|
Asiina posted: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. This is only true if you are capable of declining to eat the food that's right in front of your face which increasing evidence suggests is more difficult than we sometimes think. It also doesn't help much if you take home leftovers but ate 75% of a meal containing 1,200 calories. You're still massively overeating and you probably don't even know it. I think portion sizes are probably one of the biggest problems, both as a cue for how much you should eat when you are eating out, and as a cue for how much you should cook when you cook for yourself. I agree that lumping in all restaurants together isn't totally perfect, but it's broadly accurate. The smaller portions you receive at high end restaurants tend to be cooked with rich ingredients so it's not even a sure thing that you are receiving less calories there. But like you said, most people don't have the means to eat out at these types of restaurants at all, let alone regularly and those that do have plenty of resources at their disposal to deal with issues of weight and personal health. Low and middle income people make up the vast majority of people in our country and the vast majority of overweight people - and they, I suspect, eat out much more more often than their wealthier counterparts, partly owing to monetary constraints, and partly to time constraints. If it is true that the vast majority of restaurant meals contains too many calories, whether that is due to physical portion size or calorie-dense ingredients (or both), I think that is a very good place to start looking when it comes to solutions.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:On the bright side: one day you will die. Something to look forward to. Sub Par posted:If it is true that the vast majority of restaurant meals contains too many calories, whether that is due to physical portion size or calorie-dense ingredients (or both), I think that is a very good place to start looking when it comes to solutions. I think though if you just unilaterally reduce portion sizes people will feel ripped off, especially if they are paying the same money for less food, even though they were getting too much before. You'll have to educate people, which is where the larger issue comes up and is what that article is saying doesn't work. If you instead offer options like more half-portions or more varied healthier options, then I think those are mostly going to cater to the kind of people who would have used a take-away container or wouldn't have ordered the combo meal in the first place, since those are the ones you are already monitoring the amount of food they eat and using whatever the system gives them to help them control their intake, so those options aren't for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
weird vanilla posted: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. We had those, but most people didn't end up using it because they were considerably more expensive for what you got than the school lunch - which makes sense since after all school lunches are subsidized. The only thing that wasn't significantly more expensive was pizza from an outside delivery chain, but still it was like two slices off a 16 inch pie for the cost of two normal school lunch meals. Noam Chomsky posted: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. Every country/culture that can afford it is built that way. Food is one of the most basic luxuries you can get! Cingulate posted: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. Then school lunch must not be as unpalatable as people were claiming it to me considering how many people in it. Again: This is a total lie, chicken breast and broccoli have no special powers to keep you from getting fat. You personally seem to not like eating too much at once, a lot of people do. Doing what you say is just as likely to make people fatter or thinner, just like any other specific diet plan dude. Sub Par posted:This is only true if you are capable of declining to eat the food that's right in front of your face which increasing evidence suggests is more difficult than we sometimes think. It also doesn't help much if you take home leftovers but ate 75% of a meal containing 1,200 calories. You're still massively overeating and you probably don't even know it. I think portion sizes are probably one of the biggest problems, both as a cue for how much you should eat when you are eating out, and as a cue for how much you should cook when you cook for yourself. Focusing on restaurants is a red herring I think. Eating at restaurants has been slowly declining since the 80s, and eating take out has been declining since the early 2000s: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/12/americans-are-falling-out-of-love-with-restaurants-in-3-charts/ "As a result, the average American only eats food from or at a restaurant roughly 191 times per year, the smallest number since 1993, and more than 10 percent less than in 2000 when the average American ate or ordered out about 215 times." fishmech fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Broccoli has no magic powers, and no one claimed it did. It's just that you'd have to do nothing all day but eat broccoli in order to even maybe gain weight due to its low caloric density. Not that many people want to eat only plain chicken breasts and broccoli, but that wasn't your point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Trent posted:Broccoli has no magic powers, and no one claimed it did. It's just that you'd have to do nothing all day but eat broccoli in order to even maybe gain weight due to its low caloric density. Except he's saying to eat chicken breast with it. Chicken breast is a pretty midrange meat for calories, and if you're eating it with broccoli, you can easily consume thousands of calories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
It's incredibly difficult to eat 2,500+ calories in grilled chicken breast and broccoli compared to 2,500+ calories in the things obese people actually eat. That's not really up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It's incredibly difficult to eat 2,500+ calories in grilled chicken breast and broccoli compared to 2,500+ calories in the things obese people actually eat. That's not really up for debate. I have seen fat people at the college cafeteria down 3 pounds of grilled chicken breast, which is somewhere between 1800 and 2200 calories depending on precisely how you prepare it. And this after seeing the same people eating a full breakfast earlier in the day. The idea no one can overeat chicken breast and broccoli is downright laughable, and is an example of the broken thinking so many people have about food. "I can eat as much as I want of Food X because you can't get fat on that" is a common way people end up fat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I'm sure people are sitting down and plowing through 6-8 chicken breasts in one meal all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I'm sure people are sitting down and plowing through 6-8 chicken breasts in one meal all the time. Fat people certainly have done it and do it, so it's stupid to tout any foods as "a thing you can eat all you want of and not get fat". If you were just trying to say "if you eat a reasonable portion you won't get fat" then hello, that's also every food ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fat people certainly have done it and do it, so it's stupid to tout any foods as "a thing you can eat all you want of and not get fat". If you were just trying to say "if you eat a reasonable portion you won't get fat" then hello, that's also every food ever. Except carbs, which have a ton more calories than most things so you shouldn't eat them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:Except carbs, which have a ton more calories than most things so you shouldn't eat them. Um I'm really tired of playing the "are they trolling or just stupid" game in this forum
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:Except carbs, which have a ton more calories than most things so you shouldn't eat them. They do not. It's the same calories per gram as protein, and less than the calories per gram of fat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fat people certainly have done it and do it, so it's stupid to tout any foods as "a thing you can eat all you want of and not get fat". If you were just trying to say "if you eat a reasonable portion you won't get fat" then hello, that's also every food ever. No, they don't. If your "reasonable portion" is exactly 150 kcal, then yes all foods are equal in calories, but not equal in any other way be it a measurement of macronutrients you need or a general feeling of fullness that helps you stop eating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fat people certainly have done it and do it, so it's stupid to tout any foods as "a thing you can eat all you want of and not get fat". If you were just trying to say "if you eat a reasonable portion you won't get fat" then hello, that's also every food ever. Though someone else was, I wasn't saying anything as extreme as "you can't gain weight on mostly chicken," because people do that (but usually deliberately). I'm saying that the dude who eats mostly chicken is far less likely to gain weight than the dude who eats mostly fast food and sweets, because you need to eat a comparatively massive volume and weight of food to get the same calories off of chicken. Most people get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a pound of lean meat, whereas most people don't get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a Big Gulp of soda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Though someone else was, I wasn't saying anything as extreme as "you can't gain weight on mostly chicken," because people do that (but usually deliberately). I'm saying that the dude who eats mostly chicken is far less likely to gain weight than the dude who eats mostly fast food and sweets, because you need to eat a comparatively massive volume and weight of food to get the same calories off of chicken. Most people get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a pound of lean meat, whereas most people don't get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a Big Gulp of soda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Asiina posted:No, they don't. Macronutrient mix is pretty irrelevant to how filling most meals are, and you should stop obsessing over it (because meals tend to have the three big ones pretty evenly balanced) . There ain't nothing special about chicken breast that prevents over eating. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Though someone else was, I wasn't saying anything as extreme as "you can't gain weight on mostly chicken," because people do that (but usually deliberately). I'm saying that the dude who eats mostly chicken is far less likely to gain weight than the dude who eats mostly fast food and sweets, because you need to eat a comparatively massive volume and weight of food to get the same calories off of chicken. Most people get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a pound of lean meat, whereas most people don't get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a Big Gulp of soda. Actually most people do stop drinking when they've had close to a liter of soda. That's a ton of liquid, and you gotta wait a while it you're normal to even drink all of it, let alone continue eating more alongside it. And keep in mind the double gulp is a full half gallon. Also it's kinda amazing that you ignore there's a ton of chicken in fast food? And overrate "sweets" excessively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I have seen fat people at the college cafeteria down 3 pounds of grilled chicken breast, which is somewhere between 1800 and 2200 calories depending on precisely how you prepare it. And this after seeing the same people eating a full breakfast earlier in the day. There are people who do this, sure, but just a few pages ago you were complaining that someone was saying a fat person can eat two boxes of pop tarts before lunch. I know you want to drive home the point that you don't HAVE to eat high calorie food to get fat because you're tired of people advertising fad diets and saying certain types of food are bad, but you're going overboard. Personally, I would find it way easier to eat 2000 calories worth of pop tarts than 3 pounds of baked chicken breast. In fact I think most people would. Yes, it's hard to get statistics on this, but there have been studies done suggesting that foods with a high amount of both fat and sugar don't satisfy people/rats as quickly as foods with only a high amount of one or the other (or neither). The fattest of the fat might eat too much of absolutely everything, but there's no point pretending that there aren't a ton of moderately overweight people who eat regular-sized meals but then derail everything by compulsively eating high-calorie snacks. I find it almost unbelievable that you didn't grow up surrounded by people who wanted to lose 10-20 pounds but then kept going "ugh, I've been good all day but I really want this slice of cake/glass of wine/bag of cheetos" each evening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Macronutrient mix is pretty irrelevant to how filling most meals are, and you should stop obsessing over it (because meals tend to have the three big ones pretty evenly balanced) . There ain't nothing special about chicken breast that prevents over eating. I'm breaking the "don't argue with fishmech" rule to say you're just plain wrong. You definitely feel more full after 600 calories of steak or chicken than 600 calories of pizza or chips. Part of it has to do with the body's glycemic response to simple carbohydrates. Part of the reason the ketogenic diet is my go- to diet is the satiety the foods it allows for provides. I've done traditional high carb mod protiene and low fat diet and I was always way way more hungry on that diet. I often agree with you but you just don't know what you are talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Don't argue with me about things I'm not trying to argue about like "lol there's chicken in fast food", I'm disproving the following moronic claim: "Calorie for calorie, all foods provide the same satiety response." The research programmes I posted about upthread are fundamentally based on the idea this is not true; most public health solutions are based on the idea that this is not true; the demonstrated short-term success of food-class-restricted diets in RCTs is explained by this not being true; and I can't imagine you can find a single legitimate citation that claims it is true. In contrast, it's trivial to find articles that claim the opposite, that calorie for calorie, different foods produce different satiety responses. Five seconds of effort got me this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 quote:OBJECTIVE: BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You definitely feel more full after 600 calories of steak or chicken than 600 calories of pizza or chips. Part of it has to do with the body's glycemic response to simple carbohydrates. I'm debating whether this is worthwhile to point out, but I'm pretty sure the relationship between glycemic index and hunger is weak at best. e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968699 It's a bit more complicated than just carbs -> insulin -> hungry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I'm debating whether this is worthwhile to point out, but I'm pretty sure the relationship between glycemic index and hunger is weak at best. e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968699 It's a bit more complicated than just carbs -> insulin -> hungry. Insulin is one satiety trigger btw. fishmech posted:Again: This is a total lie, chicken breast and broccoli have no special powers to keep you from getting fat. You personally seem to not like eating too much at once, a lot of people do. fishmech posted:Except he's saying to eat chicken breast with it. Chicken breast is a pretty midrange meat for calories, and if you're eating it with broccoli, you can easily consume thousands of calories. Also at 100kcal/100g, chicken breast is pretty much the lowest calorie source in its class. fishmech posted:I have seen fat people at the college cafeteria down 3 pounds of grilled chicken breast, which is somewhere between 1800 and 2200 calories depending on precisely how you prepare it. And this after seeing the same people eating a full breakfast earlier in the day. Compare to 3lbs of bacon. Or 3lbs of literally any other food source, e.g. chicken wings - roughly 4500 kcal - so a person who manages 3 pounds of chicken breast would probably manage 3 lbs of chicken wings, but with 3 lbs of chicken wings, they've already eaten 4500 kcal. Think of 1500 kcal of chicken plus 3000 kcal of broccoli; you will see why it would be so much, and fundamentally impossibly, harder to get fat on literally chicken breast plus broccoli.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Chicken gets a bad rap because Americans loving love deep fried chicken. The difference between a breaded, deep fried chicken breast and a baked one is a few hundred calories. It's massive. Another issue is fiber; vegetables don't have much when it comes to carbs but plenty of fiber. It fills you up faster without putting as many calories in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Chicken gets a bad rap because Americans loving love deep fried chicken. The difference between a breaded, deep fried chicken breast and a baked one is a few hundred calories. It's massive. Another issue is fiber; vegetables don't have much when it comes to carbs but plenty of fiber. It fills you up faster without putting as many calories in. And the energy from protein is probably an overestimate of the actual net metabolizable energy (specifically for protein). The calculations on your labels are probably based on 3.75kcal/g or maybe 4, and reality might look more like 3.2kcal/g. And chicken breast by itself is ONLY protein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Fry the chicken, pour ranch on the broccoli to make it palatable and now you've got a mess. This is why my coworker, who has been put on a diet because of sleep apnea, is driving me nuts right now. He's been whining everyday about how bored he is with his food and how gross veggies taste. He's literally shoved his Tupperware across the table with a big dramatic sigh that he just can't eat it, then complains about being horribly hungry. Just eat the loving broccoli you big babby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Fry the chicken, pour ranch on the broccoli to make it palatable and now you've got a mess. This is why my coworker, who has been put on a diet because of sleep apnea, is driving me nuts right now. He's been whining everyday about how bored he is with his food and how gross veggies taste. He's literally shoved his Tupperware across the table with a big dramatic sigh that he just can't eat it, then complains about being horribly hungry. Maybe a heart attack sometimes is the better choice (for single people). I think two major problems with regards to dieting for weight loss are 1. it inherently means not eating what, and how much, you want 2. people try to sell you the opposite You can see how much #1 sucks by how common #2 is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
There are plenty of spices and flavorings that add little or no calories. Not everything needs ranch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
There's also multiple kinds of vegetables so if you don't like broccoli you can just like, you know, eat something else. This idea that healthy eating = broccoli is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
No but you can't always get what you want. Or in the case if a fat person wanting to be lean, almost never. You can come to terms with not having what you'd prefer to eat, and you can go the hard or the less hard way. But it's inherently about not getting what you want. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:No but you can't always get what you want. Or in the case if a fat person wanting to be lean, almost never. You can come to terms with not having what you'd prefer to eat, and you can go the hard or the less hard way. But it's inherently about not getting what you want. Ever. That's not entirely true. The people I know who succeeded in their diets were the ones that cheated on them. Probably the most successful way is "6 days of healthy eating and if I behave I get to eat garbage for a day." It's way better than eating like crap 7 days a week and turns your favorite food into a reward instead of some tantalizing thing always out of reach you can't have anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's not entirely true. The people I know who succeeded in their diets were the ones that cheated on them. Probably the most successful way is "6 days of healthy eating and if I behave I get to eat garbage for a day." It's way better than eating like crap 7 days a week and turns your favorite food into a reward instead of some tantalizing thing always out of reach you can't have anymore. I generally agree, but it shouldn't be "cheating" it should be built in. You don't need a caloric deficit every day but you do need one overall. Being minus two hundred calories per day for six days and then binging plus six thousand on "cheat day" is a recipe for worse than failure. It can lead to not trusting the whole system because they suffered through 6/7 days and still gained weight. It's perfectly possible to plan your week to include a meal of pretty much whatever you want. You shouldn't allow yourself to "cheat", just plan for it. Budgeting calories is a lot like budgeting money (which people are also terrible at by and large I suppose). You can scrimp for six days knowing you will have a larger expense on the seventh. Definitely agreeing that this system works much better psychologically than the 100% chicken breast and broccoli / onion and banana juice / whatever thing all the time method.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:There are people who do this, sure, but just a few pages ago you were complaining that someone was saying a fat person can eat two boxes of pop tarts before lunch. I know you want to drive home the point that you don't HAVE to eat high calorie food to get fat because you're tired of people advertising fad diets and saying certain types of food are bad, but you're going overboard. Because eating two boxes of pop tarts before lunch is still something people don't do. No, most people would not find it easier to eat nearly a pound and a half of pop tarts, while eating multiple pounds of chicken is a thing people do pretty often who are fat. Plus your argument doesn't make sense, because say 2000 calories of the average pop tart is only 80% of the 2000 calorie recommended fat, while 120% of daily carbs (only half being simple sugars). It'd also be 50% of your daily protein. So it ain't got a high amount of sugars in it compared to the fat, nor is the fat particularly high on its own. Noam Chomsky posted:I'm breaking the "don't argue with fishmech" rule to say you're just plain wrong. I call loving bullshit on the pizza part, unless you're talking some weird artisinal pizza with barely anything on it. Also cool, you're one of those keto nuts. Guess what? That doesn't work for most people. And for many people, attempting keto can cause organ failure. Cingulate posted:It's complex, ie., nonlinear. I see you are unfamiliar with reality because you continue insisting that chicken breast is some sort of wonder food when it isn't. Also no one cares that broccoli doesn't have a lot of calories. People literally eat literal chicken breast literally a ton and are fat as hell. Literally. That they have some broccoli as well doesn't change that. I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that an extremely common form of meat is eaten by people who get fat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Saying that in order to diet you have to live the life of an ascetic monk is going a little overboard. A lot of the posters in SA's fitness forum are ex-fat kids, and they don't seem to be constantly unhappy about not being able to scarf down junk food all the time like they used to. A lot of them don't live on diets of only chicken breast and broccoli too.
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Fry the chicken, pour ranch on the broccoli to make it palatable and now you've got a mess. This is why my coworker, who has been put on a diet because of sleep apnea, is driving me nuts right now. He's been whining everyday about how bored he is with his food and how gross veggies taste. He's literally shoved his Tupperware across the table with a big dramatic sigh that he just can't eat it, then complains about being horribly hungry. Well, part of the problem is that the one-size-fits-all eat-flavorless-healthy-stuff diet sets people up for failure. A 60-year-old friend of mine lost 120 lbs. by pretty much eating Quest Bars and other assorted MRP type stuff and the occasional chicken salad from Wendy's. She was 350+ needed to lose the weight for a knee replacement surgery. A big part of her success was finding foods she liked that fit her lifestyle and that she could stick to eating that fit her calorie goals - no matter how silly or seemingly "unhealthy." A big part of my weight loss is developing habits to the extreme. Eating things that are healthy and fit the macros I need that I can eat every single day. That way I never think about what I eat because I've limited myself to a certain array of things that I have at certain times. Hell, when I first started out and lost my first 20 to 30 lbs. I just stopped eating fast food and pizza, and regular soda and then counted calories for everything else. Of course, I was lifting weights 3 days a week and using the elliptical every day, so I had a little more wiggle room when it came to calories. Having a big fat guy, who is used to eating the most delicious stuff we can possibly create, go straight into chicken & broccoli for lunch every day is loving stupid. Your average GP doctor knows gently caress-all about how to actually lose weight or what it's like to actually do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's not entirely true. The people I know who succeeded in their diets were the ones that cheated on them. Probably the most successful way is "6 days of healthy eating and if I behave I get to eat garbage for a day." It's way better than eating like crap 7 days a week and turns your favorite food into a reward instead of some tantalizing thing always out of reach you can't have anymore. This is what I've done. Some people (idiot assholes) say it creates eating disorders and other associated bullshit. However, it's the only way I've gotten through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
loving hell, does fishmech have a job or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
As a guy who can eat a metric gently caress ton of food, I will tell you I can down 3000 calories of Pizza easy peasy and not even get close to eating the same calories for chicken. After a couple of grilled chicken breasts, I'm done. I can barely finish an 800 calorie ribeye streak that I order at one of my favorite places. Also, LOL @ "keto nuts." It's worked for me before and it's working for me now. There's no evidence that it doesn't work for most people. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who it's worked out great for. I've had blood work done multiple times while on the diet and everything's always pretty perfect. But, if being a "nut" means I get to lose 100 lbs., much easier than if I was doing a high carb diet, then I'm content to be a "nut." They also use the diet to sometimes treat seizures and depression as well. I know your objective/gimmick is to use your copious amount of spare time to be as contrarian and pedantic as possible, so that you can get other people to waste their time. So, I'm not going to assume that I'll be able to say anything to change your mind. However, again, you just don't know what you are talking about and you need to do more research. You won't, though, because you're the smartest kid in America and your gimmick is to stake out a position and then sit there, forever, while everyone wastes their life arguing with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:loving hell, does fishmech have a job or something? No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's not entirely true. The people I know who succeeded in their diets were the ones that cheated on them. Probably the most successful way is "6 days of healthy eating and if I behave I get to eat garbage for a day." It's way better than eating like crap 7 days a week and turns your favorite food into a reward instead of some tantalizing thing always out of reach you can't have anymore. quote:you can't always get what you want. Or in the case if a fat person wanting to be lean, almost never fishmech posted:I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that an extremely common form of meat is eaten by people who get fat. Also I'd not be surprised if you did that, because you're really into willful misrepresentation for the sake of "winning an argument". Noam Chomsky posted:Well, part of the problem is that the one-size-fits-all eat-flavorless-healthy-stuff diet sets people up for failure. Trent posted:I generally agree, but it shouldn't be "cheating" it should be built in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Saying that in order to diet you have to live the life of an ascetic monk is going a little overboard. A lot of the posters in SA's fitness forum are ex-fat kids, and they don't seem to be constantly unhappy about not being able to scarf down junk food all the time like they used to. A lot of them don't live on diets of only chicken breast and broccoli too. It all depends on your mindset and your relationship with food. Also, the habits of those you surround yourself with count. Also, I wasn't talking about being an ex-fat-kid. My posts were referring to how things are during the process. It's a lot easier to be more liberal with what you eat after you've lost the 50 or 100 lbs. you need to lose. Management is easier than losing the weight. So, of course they're doing OK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:
That's so far from real life it doesn't even mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:49
|
|