|
fishmech posted:Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: Being fair (although I'm not sure if this is their point) it could be they mean that a person opting to 'eat less' may not be sufficient to lose weight due to their own cognitive bias as to what 'acceptably less' is compared to, say, someone surviving on a much smaller food intake beyond their control. Of course the constituency of those foods matter because tiny amounts of high carb/fat vs. large amounts of protein will have different outcomes.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:HFCS usage has been in a continuous decline since 1998/1999 in America. But fast enough to reverse a bulbous trend?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fast enough that if the overweight epidemic was truly caused by it, we should be seeing significant reductions after 16 years. Since we haven't seen that, the cause is likely just that we all like to stuff too much food in our mouths which, let's face it, is what evolutionary development incentivized us to do for millennia. Hm, maybe, but that graph in the OP seems to suggest the rate of obesity rose more sharply between 1990 and 2000 than between 2000 and 2010, although I could be wrong on this. Hard to really say against a single, teensy, graph.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Blister posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Refined sugar went down at the same time, and from we know of digestion there's no reason to suspect sugar and HFCS would have different effects on the body. I know, but I recall there being a problem with HFCS being used as a makeweight in cheap foods. Not living in America I can't check your ingredients labels as readily as England's so I could well be talking about a historical, not current, issue. Series DD Funding posted:The body is not that sensitive to starvation: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.long?view=long&pmid=15640462 Which is fair, although I'll point out that journal is talking about non-obese subjects and was not about diet for weight loss but for markers of longevity. I appreciate its conclusion about sensitivity to fasting within its subject range, though. That said, it does mention a change in insulin, which might have interesting long term results.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Not really, no. It sounds like you've read the wiki page on the effects of starvation for prolonged weight loss but you've never read any of the actual research. IIRC the commonly cited starvation research was long term with extremely reduced caloric intake (in the 500 calorie range for weeks or months), and nothing less extreme than that triggers the same effects. If you don't eat for two days and then grab a combo meal at McDonalds, you're eating more than they were. Cute pointless dig Mike, but given that I've not glanced at Wikipedia pages on anything raised in this thread it rings a little hollow. As an example of a study, here's one where obese women who fasted between 14 and 22 hours of fasting, and saw that the obese women saw less of a drop in glucose uptake. While this is not itself proof that fasting causes one to gain weight, it suggests that people already obese have a steeper hill to climb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:14-22 hours of fasting does not in any way constitute starvation. 14 hours is 8pm to 10am, they skipped the midnight snack and had brunch instead of breakfast. We weren't talking about starvation we were talking about periods of not eating, I used extreme starvation as a counter-productive example, I've now used 14-22 hour fasting as a more common example. Perhaps you could clarify what your hypothesis is rather than snipe about whether or not I read Wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Wait, is JFairFax being serious? I thought that was just some copy/paste crap from thisisthinprivilage that was posted for humor on this here comedy website, but if it's a serious post, then loving lol. I believe they're repeating posts from this tumblr blog.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Yeah I don't think this can be stated enough. Bad food is made to be addictive, and that continues to cloud what's already a pretty murky subject about weight, health, and social acceptance. True enough, this makes more sense than my previous posit of it being about HFCS insertion, it's more about the way that even cheap food has a lot of money behind why we buy so much of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Definitely. The measures mention by DeusExMachinima sound rather fascistic. Just what the prison industrial complex needs, overcrowded prisons now being overcrowded with oversized prisoners. Maybe we can just skip straight to weight loss Gulags. Maybe that'd be a better use for those FEMA camps that are totally planned by Obama to round up conservatives. DeusExMachina how much would you personally allow your taxes to increase to fund these defattification camps? Working out sets you free.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Also check my first post in this thread. Incredibly nobody called me out on my 180. :puppetmaster: Views evolve, and you've tended to espouse extreme views in the past, it's hardly unlikely for you to swing away from civil liberties.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Well, you don't need labeling changes to encourage deceptive advertising. I suppose that's the point, though, isn't it? Deceptive advertising is a pretty big part of the obesity pandemic. When 'low fat' foods end up having more unhealthy poo poo in them to make up for the lack of fat ruining the flavour otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Comically enough that's what poster endlessmonotony was trying to say at the beginning of this thread, albeit not very coherently.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:See? You have to be right about everything. And yet, he always is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:she probably gave it to herself (This isn't the UKMT you should probably specify you're joking.  )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Someone was rude on public transit!? Call the police, the SAS, and those guys with the big hats! Thankfully society roundly condemned this and it wasn't just a fringe-yet-notable example of people being lovely to people for no reason. Problem solved.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:This has at least worked on a smaller scale elsewhere in the world. This article especially mentions that it is a special case and that it relies on a culture that is used to the kind of shaming he uses. If America were a culture of shame this might work, but in fact the only major example of a large population (that I know of, admittedly) with a culture of shame is Japan, which already has low levels of obesity (3.2%, by the same standard the rest of the world uses) - and in fact they even lowered the threshold for what was considered obese. Even 'artificially' inflating the figure that way (for good region-related-health-issues reason) they still have lower obesity than the USA. So if your suggestion is that the western world adopt a culture of shame, then I suppose I'd agree, but good luck fundamentally changing the most arrogant country in the world's culture to the near-opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Brannock posted:No, but I do know that people will gripe and complain that the people depicted in those magazines and movies aren't "real" people, nor representative of them. Not to downplay the depression that can be caused by negative self-image, but looking at muscular dudes and going "wow I'm out of shape *joins gym for 2 sessions then quits" is a slightly different beast to women looking at skinny models and going "wow I'm fat and disgusting *forces self to vomit meals*" To be honest my anecdotal experiences tend to suggest that unfit dudes look at muscular dudes and feel bad about themselves then immediately turn around and attack women for being too fat in order to make themselves feel better. Anecdotal, of course, but then I'm not claiming to be Science Incarnate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I hit the gym 3 times a week and I know where I see an overweight person there I think to myself "Good for them". For every car that threw trash, there were hundreds that didn't. How many of the people who drove by cheered the person on? Hundreds of silent passer-bys and a single trash-throwing insult is a very different thing from hundreds of cheers and a single boo. You are right that personally supporting people is a fantastic thing to do, but kicking someone trying to improve themselves just makes them think 'what's the point?' One of these is noticeable, the other is silent. How many of the people you see there do you walk over and ask them how they're doing? If not, was it because you were worried you'd make them feel awkward?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The only people to talk to randos at gyms are creepers trying to pick up ladies. This sounds more like a lovely culture more than a problem with the concept of 'talking to people.' SlipUp posted:If they had exceptionally poor form I might intervene to save them from getting hurt, skinny or large. If people want vindication for making healthy choices maybe they should expect it from people who know them and care about them rather than total strangers. That's not what I said, though. I never said you should cheer them on, I said that it's easier to drown out a boo in a chorus of cheers. If the only thing you get is the boo it has a much stronger effect. SlipUp posted:Haters gonna hate. People act like asses all the time, breaking down and giving in because of one incident leads me to believe maybe they weren't that committed anyway. This shows a massive misunderstanding of psychology which is weird given you immediately follow it up with: SlipUp posted:Please note I have also recommended cognitive behavioural therapy several times in this thread, and it's exactly for this reason. Which is much better psychological thought. SlipUp posted:e: I also fail to see how labelling bad choices as bad choices is kicking somebody when they're down. No, I mean making fun of an obese person for being fat while they're exercising is a very much kicking-while-down situation. Cole posted:Being healthy is like taking care of your kids: you shouldn't need to be cheered on. Again, re-read the post, I said it's easier to drown out negative comments in a hail of positive ones. If the only time you hear someone comment on your parenting is at the supermarket where someone walking past you shakes their head and says "people like you are ruining their children" or something you'd probably not just take it in your stride and ignore it, even if you don't verbally respond to the person. Edit: to clarify, my query about talking to someone at the gym was more about how there's a culture of keeping positive thoughts to one's self and being open with negative ones, it's part of why reviews for places/products tend to undersell the place/product in question since spite is a bigger motivator to write a review Tesseraction fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Yeah, fat people are just intrinsically irrational, there's no way we'll ever get them to stop engaging in base rate neglect, so let's instead try to make sure no one ever insults anyone. You keep bringing up the base rate fallacy as if humans are purely logical systems like the mythical homo economicus. I'm not saying 'fat people are inherently irrational' it's that being a lovely person to an obese person does nothing except make you a lovely person. It does nothing to make them lose weight. All you've done is hurt someone's feelings and done nothing to improve their health. You can whine all you like about not getting to insult obese people but without a logical reasoning as to why it would somehow cause weight loss all you're doing is creating a society of shitheads.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Tell all people to eat their hats. Forums moderator Abe did that but it didn't seem to affect his weight one way or another. We probably need a more productive diet to pursue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
fishmech posted:This is the opposite of true. They're consistently overreaching their nutrition goals. If they weren't reaching the nutrition goals, they'd be skinny, not fat. Doesn't it depend on the nutrient? A food can satisfy the calorific requirements for energy production but fail to provide enough essential amino acids and other micro-nutrients, which is what I assume is the problem posters are referring to - you can reach your calorie requirements without ever balancing out your vit/min/etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 20:24
|
|