|
endlessmonotony posted:Only when certain criteria are met. These criteria are substantially hosed up by lack of slow-wave sleep and stress hormones. What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Tell me Tesseraction posted:One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America. HFCS is a problem, but not one causing the current problems. It's sugar, easy for the body to absorb and very cheap, but manageable with calorie restricted diets and education. If you only eat what is put in front of you with no thought process behind shoveling it into your mouth, then it is a major problem. Blister fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 23, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well that's a little misleading. While you can indeed survive weeks at a time without eating (assuming a steady intake of water and strong tolerance to pain) as soon as you start eating again your body will long-term store the food in case you go starvation mode again, to say nothing of how badly it'll kill your energy levels. We're not talking about long term survival situations here so it's not misleading at all. With how badly hosed up your entire body would be after weeks without nutrition, getting fat would be the least of your worries. Like losing a large majority of the muscle inside your body that keep your internal organs working.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Did I say that was going to happen? That's because short term diets don't work, have never worked, or will ever work; Ask your general practitioner they'll tell you that poo poo hasn't been taught for as long as they've been alive. Eating less does not mean short term, almost always it means lifestyle change, it's been this way for decades now, human beings in general just want to take the easy route if it's provided. But if someone is obese and not continuing to gain weight, they've likely hit a threshold where their caloric intake matches their expenditure. If they eat less, they will lose weight and their caloric expenditure will go down too, so it's important they continue to eat less forever. Unless they decide to increase their muscle mass or activity levels.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast. Yes, that's why fasting is loving stupid Education can only solve this poo poo, make people aware of what they're eating(gently caress or just to skim the back of the box), why it's important to exercise, moderation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:I think the HAES movement was originally started as a campaign against the pretty hosed up beauty standards in Western Society, but then spun off into normalizing and apologizing for some pretty blatantly unhealthy behaviors. Using the language of privilege politics as a rhetorical bludgeon. For all the hosed up awful poo poo crossfit suggests, they've started a similar movement called close the gap, which is promoting positive body image, like HAES was intended to do. Except in the opposite direction preaching positive body image for muscular women(who are considered obese by those graphs). It's almost like humans are insecure and hosed up creatures that like to create groups to protect ourselves with. edit: It should also be mentioned, almost all of the statistics on obesity use BMI scale, which hasn't taken into account that since modern people are getting better nutrition, have more muscle mass, denser bone structures, and living longer than when it was first implemented in 1830. There certainly is a rise, but the severity is not as extreme as portrayed Blister fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
There is also a need to regulate the title of nutritionist, because call a dietitian a nutritionist to see how quickly you can get punched in the loving face. One has a college degree with training in biology, the other doesn't need any training. Healthly eating and exercise education across the world is uttery screwed up
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Brannock posted:There seems to be this unquestioned axiom that being poor makes you fat No there isn't
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Fitness is way too subjective, top bodybuilders eat like god drat pigs in off season(and some get tremendously fat as a result), then will get on a calorie restricted diet for months to cut weight for competitions. Olympic weight lifters and power lifters, in general, eat whatever they want so long as they get enough calories and protein in their diets. There isn't any need to add additional protein to a modern persons diet to gain muscle mass unless you're in the extremes(like a BB). Chipotle happens to be a high protein, fat, and fiber source of food that's fine so long as your body has uses for those things. Like rebuilding muscle tissue Blister fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
fishmech posted:It's not like shoving minerals and vitamins and trace metals into them would help though, nor sticking fiber or protein in - this is why talk about "empty calories" or "devoid of nutrition" is meaningless. It doesn't matter how full or empty the calories are, if you consume a lot you're going to get fat barring certain strange metabolic conditions not present in well over 90% of the human population. The term "Empty calories" is the biggest reason why almost every piece of junk food is now fortified by adding unnecessary vitamins and nutrients to make it "healthy"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:35
|
|