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.


Presence of calories does not equal rich in protein, carbs, and fat. Even if they did your stupid vitamin pill idea which you've brought up several times, it won't add any of those. Are you sure you know what nutrients are? Are you actually reading the label?

fishmech posted:

Ok, good for you?

Yes if you added literally 1.7 pounds of pop tarts you'd get really fat, but most fat people eat nothing close to 15 pop tarts a day. Again, that's nearly 2 full boxes of it. It is bizarre that you think that's a reasonable amount to say that fat people are currently eating of them!

"Super processed" is a meaningless concept and cooked chicken breast is by necessity a quite processed food, and yogurt is processed to gently caress and back, especially with artificial sweetener which is like the platonic ideal of a "processed" ingredient in something.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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
Yeah but baby, bathwater.

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.

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.

You pretty much cannot eat too many plants. Every head of lettuce helps.

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.

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.

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.

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!

fishmech posted:

Also you shouldn't eat lettuce. It does nothing. Eat some spinach and carrots, gently caress lettuce.

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.

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.

Asiina posted:

You are saying that calories = a variety of macronutrients which is a different argument and provably untrue.

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.


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.

Cingulate posted:

This is true (if "less" implies a deficit), but it is also not incompatible with what I said.

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".
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.

The magic word you missed was "less".
Spinach is fine, too. It has, like, micronutrients.

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.

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.

The magic word you missed was "less".

Cingulate posted:

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.

fishmech posted:

And those ways are so variable among different people that there's none you can recommend to the average person, sight unseen.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

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.

Asiina posted:

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.

Asiina posted:

All are viable options and all have significant drawbacks. Losing weight is not easy.

Asiina posted:

I never said there's a magic way to lose weight. In fact two posts ago I said


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.

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".

Asiina posted:

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.

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.

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.

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.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

You are wrong. People often settle on diets that make them feel better than before. Are you projecting?

Cingulate posted:

Actually it's harder for thinner people to lose weight.

Bast Relief posted:

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.

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.

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.

The magic word you missed was "less".

Cingulate posted:

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!

Trent posted:

False Dichotomy: Hungry - Not Hungry

Trent posted:

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.