|
Asiina posted:Look up with Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) means, since that's where you're getting your 56g number from, and it's the minimum amount wherein 97-98% of average people will not have nutrient deficiencies. It is the minimum that you should have to make sure your needs are being met and is on the lower end of the 10-35% of caloric intake that the NIH and FDA say is adequate. Which is way far away from "if you eat any less than this you'll be sick". The reccomended daily minimums are an amount that is well above where you'd get sick from deficiency. The average person has no need for 100 grams of protein a day, let alone more. This is irrelevant. The only foods that have the exact ratio fo protein, fat, and carbs for you to live off of just it, are medically determined foods like nutraloaf and Ensure. Most regular food shouldn't aim for such a mix, because that tends towards unappetizing. What crackhead school of pseudonutrution told you that all foods and drinks should be pretty much Ensure? Let me blunt: you have a childish misunderstanding of how food works if you think every individual food and drink needs to a certain ratio of macronutrients on its own.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:32 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:24 |
|
fishmech posted:Ok, good for you? Thus, it is okay* to eat mostly plants and hopefully lean meats prepared in a form you don't need a lab for, and still drink the occasional energy drink. * okay in the sense of: a sensible way to go about eating less 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. You're arguing against the hypothetical person who says, only with the magic of Clean Eating can you lose weight, and once you decide to cut Evil Food Items from your diet, you'll lose weight by magic, instead of the plebs who try to lose weight via physics. However, this person is not here, and you are in fact talking to people who're trying to communicate the very simple point that while it is physically true that the goal is a caloric deficit, it is also practically true that achieving a deficit is hard and people hate being in one because it sucks and it sucks a good deal less if you eat more filling food and less pop tarts. To real people in the real world, "don't worry about the pop tarts only worry about the calories" is, while physically true, not helpful. The reasonable advice is "eat a calorie deficit. Here are some tips on how to practically do that". One you start engaging with the content of the argument and how it relates to the real world, you will become less useless.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:33 |
|
fishmech posted:Which is way far away from "if you eat any less than this you'll be sick". The reccomended daily minimums are an amount that is well above where you'd get sick from deficiency. The average person has no need for 100 grams of protein a day, let alone more. You pretty much cannot eat too many plants. Every head of lettuce helps.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:35 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Most obese people are not nutritionally deficient in anything except the nutrients in which people of normal weight are commonly deficient (like vitamin D, vitamin B6, iron in women). Deficiencies vary quite a bit by things like race and ethnicity, or by income, but not by BMI. I truly have no idea why this is an argument. Because these people have a desperate need to believe that the mean evil McDonald's food also is deficient in "nutrition" because that's the narrative the diet book they bought sold to them. Cingulate posted:"Traditionally prepared dishes over heavily processed (rather than prepared) food products" is a good guideline. "Not obsessing over stuff (such as the dishes/food products thing)" is another one. They are in fact not incompatible. Traditionally prepared dishes is an absolutely stupid guideline. No, guy who's obsessed with eating chicken, it is in fact true that if people just ate less of what they eat, the vast majority of them would loses enough weight to get down to normal range, given sufficient time of maintaining that. I still want to know why you think 15 pop tarts is something that's at all common to be eaten in a day, let alone by lunchtime. People simply don't do that. Cingulate posted:The average fat person however will experience less hunger problems if their deficit is achieved by reducing carbs and fats while keeping protein high (to speak in terms of chemicals), and adding more plants. I severely doubt that. You have to cut a lot of calories if you're already obese and you will always feel very hungry for a very long time. There is no magic diet to get around that, no matter how much you want there to be! Also you shouldn't eat lettuce. It does nothing. Eat some spinach and carrots, gently caress lettuce.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:36 |
|
fishmech posted:Which is way far away from "if you eat any less than this you'll be sick". The reccomended daily minimums are an amount that is well above where you'd get sick from deficiency. The average person has no need for 100 grams of protein a day, let alone more. Let me be blunt: you are incapable of reading if you think I'm making that argument, as you have stated that several times and each time I have never argued that. Nobody but you is putting up this strawman argument of saying that one food needs to have a perfect ratio of macronutrients. You are saying that calories = a variety of macronutrients which is a different argument and provably untrue.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:38 |
|
fishmech posted:if people just ate less of what they eat, the vast majority of them would loses enough weight to get down to normal range, given sufficient time of maintaining that. I understand your anger. I understand your pain. I know where Uncle Taubes has touched you. But this is a safe place. Nobody here doubts that it's calories in, calories out. We have accepted that a while ago. The current topic is, for your information, how to practically achieve this "eating less" thing the essential importance whichof we all understand. Some have suggested lettuce, dishes over purple food products, and possibly substituting sugar with artificial sweeteners may help. The magic word here is "help", as in "help with eating less". fishmech posted:I severely doubt that. You have to cut a lot of calories if you're already obese and you will always feel very hungry for a very long time. There is no magic diet to get around that, no matter how much you want there to be! The magic word you missed was "less". fishmech posted:Also you shouldn't eat lettuce. It does nothing. Eat some spinach and carrots, gently caress lettuce. Oh and if you want studies on how various food items help with hunger, there actually is research on this. You do not have to doubt. You can look it up. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jan 17, 2016 |
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:43 |
|
fishmech posted:No, guy who's obsessed with eating chicken, it is in fact true that if people just ate less of what they eat, the vast majority of them would loses enough weight to get down to normal range, given sufficient time of maintaining that. Which is exactly his point, that sufficient time is going to seem like an eternity and is not at all practically feasible if people are still wasting 500+ calories a day drinking coke. What they eat is important because this is the real world and you will not be able to maintain that lifestyle for a sufficient amount of time. quote:I severely doubt that. You have to cut a lot of calories if you're already obese and you will always feel very hungry for a very long time. Also untrue. If you are eating a higher percentage of protein, you will feel fuller for longer and can make significant cuts to your calories without constantly starving. If you think starving is the only way to lose weight then you will fail every time.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:45 |
|
nm
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:45 |
|
Asiina posted:You are saying that calories = a variety of macronutrients which is a different argument and provably untrue. No I'm not, you're not even reading at all apparently. Foods don't need to have a variety of macro-nutrients by the way, the totality of what you eat over the long term does. Asiina posted:Which is exactly his point, that sufficient time is going to seem like an eternity and is not at all practically feasible if people are still wasting 500+ calories a day drinking coke. What they eat is important because this is the real world and you will not be able to maintain that lifestyle for a sufficient amount of time. And there's no shortcut past that "eternity" besides getting fuckin' lipo! You need to either deal with that fact or just never lose weight. There's no magic diet that will make you not hungry while you're going from 350 to 180 i less than 10 years, it's simply not possible. The feeling fuller isn't going to help that you're getting used to eating thousands less calories per day, despite what the diet book you blew $60 on told you. Cingulate posted:This is true (if "less" implies a deficit), but it is also not incompatible with what I said. You are trying to spread misinformation that there is a magical way to eat enough less to lose a hundred plus pounds, which does not make you feel hungry. There isn't, and I don't care that you eat a lot of chicken breast.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:48 |
|
fishmech posted:does not make you feel hungry Cingulate posted:You're presenting a false dichotomy: "you will be hungry/you won't be hungry". You're rejecting #2 as impossible. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 22:58 |
|
It is not a false dichotomy. If you start eating a lot less than what you've been eating, you will feel hungry for quite a while! There's no magic combination of foods to prevent this. Sorry that you don't believe in biology, I guess?
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:00 |
|
Some ways of eating X calories will leave you more hungry than others. This is all that most posters are trying to say.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:04 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Some ways of eating X calories will leave you more hungry than others. This is all that most posters are trying to say. And those ways are so variable among different people that there's none you can recommend to the average person, sight unseen. Plus you're still going to be hungry if you're making a switch from the diet that kept you at 310 pounds to a diet targeted to get you to a healthy weight over the next like 2 years, because you're taking a massive drop in calories that no combination of foods is going to make up for. You will be quite hungry for quite a while until you finally adjust.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:07 |
|
fishmech posted:And those ways are so variable among different people that there's none you can recommend to the average person, sight unseen. Absolutely false. There are many foods which universally promote satiety relative to calories, such as lean protein and fibrous vegetables. There are many foods which universally promote hunger/reward relative to calories, such as high sugar candies and baked goods, sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes. What is up to the individual is finding a balance that allows for a sustainable diet at below maintenance calories. Moreover, though at no point have I been obese, I personally lost 20 pounds several years ago without feeling any more hungry than on a diet where I was gaining weight. It is possible, given intelligent food choices, and aided by exercise.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:16 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Absolutely false. There are many foods which universally promote satiety relative to calories, such as lean protein and fibrous vegetables. There are many foods which universally promote hunger/reward relative to calories, such as high sugar candies and baked goods, sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes. What is up to the individual is finding a balance that allows for a sustainable diet at below maintenance calories. None of that's good enough to make up for suddenly eating thousands fewer calories per day less than you used to. And that's what you need to do start getting down from obesity. Again, assuming you aren't going to get a lot of it out of the way through lipo or similar interventions. The typical obese person needs to lose closer to 80-100 pounds then 20 pounds though. That requires a much more different amount of calories per day compared to what they ate before, then cutting 20 pounds and staying steady does. Things that work for minor weight loss without discomfort aren't going to cover you for major weight loss, at least if your goal is reduce to a normal weight in less than many many years.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:21 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Absolutely false. There are many foods which universally promote satiety relative to calories, such as lean protein and fibrous vegetables. There are many foods which universally promote hunger/reward relative to calories, such as high sugar candies and baked goods, sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes. What is up to the individual is finding a balance that allows for a sustainable diet at below maintenance calories. Sometimes, when I'm hungry but close to my calorie limit, I'll just eat like a half pound of raw carrots. There's like 80-90 calories in that. But isn't that a hard sell to most people who are hungry, but specifically craving something like a grilled cheese or a slice of cake? How can we help people choose to fill up on celery and peanut butter rather than things they tend to like more?
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:22 |
|
Except there's lots of good catchall advice such as eat more vegetables to fill you up while not significantly increasing your calories, eat foods with a greater percentage of protein since protein will help you feel full for longer, don't drink calories whenever you can (stop drinking pop and juice entirely), use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, make leaner substitutions whenever you can. Doing these will help you lose weight and none are going to make you hungrier. There's also the psychological factor about stopping yourself from eating when you're not hungry. Eating because you're bored or sad or frustrated. Be mindful of eating, such that when you eat it's the only thing you are doing. Eat slowly and put down the fork between bites. Don't feel obligated to clean your plate. Make only what you are going to eat and if you are full stop eating and put away the rest, don't sit and pick at it. More than eating big meals, grazing is a huge problem for a lot of fat people. They eat much more often and don't realize how much they eat during these off-meal times. While this won't apply to every fat person in the world, and each individual will need to identify their own problem foods, it's relatively universal advice, so there's no need to throw our hands up when "just eat fewer calories" isn't working as an education strategy.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:27 |
|
fishmech posted:None of that's good enough to make up for suddenly eating thousands fewer calories per day less than you used to. And that's what you need to do start getting down from obesity. Again, assuming you aren't going to get a lot of it out of the way through lipo or similar interventions. Yes, but: (1) That does not mean there are not different degrees of hunger. You are not either hungry or not hungry. Food choice will influence this. (2) Someone who is 300 lbs can begin eating like someone who is 280 lbs, and reduce calories further as they lose weight, rather than immediately eating the calories for their goal weight. This is actually the standard medical recommendation.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:29 |
|
fishmech posted:None of that's good enough to make up for suddenly eating thousands fewer calories per day less than you used to. And that's what you need to do start getting down from obesity. Again, assuming you aren't going to get a lot of it out of the way through lipo or similar interventions. It's true that losing a lot of weight requires big changes, but losing it in less than many many years may not be a realistic goal unless you're willing to undergo surgery. Trying to make drastic changes that make you hungry will help you lose weight quickly, but almost nobody is going to be able to maintain that for multiple years. It's too hard, so you are left with 3 options: 1) Make little changes over time that will help you lose weight while not decreasing your daily quality of life, with the understanding that getting to a normal weight will take an extremely long time. 2) Make drastic changes that will require strict adherence to a diet and exercise plan that will make you miserable for several years, but will ultimately be effective. 3) Have weight loss surgery of some kind which requires huge lifestyle changes as it is a tool rather than a solution and, depending on where you live, can be extremely expensive. All are viable options and all have significant drawbacks. Losing weight is not easy.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:36 |
|
Asiina posted:Except there's lots of good catchall advice such as eat more vegetables to fill you up while not significantly increasing your calories, eat foods with a greater percentage of protein since protein will help you feel full for longer, don't drink calories whenever you can (stop drinking pop and juice entirely), use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, make leaner substitutions whenever you can. That's not good catchall advice, though? "Filling up with vegetables" doesn't help anything, and reinforces their previous bad habit of "filling up" period. You need to break the habit of feeling full all the time as part of getting to the point that you're no longer obese. And you're still going to feel hungrier than if you were eating what you did before no matter how many vegetables you shove in your face. Again, saying people should "fill up" on vegetables means you're encouraging people to eat when they're not hungry dude. "Just eat fewer calories" isn't the current educational strategy. Current real world "educational" strategies are all over the place about don't eat food x, eat food y, eat practically no salt and so on. No major jurisdiction is sticking to a unified strategy of "just eat less". And that's before you consider all the diet stuff pushed in media, which is all over the place. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Yes, but: The different degrees of hunger are irrelevant to the fact that you will be hungry, and being hungry is not a pleasant feeling to people. They simply need to get over it, and using your particular mix of foods ain't necessarily going to work for them. They can do that if they want to take a longass time to do the thing, but if they're doing that they're also not likely to be at the point of annoying hunger to begin with, your insistence you need to eat special foods becomes irrelevant.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:50 |
|
Feeling full is not a bad thing. Feeling hungry is not some noble stoic goal. Knowing that you are going to feel hungry for years at a time is depressing and guaranteed to make any sane person quit listening to your advice.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:55 |
|
Asiina posted:Feeling full is not a bad thing. Feeling hungry is not some noble stoic goal. Feeling hungry for an extended time is a necessary thing you're going to need to deal with coming down from being obese, if you can't afford lipo. I'm sorry that you'd like to pretend otherwise but it's true! And getting out of the habit of feeling full is a good way to prevent you falling back into bad habits and losing the progress you've made. I get that you want to believe there's a magic never feels bad way to lose 100 pounds, but there ain't. Even lipo requires all the hassles of surgery and recovery.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2016 23:59 |
|
I never said there's a magic way to lose weight. In fact two posts ago I saidAsiina posted:All are viable options and all have significant drawbacks. Losing weight is not easy. I do honestly wonder if you are actually reading anything anyone else here is saying or just making up arguments in your head to refute.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 00:03 |
|
Asiina posted:I never said there's a magic way to lose weight. In fact two posts ago I said You then went on to say "Knowing that you are going to feel hungry for years at a time is depressing and guaranteed to make any sane person quit listening to your advice. " As if there's anyway to avoid this that isn't flat out lying. That's what I'm referring to as "magic ways to lose weight".
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 00:09 |
|
fishmech posted:You then went on to say "Knowing that you are going to feel hungry for years at a time is depressing and guaranteed to make any sane person quit listening to your advice. " As if there's anyway to avoid this that isn't flat out lying. That's what I'm referring to as "magic ways to lose weight". There are ways. They are just either much slower or require surgical intervention. Starving yourself for years is not the only way to lose weight, and since people are emotional beings who want to avoid being in a state that is physically unpleasant for prolonged periods of time, it's not a very effective way either.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 00:21 |
|
Asiina posted:There are ways. They are just either much slower or require surgical intervention. So in essence, they don't exist. Something that takes 10 years of sticking to it to get you from obese to normal range is essentially useless for handling the health problems of obesity. And surgical interventions require a good deal of hassle to get prepped for and then recover after, to say nothing of the cost if your insurance doesn't cover it. It's weird how you decide that feeling hungry = starving yourself. Thinking like that is part of why people end up so fat! If you are an obese tubbo you will need to be in a "state that's physically unpleasant for a prolonged period of time" in order to get down to the normal range. That's just how it is. Even if you get lipo you're going to be in a physically unpleasant state in the lead up to the procedure (and you'll often need multiple procedures) and the recovery. Especially in the very high likelihood that you'll need stuff like trimming up the excess skin flaps. The only way to actually avoid things being "physically unpleasant" for "prolonged periods of time" is to not get obese in the first place.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 00:29 |
|
bartlebyshop posted:Sometimes, when I'm hungry but close to my calorie limit, I'll just eat like a half pound of raw carrots. There's like 80-90 calories in that. But isn't that a hard sell to most people who are hungry, but specifically craving something like a grilled cheese or a slice of cake? How can we help people choose to fill up on celery and peanut butter rather than things they tend to like more? fishmech posted:And those ways are so variable among different people that there's none you can recommend to the average person, sight unseen. fishmech posted:Plus you're still going to be hungry if you're making a switch from the diet that kept you at 310 pounds to a diet targeted to get you to a healthy weight over the next like 2 years, because you're taking a massive drop in calories that no combination of foods is going to make up for. You will be quite hungry for quite a while until you finally adjust. But there is, besides for your dichotomy of no hunger/hunger, also more hunger/less hunger.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 00:36 |
|
Fishmech, sorry, but you are fundamentally and provably wrong. If you do not believe it is possible to lose an average of ~2 lbs/week while fully comfortable and energetic, go ask YLLS about it.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 01:17 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Fishmech, sorry, but you are fundamentally and provably wrong. If you do not believe it is possible to lose an average of ~2 lbs/week while fully comfortable and energetic, go ask YLLS about it. Just not eating all they wanted already makes them not fully comfortable dude. Change is not comfortable. People don't get fat because eating too much is unenjoyable.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 01:19 |
|
fishmech posted:Just not eating all they wanted already makes them not fully comfortable dude. Change is not comfortable. People don't get fat because eating too much is unenjoyable. You are wrong. People often settle on diets that make them feel better than before. Are you projecting?
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 01:25 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:You are wrong. People often settle on diets that make them feel better than before. Are you projecting? I think you're projecting pretty hard, because someone who's been overeating for so long that they're now 100 pounds off of normal, well in the obese range? They're not going to be happy at all suddenly eating a correct amount of food. Sure they'll eventually get used to a new regime, but they're not going to be happy for a while, and they're going to have to just deal with that or stay fat forever. It's a free country, they can do that.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 01:37 |
|
Actually it's harder for thinner people to lose weight.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 01:51 |
|
Is there any data or study out there at all that has tracked not only the what, but also the how much of what fat people and not-fat people eat? It looks like everyone here is either manufacturing theoretical diets or sharing their own and that's not really helpful at all. Just, knowing fat people, having been overweight and knowing what worked for me makes it really hard for me to believe the only diet variable that leads to successful and healthy weight loss is simply quantity. All I can think of is the fat chick at work who's been vegetarian for two decades eats huge amounts of carbs and dairy to feel satisfied. We go out for Mexican and she has rice burritos with cheese and nothing else in them because she is picky as gently caress and doesn't like anything else. I have experienced her going through multiple diets where she restricts calories but doesn't actually change what she eats. She ends up miserable and she's always having some health issue, whether or not she is dieting. Fair enough though, her diets where she changes what she eats don't work either, but mostly because she hates what she's eating.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 02:05 |
|
Cingulate posted:Actually it's harder for thinner people to lose weight. Yeah, if you are really fat and commit to actually carefully counting and restricting your calories, the first 10 pounds that you lose are way easier than the last 10. Getting rid of bad habits leading to the loss of the first 10 pounds can be pretty hard though. For your main question, I have no idea, but I'd be shocked if there were studies out there which did not rely on self-reported data. People often delude themselves about how much they eat, so obviously take all of that data with a grain of salt. I really responded to your post to say: how can you be a vegetarian and not like beans? That's like one of the major food groups in the vegetarian diet. That's pretty incredible.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 03:12 |
|
Bast Relief posted:Is there any data or study out there at all that has tracked not only the what, but also the how much of what fat people and not-fat people eat? It looks like everyone here is either manufacturing theoretical diets or sharing their own and that's not really helpful at all. Just, knowing fat people, having been overweight and knowing what worked for me makes it really hard for me to believe the only diet variable that leads to successful and healthy weight loss is simply quantity. The USDA does have many many tables available for per capita and total production and use of various categories of foodstuffs. We can't tell what individual people are eating, but we can tell what the country in general has been doing. This page for instance has the sweeteners: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx This one does wheat: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/wheat-data.aspx And so on.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 03:17 |
|
fishmech posted:you will feel hungry for quite a while! There's no magic combination of foods to prevent this. Cingulate posted:You're presenting a false dichotomy: "you will be hungry/you won't be hungry". You're rejecting #2 as impossible. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 04:25 |
|
It's not a false dichotomy. You will be hungry if you're going to start losing weight if you're obese. Stop trying to tell your little fairy tale where it doesn't happen, lying to the people you're trying to help isn't a good plan!
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 04:30 |
|
One can eat until one feels full. One can also eat until one no longer feels hungry. Few people seem to acknowledge that full and no longer hungry aren't the same thing.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 04:37 |
|
fishmech posted:It's not a false dichotomy. You will be hungry if you're going to start losing weight if you're obese. Stop trying to tell your little fairy tale where it doesn't happen, lying to the people you're trying to help isn't a good plan! My god you are an rear end in a top hat False Dichotomy: Hungry - Not Hungry Actual Idea Being Presented: -----Very hungry -------less hungry-------less hungry still-------even less hungry but still somewhat hungry sometimes------- It is not a lie to suggest that there are strategies that can make someone LESS hungry while losing weight. You rear end in a top hat.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 04:41 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:24 |
|
Trent posted:
That's not a false dichotomy, bro. Trent posted:
It is a lie that doing this actually makes you not miserable.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2016 04:45 |