistic approach to health. God, what happened to this thread?! It was so good for a while, we were discussing dataset revisions and FoP labeling changes...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
I'm sure you can keep yelling statistics at people and that will solve obesity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Presumably in the sense that it has a calorie density generally not found in raw ingredients. Ok, you mean bread. You are saying that bread is bad for you. If you take the screed against 'processed food' to its logical conclusion, you are obligated to conclude that a raw vegan diet is the healthiest diet. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Asiina posted:This is not true at all. It is extremely easy to consume thousands of calories a day and not hit daily recommendations of one or more of carbs, fat, and protein. Especially protein. There are a lot of high calorie foods that are very easy and cheap to consume and provide almost no protein. It doesn't matter if you don't hit them in a single day, you just need to average out to them over the long term. Trent posted:I didn't say "empty calories", you did, oxy. You can't seriously be arguing that there's people who only drink coca-cola? You people decide to obsess over soda, and ignore the wider picture of what the person is eating. There is essentially nothing where you could only eat that thing and a multivitamin and be healthy, outside complex medicinal products like Nutraloaf or Ensure. Getting mad that any given food or drink is not a complete diet is ludicrous as a lens towards people not being fat. OwlFancier posted:Yes, but I would argue that the more involved the processing method, the more calorie dense the result. The most calorie dense thing currently possible with just working off regular ingredients is a glob of pure fat, seperated out from some manner of plant or animal. We've been able to manufacture that since shortly after fire was discovered. Covering other foods with that pure fat and cooking it was also developed at about the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no such thing as calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food. It is literally impossible. The things you most need to get every day or nearly every day is carbs, proteins, and fats, and those are your so-called fishmech posted:it's not like people eat until they happen to fill up on the micronutrients fishmech posted:Further, the vast majority of people get more than plenty of all of them, unless they're doing weird things like going vegan or extremely restrictive fad diets. Discendo Vox posted:"traditionally processed" doesn't mean jack poo poo, and there's no need to make it a proxy for calories when we have calories. You don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Ok, you mean bread. You are saying that bread is bad for you. If you take the screed against 'processed food' to its logical conclusion, you are obligated to conclude that a raw vegan diet is the healthiest diet. I don't suggest you eat unprocessed food because it's inherently better for you, I suggest that a general recommendation to people struggling with overeating, to try to eat more unprocessed food unless they prepare it themselves, would be both intuitive and probably an improvement, not least because it would encouraging cooking skills and developing an understanding of the composition of the food they eat. It is harder to overeat if you have to cook it yourself and there aren't a huge number of appetizing things you can buy. While cooking fat is certainly a thing, you can't just eat it, and deep frying everything will get tiresome after a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Where supposedly you = a frictionless sphere living in the 70th millennium BC savannah. In the real world, fat people don't need carbs, don't need much fat, and need to find food that is proportionally denser in the nutrients they're not getting an abundance of, while being much, much poorer in carbs and fats. In the real world, everyone should be eating some carbs. I realize certain wacky fad diets say no one should eat any carbs, but that's not valid. You also should be eating some fats, again, insisting on eating almost none is a fad diet thing. Protein is something people need fairly regularly, while many trace minerals and vitamins can be completely missed for weeks at a time without risking deficiency - the body tends to stockpile them. There's also very little evidence of actual "similar signals" for the myriad trace minerals and vitamins. There is no particular need to have omega 3 fatty acids in particular on a routine basis. Vitamin D is primarily low because the best way to get it, for most people, is synthesis due to sunlight. Fiber being dangerously low in "half the western low" sounds fake. And so on. Bleeding tends to lose iron, what a surprise! The "would grandma's grandma recognize it" rule of thumb is stupid because all sorts of traditional dishes are as "horrible" for you as the modern food people like you whine about as the downfall of mankind. If you just eat stuff your grandma's grandma knows about, you'd also get quite fat!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
In regards to processing - quote:Convenience food, or tertiary processed food, is food that is commercially prepared (often through processing) to optimize ease of consumption. Such food is usually ready to eat without further preparation. It may also be easily portable, have a long shelf life, or offer a combination of such convenient traits. Although restaurant meals meet this definition, the term is seldom applied to them. Convenience foods include ready-to-eat dry goods, frozen foods such as TV dinners, shelf-stable foods, prepared mixes such as cake mix, and snack foods. That's from wikipedia and seems like as good a definition as any. EDIT: Natural is a bunk term but to pretend that an apple and a little debbie apple pie are more or less the same thing as long as you eat the same amount of calories, or that it is impossible to use some kind of language to meaningfully separate the two is laughably stupid and wrong Full Battle Rattle fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It's not that there's anything magical to it and generally, when people try to explain why exactly brown rice is supposedly better than white rice, they say stupid things, but it's an empirical and very important fact that traditional diets work better than the modern diet. I think a lot of that is that the people who eat only 'natural unprocessed' foods have bought into the healthy lifestyle. They aren't smokers, drug users, or heavy drinkers. They exercise regularly to keep their hearts and bones healthy. They don't live in sewers or do risky behavior which would expose them to communicable disease. They get plenty of sleep and effectively deal with stress. They don't undereat or overeat. The benefits of those other things get attributed to the type of food they eat. If we lived in an alternate universe where health buffs convinced themselves that more heavily engineered foods were better for you, the nutrition surveys would be telling us to eat totally different stuff. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If we lived in an alternate universe where health buffs convinced themselves that more heavily engineered foods were better for you, the nutrition surveys would be telling us to eat totally different stuff. Maybe if we lived in an alternate universe where more heavily engineered foods actually resulted in greater health that would happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I think a lot of that is that the people who eat 'natural unprocessed' foods have bought into the healthy lifestyle. They aren't smokers, drug users, or heavy drinkers. They exercise regularly to keep their hearts and bones healthy. They don't live in sewers or do risky behavior which would expose them to communicable disease. They get plenty of sleep and effectively deal with stress. They don't undereat or overeat. The benefits of those other things get attributed to the type of food they eat. To be fair they probably also pay attention to what they eat and ensure they have a balanced diet. It's pretty hard to be actually malnourished in America but it's balls easy to consume massively unnecessary amounts of calories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
fishmech posted:It doesn't matter if you don't hit them in a single day, you just need to average out to them over the long term. Except fat people aren't averaging them out in the long term. The problem is that they are consistently not reaching nutrition goals, so what exactly is your point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:07
|
|