fishmech posted:

You can't seriously be arguing that there's people who only drink coca-cola?

You people decide to obsess over soda

Asiina posted:

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?

Trent posted:

You people? Really? I've not obsessed about soda at all.

In fact, I was posting about people who eat only hot pockets, and YOU brought up coke and multivitamins.

I then pointed out how stupid that was. Do you read other people's posts at all? Do you even read YOUR posts?

fishmech posted:

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.

fishmech posted:

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

fishmech posted:

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!

fishmech posted:

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!

fishmech posted:

This is the opposite of true. They're consistently overreaching their nutrition goals. If they weren't reaching the nutrition goals, they'd be skinny, not fat.

Cingulate posted:

"No carbs" is a strawman. It's not inherently terrible, but so inefficient and pointless to try and eliminate them that basically nobody should bother. Just eat fruit and vegetables and beans and I guess eat a cake once a week who cares. But fat people need to eat way less carbs and fat.
Many. And many you can't store.
Still means they got to eat that chicken.

And significant fractions of the western world are indeed deficient in a list of micronutrients. I'd wager even most obese people are missing a bunch.
Me? I'm fine. I'm not gonna get fat.
But the non-strawman position would be: it's easier to live healthy on food than on modern food products; on grapes than on grape drink, all in all. Sure, people knew how to make some disgusting food back in the 15th century, but we've gotten a lot better since, and the worst stuff is mostly that which would be unrecognizable to Lincoln, and most of the helpful stuff (e.g. most plants) would be recognizable to him.

Cause, as nobody sane doubts, fruit and vegetables are useful tools for being less fat, and super processed food opens venues for really providing some calorically dense, non-filling food.

Tesseraction posted:

Doesn't it depend on the nutrient? A food can satisfy the calorific requirements for energy production but fail to provide enough essential amino acids and other micro-nutrients, which is what I assume is the problem posters are referring to - you can reach your calorie requirements without ever balancing out your vit/min/etc.

fishmech posted:

Hot pockets, coke, same thing. The only things that provide complete nutrition on their own is specially engineered foods, and decrying a given food for not being complete is ignorant as hell.

Trent posted:

You goddamn dumbass.

You started out saying only calories have value nutritionally, then introduced the brilliant coke and multivitamin diet, and now are railing against something else you just introduced all by yourself: complete food.



People really DO eat nothing but pop tarts and hot pockets (and coke probably) by the way. You keep mistaking people talking about a social problem for some kind of biological claim. We are interested in discussing a societal solution.

fishmech posted:

This is the opposite of true. They're consistently overreaching their nutrition goals. If they weren't reaching the nutrition goals, they'd be skinny, not fat.


Hot pockets, coke, same thing. The only things that provide complete nutrition on their own is specially engineered foods, and decrying a given food for not being complete is ignorant as hell.

Asiina posted:

Nobody is arguing you should only eat one thing to be healthy.

And if you count anything other than "calories" as a nutrition goal then yes, fat people (and lots of other people too) are not meeting nutrition goals.

Even if you eat some variety of food, if most of that food is lacking in one or more essential nutrients you will have too many calories while not getting enough of something else.

Does someone really have to provide a sample daily meal plan to show you how this is possible?

fishmech posted:

Caloric nutrients are literally nutrition, friend.

If you just eat pop tarts, hot pockets, and soda, you're actually pretty close to a balanced diet. It's also an assload of food so you'll get fat of course. Stop trying to talk about "societal solutions" when you don't know a drat thing about nutrition.

OwlFancier posted:

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.

Cingulate posted:

But the non-strawman position would be: it's easier to live healthy on food than on modern food products; on grapes than on grape drink, all in all. Sure, people knew how to make some disgusting food back in the 15th century, but we've gotten a lot better since, and the worst stuff is mostly that which would be unrecognizable to Lincoln, and most of the helpful stuff (e.g. most plants) would be recognizable to him.

Cause, as nobody sane doubts, fruit and vegetables are useful tools for being less fat, and super processed food opens venues for really providing some calorically dense, non-filling food.

Tesseraction posted:

Doesn't it depend on the nutrient? A food can satisfy the calorific requirements for energy production but fail to provide enough essential amino acids and other micro-nutrients, which is what I assume is the problem posters are referring to - you can reach your calorie requirements without ever balancing out your vit/min/etc.

fishmech posted:

Fat people are very rarely actually deficient in any nutrient you care to name. It's because they eat so so much that they aren't.

You really don't get it do you? Nearly all of the nearly hundred million obese people in this country aren't lacking any essential nutrients! And the few that are, supplying the nutrient isn't going to make them less fat! B12 and iron don't make you skinny.

Asiina posted:

Apparently you do need an example.

Pop Tart
200 calories
Fat 5g
Carbs 38g
Protein 2g

Hot Pocket
403 Calories
Fat 20.16g
Carbs 39.19g
Protein 16.33g

Coke
140 Calories
Fat 0g
Carbs 39g
Protein 0g

Approaches vary, but let's do the 40-40-30 distribution for these, and at a 2000 calorie diet you should be getting 200g Carbs, 150g Protein, 66g Fat.

If I eat 4 pop tarts (2 packages), 2 hot pockets, and 3 cans of coke that lands me at 2029 calories.

Carbs: 347.38 (Way over)
Protein: 40.66 (Way under)
Fat: 60.32 (Under)

That's not counting any of the vitamins, minerals, and fibre that this diet is lacking.

You can have too many calories and too little macronutrients.

Asiina posted:

The point isn't to eat more vitamins, the point is that fat people who are overeating aren't even getting everything they need when they do so because a lot of what they eat is lacking in proper nutritional value (aka empty calories). Of course fat people should consume fewer calories, but just consuming fewer calories without actually changing what they are eating to ensure that they are getting what they need within that calorie limit is a recipe for failure.

fishmech posted:

Not sure why you're so interested in the hypothetical guy who only eats pop tarts and hot pockets and coca cola and scrupulously consumes only 2000 calories total, and never ever eats anything else ever. You can pretty much pick any 3 items and if you only ate those things you'd similarly have issues, unless one of your 3 things is a purposely designed complete food the way a nutraloaf or Ensure is.

fishmech posted:

If you just eat pop tarts, hot pockets, and soda, you're actually pretty close to a balanced diet. It's also an assload of food so you'll get fat of course. Stop trying to talk about "societal solutions" when you don't know a drat thing about nutrition.

Asiina posted:

You're the one making that argument, friend.

fishmech posted:

And? You were trying to put up your silly little label rant to disprove what I said, and you didn't. The guy's pretty close as is if he did that, and you're the one who put int he stipulation "also he sticks to 2000 calories". And in the real world, that guy also eats other things from time to time, which tends to cover any deficiency.

Asiina posted:

"Pretty close" meaning he's hitting less than 1/3 of his protein needs. Even if he had 6000 calories that day he wouldn't hit it.

I'm sorry that my use of math and evidence did not disprove the nonsense you are spewing based on...?

Discendo Vox posted:

No, people who struggle with overeating should consume fewer calories. It's that simple. You're both fetishizing a past when people were actually nutritionally deficient. It doesn't matter what it looks like, or who would recognize it, or when it was invented. What matters is what is in it. For weight, the answer to that is calories.

fishmech posted:

Incorrect. What fat people need to eat less of is everything.

Asiina posted:

"Pretty close" meaning he's hitting less than 1/3 of his protein needs. Even if he had 6000 calories that day he wouldn't hit it.

I'm sorry that my use of math and evidence did not disprove the nonsense you are spewing based on...?

fishmech posted:

If he eats a lot of hot pockets, he's eating a lot of protein. Only your cherry picked "also it has to be 2000 calories and also he has to be eating in a certain ratio to the pop tarts and soda" shtick makes that impossible.

You're not actually using math or evidence. Eat 10 of the average hot pocket a day and you've gotten more than enough protein and you're still under 1700 calories, incidentally.

Series DD Funding posted:

You don't need 150 grams of protein

Cingulate posted:

In the real world, fat people need to eat more lettuce and chicken breast.

Cingulate posted:

And it's a lot harder to eat a calorie deficit on smarties...

Cingulate posted:

And in the real world, you won't - by lunchtime, you'll have eaten 15 pop tarts and two burgers.

fishmech posted:

Uh, I know tons of fat people who eat a lot of lettuce and chicken breast dude. Was the last time you went to a fast food place or restaurant 1948?

fishmech posted:

Smarties are like 15 calories a roll bub.

fishmech posted:

Most people aren't going to eat two whole boxes of pop tarts by noon. Christ, you're spending like $8 on pop tarts every day at that point if you don't eat any after lunch. Let alone burgers on top of that.

fishmech posted:

15 pop tarts is 1.7 pounds of food and it's only lunchtime.

Series DD Funding posted:

You don't need 150 grams of protein

Cingulate posted:

I'm saying more. Literally eat a whole head. Eat a pound of chicken breast.
A contest between a guy eating lettuce and a guy eating smarties, whoever gets the most calories down in 15 minutes, I'm betting on the smarties guy.
$8 dollars for a single meal isn't a lot.
1. Have you ever met a fat person? 2. Have you ever met a skinny person trying to gain weight?

I can eat a lot of cake.

fishmech posted:

You're not actually using math or evidence. Eat 10 of the average hot pocket a day and you've gotten more than enough protein and you're still under 1700 calories, incidentally.

Asiina posted:

Find me the nutrition facts for an average hot pocket that is less than 170 calories while still having roughly 15g protein.

The one I linked which I found by googling nutrition facts for hot pockets puts you at over 4000 calories eating 10 of them.

This website lists a bunch of types of hot pockets with calorie counts I've seen as low as 290, and which will get you around 100g of protein if you eat 10 of them, which is pretty good but still low for a 2900 calorie diet.

fishmech posted:

They're already eating a lot of lettuce. They're already eating over a pound of chicken. That's why they're so loving fat, brah.

What's that supposed to have to do with anything?

What kind of hosed up mindset do you have where 1.7 pounds of pop tarts is a single meal? You kinda sound like you've never ever had any if you think eating 15 of them before lunch is a common thing that's done. That is a LOT of them.

Yes I've met plenty of fat people. They don't literally eat 2 whole boxes of pop tarts in single day, let alone by lunch. They don't also cram down two whole burgers on top of that by lunchtime. That's how you get to be loving 600 pounds not 300 pounds.

Asiina posted:

Fat people don't just eat the same things as skinny people but in much larger doses, they actually eat different food. You're right that they aren't eating 15 pop tarts for breakfast just like they aren't eating multiple heads of lettuce. Even fat people can't eat that much in day or they would literally never not be eating. The only way that they are eating so many calories is if they are eating food that is rich in calories while not being very filling, most of which is missing a lot of nutrients!

The amount of food that is in 100 calories of lettuce compared to 100 calories of chicken compared to 100 calories of poptarts is a pretty big difference in the actual amount of physical matter. So no, they aren't eating comparatively as much lettuce as they are pop tarts because, as you said yourself, that is ridiculous.

Asiina posted:

Fat people don't just eat the same things as skinny people but in much larger doses, they actually eat different food. You're right that they aren't eating 15 pop tarts for breakfast just like they aren't eating multiple heads of lettuce. Even fat people can't eat that much in day or they would literally never not be eating. The only way that they are eating so many calories is if they are eating food that is rich in calories while not being very filling, most of which is missing a lot of nutrients!

The amount of food that is in 100 calories of lettuce compared to 100 calories of chicken compared to 100 calories of poptarts is a pretty big difference in the actual amount of physical matter. So no, they aren't eating comparatively as much lettuce as they are pop tarts because, as you said yourself, that is ridiculous.

fishmech posted:

They're already eating a lot of lettuce. They're already eating over a pound of chicken. That's why they're so loving fat, brah.

What's that supposed to have to do with anything?

What kind of hosed up mindset do you have where 1.7 pounds of pop tarts is a single meal? You kinda sound like you've never ever had any if you think eating 15 of them before lunch is a common thing that's done. That is a LOT of them.

Yes I've met plenty of fat people. They don't literally eat 2 whole boxes of pop tarts in single day, let alone by lunch. They don't also cram down two whole burgers on top of that by lunchtime. That's how you get to be loving 600 pounds not 300 pounds.

Cingulate posted:

I eat two whole burgers at lunchtime and I'm a skinny 160lbs, give or take 10, right now.

And fat people eat a lot more than I do. Like, add the pop tarts, and I'd be a fat person.

You need to eat a lot of disgusting stuff to get to 300 lbs.

But these stories aren't really so important. What's important is that while the physics of the situation is that fat people need less calories, the psychology is that it's a lot harder to eat a deficit diet of super processed food products, than of chicken breast, lettuce, and low-fat yogurt with artificial sweetener.

fishmech posted:

What are you talking about crazypants? The recommended daily value for protein is 56 grams for adult men, and many hot pocket varieties are around 6 grams per bar, and also 170 calories per bar - common for the breakfast ones. They of course make larger hot pockets, but they also have more protein eg some of their heartier bars are 280 calories but also 9 grams of protein. You get 60 grams of protein with around 1800 calories for those.

What bizarre fad diet told you you need 100 grams of protein?

fishmech posted:

This is wrong, food that is rich in calories is by definition full of nutrients. You need to get that through your thick little head, man. God only knows why people like you insist on believing carbs, fat, and protein aren't nutrients.

Cingulate posted:

And IME fat people DO eat the same stuff skinny people eat, more or less. Just, like, more of it. A lot.

And the livable way of eating less calories includes eating stuff that's more filling per calorie - that is, fewer pop tarts, more chicken breast.
I eat two whole burgers at lunchtime and I'm a skinny 160lbs, give or take 10, right now.

And fat people eat a lot more than I do. Like, add the pop tarts, and I'd be a fat person.

You need to eat a lot of disgusting stuff to get to 300 lbs.

Asiina posted:

56g of protein is the bare minimum required to not get sick.

Asiina posted:

Which hot pocket varieties are 6 grams per bar and 170 calories? Please tell me their names. The absolute lowest one I found was 290 calories.

rscott posted:

Speaking statistically have the ratio of macronutrient consumption shifted over the years? We obviously eat more calories than we used to but are all those extra calories the "empty" sugar calories being claimed by some in this thread?
e: fu autocorrect

Asiina posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

No, people who struggle with overeating should consume fewer calories. It's that simple. You're both fetishizing a past when people were actually nutritionally deficient. It doesn't matter what it looks like, or who would recognize it, or when it was invented. What matters is what is in it. For weight, the answer to that is calories.

OwlFancier posted:

Yet, astonishingly, simply yelling "eat fewer calories" at people does not seem to be having much of an effect, regardless of its veracity. So I would suggest that there may be some issue with that as an approach to weight loss?

Whether it would work or not is irrelevant if nobody is willing to follow it.

fishmech posted:

That is absolutely not true. Maybe for some guy who's doing a lot of strenuous work or exercise, but not the average man.

fishmech posted:

And your point is? Would you be happy if tomorrow morning coca cola crumbled a vitamin pill into every can of coke?

fishmech posted:

The thing is the current messaging is not mostly "eat less calories" but all sorts of conflicting things about "cut down on food x" where another campaign says "cut down on food type y" and then the horde of for profit diet plan ads and books.