|
Crystal Geometry posted:I want to lose weight by eating less food, how can I do that? Yeah pretty much? People can learn all sorts of things, it doesn't mean they're going to put them into practice. Or they put them into practice for a little while, but they give up because they're still so far away from the goal, even though they would have reached their goal if they'd just kept at it. And so on. Think about how one of the most common ways people talk about diets is that they're "going on it". It implies something you only do for a short time. And if you're only looking to lose a little, then doing many things for a short time will take you down the easy pounds. But then keeping up with whatever system become too hard for them. Trent posted:Says you. More like says everything? If there was any one strategy or even a very small number of strategies, that could cover most people, then this stuff would have been discovered already. The fact that such things CLEARLY DO NOT EXIST indicates that things have to be way more specialized to actually be effective, and further that the way they need to be specialized can not easily be done by the lay person, or even a professional who hasn't had a lot of time. To be frank, people's tastes and what they'll put up with are extremely varied and people often aren't good at articulating them. Doctors who need to put together eating plans for patients with conditions requiring it, they tend to have to go pretty in-depth with the patient to find out things and tastes they already like, how to substitute something that's now off limits with the closest thing the patient will accept, and so forth. It's interesting that it upsets you to say "yes you just need to eat less". It's interesting you interpret that as an attack. It's just a factual statement: eat enough less, you ain't going to be that fat. Why do you not want to believe that it's just eat less? Stinky_Pete posted:
There has been no indication that human bodies have signaling sensitive enough to let you know that you're missing a couple of micrograms of a mineral or certain amino acids just because they weren't in that one meal.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:10
|
|
Count your calories, compare them to your calculated BMR, weigh yourself regularly, eat more filling foods, also while you're at it you might want to look into running or lifting weights, . . .
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
fishmech posted:There has been no indication that human bodies have signaling sensitive enough to let you know that you're missing a couple of micrograms of a mineral or certain amino acids just because they weren't in that one meal. But there is a wide range of "specific appetites" for specific micronutrients you happen to be deficient in right now, and while it's unknown if there are any for specific AAs, there most likely is one for protein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Something not being possible because we haven't discovered it yet is so backwards and implies that we should just give up on all research forever, since if it exists we would have found it already. That's not how progress works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Cingulate, thanks for the good posts. Fishmech: It's not that "eat less" is an attack, it's that it's a failure. It has failed. You are like the abstinence only "educator" who either can't figure out where all the babies are coming from, or knows and the answer is "whores". Abstinence only as a plan very obviously prevents pregnancy if followed. Yet it's a total failure as a policy program, and likely increases STDs as a knock on effect for it's idiocy. Yelling "eat less, fatty" is just as effective as yelling "just don't gently caress, sluts!" It also has very negative knock on effects like making people mistrust health advice or not seek assistance since the One True Way is so gosh darn simple. And that's the problem, you are technically correct in a certain abstract way and yet obviously wrong in practice. You seem fine with giving up at this point. Others think there are solutions to this in a collective, pro-social, policy-driven way. One of the ones I have suggested is free, in fact incentivized, meetings with professionals who CAN individualize plans with people. This policy, one of individual plans, is generalizable to everyone, and I can't see why you wouldn't support it other than some libertarian "gently caress them" mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
http://www.satin-satiety.eu/project-overview/quote:Why do some foods fill us up quicker than others? Food experts understood that flavour, texture and visual appeal of foods contribute to the sensation of being “full”. The SATIN research project is dedicated to identify which ingredients and processing methods of several food components (proteins, carbohydrates, fats) and categories (bread, fish, dairy etc.) accelerate satiation, suppress appetite and extend satiety until hunger appears again. Satiety-enhancing foods can help with energy intake and weight control. There are existing foods that will fit into this framework; it doesn't require novel formulation. http://www.full4health.eu/project/ quote:Obesity is a major public health problem across the developed and developing world. Fundamentally, overweight and obesity is the consequence of calories ingested as food and drink exceeding those that are expended through metabolism, thermogenesis and activity. Excess calories are stored as body fat (adipose tissue). Accumulation of excess body fat is associated with metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease that have a major impact on longevity and quality of life. Although a number of drugs have reached the market for the treatment of obesity, most of these have subsequently been withdrawn due to the emergence of unacceptable side effects. This has provided additional impetus to attempts to develop dietary strategies for the obesogenic environment, and specifically for a food solution to address the issue of over-consumption of calories and the consequences of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Trent posted:It's not that "eat less" is an attack, it's that it's a failure. It has failed. You are like the abstinence only "educator" who either can't figure out where all the babies are coming from, or knows and the answer is "whores". Abstinence only as a plan very obviously prevents pregnancy if followed. Yet it's a total failure as a policy program, and likely increases STDs as a knock on effect for it's idiocy. Yelling "eat less, fatty" is just as effective as yelling "just don't gently caress, sluts!" It also has very negative knock on effects like making people mistrust health advice or not seek assistance since the One True Way is so gosh darn simple. And that's the problem, you are technically correct in a certain abstract way and yet obviously wrong in practice. Eat less is not a failure. Eat less had not failed Eat less has not been the primary message in most countries. You do have to eat less, and the only thing consistent against everyone who successfully loses weight is that they eat less. And again, why are you so obsessed with the idea that eat less = HEY FATTY NAMED TRENT, YOU NEED TO EAT LESS HAHAHAHAH? You got some projection issues maybe? God only knows why this offends you so much. Are you still thinking there's a magical other thing to do? That's the only thing I can think of for why you so adamantly deny the truth. That plan is still about eating less. So stop loving whining about how much you hate the idea of eat less. And as an aside it's going to take a lot of time or training a ton more doctors to individually counsel hundreds of millions of people and trail and error your way to an EAT LESS diet that they'll actually stick to and enjoy. Asiina posted:Something not being possible because we haven't discovered it yet is so backwards and implies that we should just give up on all research forever, since if it exists we would have found it already. I hear there's also an invisible teapot that orbits Mars. You can't disprove that right? Get real buddy, there's not going to be a single solution that goes more specific than "loving eat less". Show me a the actual thing, or shut up about how "well maybe in another 200 years we'll develop The Perfect Diet For Everyone you don't know maaaan". Current science in this area is leading towards such a thing not being possible, because people's preferences in food and possibly their metabolisms as well are so varied. Cingulate posted:One meal, micrograms - possibly not. (I have no idea how much "1 microgram of vitamin B12" actually is, maybe that's, like, a buttload of B12.) Right buddy. But "for protein" is wayyyyy more general than "for a specific amino acid or set of amino acids". Also, you're supposed to get around 2 to 2.5 micrograms of B12 per day, but again as with most vitamins and minerals you're fine so long as you average out to that sort of stuff over the long term. People who suddenly stop ingesting it, usually because they went vegan and weren't scrupulous about getting proper B12 sources, take many months to years to develop symptoms of B12 deficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:stop loving whining about how much you hate the idea of eat less. And as an aside it's going to take a lot of time or training a ton more doctors to individually counsel hundreds of millions of people and trail and error your way to an EAT LESS diet that they'll actually stick to and enjoy. I firmly believe that everyone that isn't a child or mentally handicapped (and many that are either or both) understands that eating more = gain weight and eating less = losing weight. I don't have the data to prove this, admittedly. I dom't think it matters, though, because it's not quite that simple. Even if you could get the message "Eat less" to everyone, and they believed it and they did it we would still have an obesity problem because that is incomplete advice. If they are eating enough to gain weight now, they may eat less and still be eating enough to gain weight or maintain their weight. I have been arguing that the general population is ignorant of the specifics and that they need education. Yes, the official position should be caloric deficit is the thing you need and miracle diets and fad diets are crap. Yes, this is currently not the primary messaging for a number of reasons. In addition to this, availability of food, understanding of portion sizes and caloric density, purchasing, preparation, and storage strategies, and having the necessary tools (and knowing how to use them) are all problems. Portion sizes can be confusing and are often presented in intentionally misleading formats. Many monied interests have enormous financial incentives to muddy the waters. A source like I describe could list hundreds of by meal, daily, weekly, etc menu suggestions with cooking instructions, cost breakdown, and full nutritional information starting simple and allowing users to drill down as complex as they'd like to go. Include tools for budgeting calories and dollars and provide SNAPlike benefits for creating a shopping list and sticking to it. Not every meal on there will be appetizing or applicable to every person, but it will be a resource that everyone can use if they want to and allow customization for individuals. Look, a crazy strategy that can assist most people! Next I will find the celestial teapot and the invisible pink unicorn for you. Also, nice on the "it's to expensive so gently caress it" attitude regarding public health issues
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Eatless can't fail, Eatless can only be failed. Allahu Snackbar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Trent posted:I firmly believe that everyone that isn't a child or mentally handicapped (and many that are either or both) understands that eating more = gain weight and eating less = losing weight. I don't have the data to prove this, admittedly. I dom't think it matters, though, because it's not quite that simple. Even if you could get the message "Eat less" to everyone, and they believed it and they did it we would still have an obesity problem because that is incomplete advice. If they are eating enough to gain weight now, they may eat less and still be eating enough to gain weight or maintain their weight. The general public does not need details of precise nutrition facts. They simply need to eat less. Knowing the precise characteristics of one amino acid versus another isn't going to help that. The only education the population really needs is that all diets being sold to you in a book or on TV are pointless distractions at best, and outright lies and misinformation at worst. Also SNAPlike benefits are a horrible thing to do. It's better for both the government and the public to simply give out cash benefits - there are lower administartive costs allowing more aid to be given, and it allows proper flexibility. It's also pretty funny that you think my problem with the "literally nutritionally counsel 300 million people" thing is the cost. I don't care about the cost. I'm pointing out it'll take an assload of time because you can only train so many people to be qualified to do it, and then they need to work their way through literally hundreds of millions people over extended periods of time. That's something that could easily take a generation or more to do! You can't reliably develop a plan that will work for each person with just a visit or two. So quit freaking on the fact that the only thing that applies to everyone is eat less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Literally everyone, if asked as a child, would say "you lose weight by eating less and exercising more". It's what almost every country on earth tells kids in school, for good reason. The problem is more that when people get older, they start seeing the wealth of information and misinformation out there that contradicts that maxim, or insists you need to do a weird fad diet to accomplish it. A combination of willful self-deception*, not knowing how to separate the bad information from the good, and the attitude that "I'm an adult now and can disregard the information I was taught in school for the REAL TRUTH that Big Pharma/Michelle Obama/Whoever doesn't want me to know" allows bullshit to take precedence over fact. There are already government programs telling you the truth about diet and nutrition. A focus on critical thinking and the media in school might help a bit. Really though, misinformation and self-deception is probably not as big a part of the problem as we tend to think. High-calorie food tastes good, is widely available, and is often easier to reach for. That's why so many intelligent and non-deluded people are still fat. Other than taxing the poo poo out of this stuff like most countries have done with cigarettes, which would be more problematic for several reasons, it's difficult to envision a solution coming from the state. *I.e: Wanting it to be true that they can't control their weight, so they don't have to put the effort in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
It's not even high calorie food though. Lots of people get fat because they simply eat a bunch of low calorie food. I think there's even a name for the effect where if someone knows that a food is low calorie, they think they can eat more of it, and often eat more calories worth of the low calorie food than they would have a similar high calorie food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
It's called the health halo
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Well excuuuuse me for having a contextualized concept of causality when it comes to overdetermined events. Edit: Abductive reasoning is considered a bad idea for a reason, yo. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's not even high calorie food though. Lots of people get fat because they simply eat a bunch of low calorie food. I think there's even a name for the effect where if someone knows that a food is low calorie, they think they can eat more of it, and often eat more calories worth of the low calorie food than they would have a similar high calorie food. It's called vanishing caloric density, and it's like how the bright orange cheeto promises your amygdala lots of good poo poo, but then you eat it and it melts away, but your system was primed to receive more substance than you got, so you go for more to fill the void, and so on. But that's not eating many low-calorie cheetos, that's eating a whole loving costco bag of cheetos because the person has a warped sense of a normal portion shaped by decades of habit. We can tell people to eat less, but they have no sense of what that looks like, don't know what to do with . The fact is that a lot of people are happy to settle for being fat and not bothering to dig themselves out of the hole, or have given up trying to change their habits because they had no access to the habits they needed to replace them with. If it's in the public interest to reduce the obesity rate (it is) then we really need to spoon-feed out the information that's truly needed for someone whose affliction is associated with laziness to change their habits. Simple food lists that focus on satiety and balance, 3 or 4 ingredient recipes (along with more advanced ones), and example days' meal plans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Fichmech. We can agree on eating less. We can also agree on there not being one size fits all solution on how to get everyone to achieve that. That doesn't mean that it's useless to try and come up with ways of getting people, especially future generations, to eat less. Not everyone will learn a language or how to dance tango in the same way either, but that doesn't mean that a multifaceted approach can't work. For example, just because not every kid will end up being healthier and fitter if we serve healthier school meals doesn't mean it's not a valuable thing to do. sweek0 fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's not even high calorie food though. Lots of people get fat because they simply eat a bunch of low calorie food. I think there's even a name for the effect where if someone knows that a food is low calorie, they think they can eat more of it, and often eat more calories worth of the low calorie food than they would have a similar high calorie food. Well that's true, as is the thing you brought up earlier about orange juice having as much sugar as soda in it. There are fat people who guzzle a litre of apple juice and have chips made of dried vegetables instead of potatoes and think it makes a difference. I was specifically talking about people who are aware of what will make them fat, though, and compulsively overeat anyway. Maybe they even count their calories for most of the day, but then go on a massive binge at the end because they start craving food and the desire for it seems more important than the long-term goal until the binge is over. Whether they binge on high or low calorie food is unimportant, but they knowingly go over their target. I suppose when I actually use the words "compulsive" and "binge" to describe the behaviour of those people, it does suggest that making treatment for binge eating disorder widespread could help with them while the campaigns to educate people about food deal with the misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Fichmech. We can agree on eating less. We can also agree on there not being one size fits all solution on how to get everyone to achieve that. That doesn't mean that it's useless to try and come up with ways of getting people, especially future generations, to eat less. Not everyone will learn a language or how to dance tango in the same way either, but that doesn't mean that a multifaceted approach can't work. School meals are often already meager as hell , and the poorer students rely on them for both lunch and breakfast. They're also quite rarely "out of balance" or whatever, their main crime is to be unappetizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
You guys can be much softer on truly diet-friendly meals. It is extremely hard to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli. Next to impossible. You will not get fat on apples. Processed sugar, starches, and fat are practically essential for weight gain. fishmech posted:School meals are often already meager as hell , and the poorer students rely on them for both lunch and breakfast. They're also quite rarely "out of balance" or whatever, their main crime is to be unappetizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You guys can be much softer on truly diet-friendly meals. It is extremely hard to overeat on chicken breast... That's utterly bullshit. People eat tons of chicken breast all the time. It's one of the most commonly purchased meats in the country! So then wouldn't unpalatable school meals mean people are eating less according to you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's utterly bullshit. People eat tons of chicken breast all the time. It's one of the most commonly purchased meats in the country! And school meals can be balanced as well as tasty to get kids to actually eat it. It is possible and other countries do this. We weren't even given the option of leaving school and eating anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:It's not about the meat itself but the preparation. Yes it's popular but it's very often battered and fried. Then why does he insist on saying chicken breast? Regardless, people eat tons of chicken breast in all the many ways it can be prepared. If kids aren't eating the current school meals then I fail to see how that leads to them getting fat. Skipping a whole meal seems like it would tend to cause you to lose weight. Also in other countries, the schoolkids bitch about their school meals just as much as American kids do. Finally, so, what, you really think that any restaurant you could have gotten to during the like 30-45 minutes a regular school lunch takes would have been better? Frankly that seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Then why does he insist on saying chicken breast? Regardless, people eat tons of chicken breast in all the many ways it can be prepared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:School meals to me are an opportunity for a governing body to get kids acquired to healthy and balanced meals, making them more likely to eat those types of meals more often during the rest of their lives. It's about creating healthy habits and behaviours. Skipping that meal would probably lead you to eat something else, and very likely something worse, instead, if they have that option. Which is the habit we're trying to avoid. I'm just going to say that I don't know where this supposed epidemic of kids skipping school meals is coming from? It's not like when I was in school the meals were significantly better, but very few people just sat in the lunchroom with no food. Yeah we all bitched that it wasn't good, but we still ate it. And if people were eating something different, it was typically a lunch prepared by their parents. And what healthy habits and behaviors are you trying to develop that you think don't happen? What we got was pretty generic American cuisine, with a bit more vegetable and fruit content then you'd normally get for a similar meal at the average restaurant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm just going to say that I don't know where this supposed epidemic of kids skipping school meals is coming from? It's not like when I was in school the meals were significantly better, but very few people just sat in the lunchroom with no food. Yeah we all bitched that it wasn't good, but we still ate it. And if people were eating something different, it was typically a lunch prepared by their parents. Depending on how long ago your time in the school system was, you may not have seen the growth industry of lunchroom-accessible vending machines or externally-sponsored "fast-food" alternatives. This doesn't apply as much in elementary school, but becomes a bigger factor in high schools. I went to a rural high school in the 90s, and I'd guess 1/3-1/2 the students didn't eat the "traditional" school lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:School meals to me are an opportunity for a governing body to get kids acquired to healthy and balanced meals, making them more likely to eat those types of meals more often during the rest of their lives. It's about creating healthy habits and behaviours. Skipping that meal would probably lead you to eat something else, and very likely something worse, instead, if they have that option. Which is the habit we're trying to avoid. For example, when I was in high school, we had access to the college campus our school was sort of on, and they had a food court with Taco Bell, Panda Express, and Chik-Fil-A, along with a place that had these big freshly baked cookies, and movie-sized M&Ms. My school was too small to have a cafeteria. At the school where a family member teaches, kids can walk down the block to a convenience store during lunch. Nonetheless, for the kids that do eat the school lunch, there is value in making those lunches both healthier and higher quality in general, but that costs money, which for some reason people think schools shouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:For example, when I was in high school, we had access to the college campus our school was sort of on, and they had a food court with Taco Bell, Panda Express, and Chik-Fil-A, along with a place that had these big freshly baked cookies, and movie-sized M&Ms. My school was too small to have a cafeteria. If we made the cafeteria food not suck then a dirty poor might experience a fleeting moment of joy and that is not loving OK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I may have just read a few bad posts but there seems like there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around by people who have never tried to lose a significant amount of weight. I lost 100 lbs. through diet and exercise at one point in my life, a few years ago. I gained it all back and I'm working on doing it again. I know exactly what to do, what to eat, what exercise routine to do, and so on. It took me years just to muster up the willpower to do it again. It's especially difficult to lose a significant amount of weight and still maintain any kind of social life and it's even more difficult if you have an SO that doesn't have to or want to maintain the same habits. Once you are beyond a certain weight or BMI, it's very tough to maintain the willpower to lose enough weight to be healthy again while you are surrounded with a world of things to eat and people - almost all people - whose idea of hanging out is going out to eat and/or drinking booze. It isn't ignorance of some magical formula that's keeping people from losing weight. It's that our entire culture in the USA is built around eating and having an endless supply of new and delicious things to eat. I have a few friends who I try to keep motivated who have sat down with multiple doctors multiple times and been told exactly what to do and it worked OK for a time but the missing piece for almost everyone is willpower. It's incredibly tough and the rewards for getting fit and staying fit are a long, long way off for a lot of people trying to do so and the deck is stacked against you given that the reward of eating is immediate and infinite. Also, add a stressful full-time job, and maybe an hour commute, on top of everything else and you have an immensely tough battle. It's very difficult and not impossible but I will never blame anyone, at all, for not wanting to do it. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
how quickly did you put the 100lbs back on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's utterly bullshit. People eat tons of chicken breast all the time. It's one of the most commonly purchased meats in the country! 1. I didn't make up the scientific studies according to which palatability is correlated with food intake. You may interpret it any way you like, too. 2. It is certainly possible to overeat in chicken meat with breading deep fried and served with a Coke. However, it is practically impossible to get fat on chicken breast and broccoli. Note: chicken breast and broccoli. Not, meals that include chicken breast and broccoli in addition to a bunch of fat and carbs. I know you're not inclined to pay attention to the content of other posters arguments or the scientific evidence being referenced here, but if you happen to be fat right now: here's a tip. Eat more lean meat and plants, and less carbs and fat. Take it on blind faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:how quickly did you put the 100lbs back on? It was over the course of a couple years. There are reasons why it happened - stress, an hour commute, moving in with the SO, moving with the SO to a new city, SO losing her job, having to consult part time and work full time, and so on. In hindsight I don't feel like they're good reasons but it's less easy to maintain good habits if everything else is changing. However, the battle was lost, early on, when I stopped weighing myself and figured I could just eat in moderation and that it would be all good. I got kind of fanatical about staying fit and I turned into kind of an rear end in a top hat. So, I thought that I'd just be "normal" for a while to get along with everyone around me. I am not blaming them but that was my thinking at the time. Honestly, I feel that if you're fat and you get fit, you're going to be staving off the fat forever. The very hardest part comes when you've lost all the weight and you realize that you need to eat a particular way forever and ever. At this point I figure there is a good reason why people typically get old AND fat - to do otherwise requires immense dedication. I also think this is one of the reasons why running is so popular - you just eat mostly whatever and run a million miles and don't necessarily have to care as much about what you eat. All the runners I personally know - not saying they are all like this - have immensely addictive personalities and drink like fishes and eat like poo poo and then just run and it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I agree with all of that, and have been in similar situations. Losing weight is exhausting, not just physically but mentally, and most people can't keep it up forever, because the idea of forever is truly depressing when you are trying to break these habits you've had all your life. It's why healthy habits need to be in from the start. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is both figuratively and literally true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I agree with all of that, and have been in similar situations. Yeah. It's a never ending, immensely tough up-hill battle once you are unhealthy and/or obese as a kid and teenager.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:At this point I figure there is a good reason why people typically get old AND fat - to do otherwise requires immense dedication. I also think this is one of the reasons why running is so popular - you just eat mostly whatever and run a million miles and don't necessarily have to care as much about what you eat. All the runners I personally know - not saying they are all like this - have immensely addictive personalities and drink like fishes and eat like poo poo and then just run and it's all good. You have to run or exercise an awful lot and/or at a pretty high intensity to not have to worry about your diet though. Although I guess if you are addicted to exercise, it may not seem like a lot of effort when it actually is. I'm also not necessarily saying that this is you since I don't really know your friends, but people who don't snack, or are able to manage their diets so they can indulge a little bit when eating with friends do look like they eat a lot worse than they actually do. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
The snacking or eating badly while out is a lot like alcoholism. Most people can have one drink and stop, or they can spend a night drinking heavily but then go weeks without drinking again just as easily. Neither of these make you an alcoholic. It's doing that every day and having a compulsion to keep going which makes you am alcoholic. Having dessert in a restaurant or overeating at Christmas isn't going to make you fat, but having high calorie food every day rather than only on occasion will make you fat. In both cases it just requires a one day (or one moment) at a time mentality to not have that thing which will make you relapse. While alcohol has a harder physical addiction to beat, unhealthy food is harder societally since you have to be around it more frequently. They really are very similar. It's not impossible, but does require constant dedication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You have to run or exercise an awful lot and/or at a pretty high intensity to not have to worry about your diet though. Although I guess if you are addicted to exercise, it may not seem like a lot of effort when it actually is. Yeah this definitely describes me. I spend 6+ hours a week running, and I eat well at home, but when I eat badly, I eat badly and that's usually in front of other people. For most semi-serious runners, the weekend means at least one long run where you're easily burning 1k+ calories in a single go. So when you're out with your running bros on Saturday night and they put back a pizza and 9 beers, part of that is the exercise but part of that is the 6 nights you didn't see where they had quinoa, black beans, broccoli, and a glass of wine for dinner. Anyway, I actually came in here to post this article about portion sizes at US non-fast-food restaurants. Spoiler alert - they're too large: quote:“We found what we were expecting, which is that portion sizes are obscene,” says Roberts. Some meals exceeded the calories recommended for a whole day. On average, these restaurant meals contained 1,205 calories—about half of a person’s typical daily recommendations. In all, 92% of the meals gave a typical eater more energy than they need at a single meal (570 calories, which the researchers used as a benchmark for typical energy requirements.) And there was little difference between the calorie counts of food at chain and non-chain restaurants. I wonder if recalibrating what Americans think of as a correct portion could start with recalibrating the portions they see put out by professionals when they eat out? Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:Yeah this definitely describes me. I spend 6+ hours a week running, and I eat well at home, but when I eat badly, I eat badly and that's usually in front of other people. For most semi-serious runners, the weekend means at least one long run where you're easily burning 1k calories in a single go. So when you're out with your running bros on Saturday night and they put back a pizza and 9 beers, part of that is the exercise but part of that is the 6 nights you didn't see where they had quinoa, black beans, broccoli, and a glass of wine for dinner. This is kind of what I was talking about in my original post. Our entire culture - from supermarkets to restaurants to fast food - is built around eating and typically eating the richest foods in the biggest portions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
A lot of it is visual, which is why things like plate size can make a difference in how much you eat and how full you feel. The article does have a point that usually the "healthy options" part of the menu is uninspired compared to the rest of it, and the food just plain isn't as good, and that restaurants should have half-portions options available, but I think lumping all restaurants together blurs together different problems. High end restaurants usually have fairly small portions, but you're given many courses. You're probably not eating there all the time and when you're paying $80+ per person then it's more for the food experience than getting your required energy for the day so it's not really a typical eating experience. Mid-level chain and non-chain restaurants is mostly what they're talking about, but it's also not uncommon at all to ask for a take away container so you can take the rest of it to go when you're full. Then you don't feel like you've wasted either food or your money by not finishing your plate when you are there. I have to do this when I go out to eat so have gotten used to it, but I think most people probably don't? I don't have any statistics to back that up, but I think if it became more commonplace then people wouldn't feel compelled to finish everything in the moment whether they are still hungry or not. Fast food you can order combos and those are almost definitely too large, but you can also just as easily order something smaller or an individual item if you want less. You're not really lacking in portion size options in those cases, which is what the article is talking about. Portion sizes are a problem, for sure, but the solutions for them already exist when eating at a restaurant if you are looking for them, and are easy enough for most people to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Better to be anorexic. Fat people are smelly and gross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Asiina posted:I agree with all of that, and have been in similar situations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:08
|
|