|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This paragraph is a good example of the terrible misinformation that gets spread whenever weight-loss is discussed. The problem is that your entire post is bullshit spoken from a position of privilege, aimed at blaming the marginalized for their own faults. We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. We have substantial evidence of the contrary. We DO have evidence that intentional overeating results in weight gain... that reverses itself as soon as you stop doing it. Meanwhile losing weight by diet and exercise has been clearly debunked repeatedly - it doesn't work on a societal scale, and it barely works on an individual scale - or frequently, it doesn't work at all, thanks to lipases being a bit fidgety. We also have no evidence that weight loss helps with medical outcomes outside very specific cases. We DO have evidence that being overweight protects you from a variety of common health problems - consistent evidence, repeatedly challenged but never disproved. It's called the obesity paradox. It isn't a paradox. We have evidence that being poor, sick and tired makes you fat. And the rich and the privileged do nothing if not keen to find ways to blame the poor for their supposed shortcomings. Health at any size is still dumb though. If you're fat, then you ain't healthy.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Using "fat" for "obese". Just "overweight" is not necessarily bad, but there's a point where it's bad. For the rest of it I'll read it before replying. Though, I did mention "societal scale". Proof: The change in obesity since people started preaching low-calorie diets and exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This isn't true in the least. Check out Nazi German concentration camps, and hell, most areas suffering from long term food shortages during and after wars. Minimal food = losing weight. Is this choosing to eat less or not being able to eat? Being poor, tired, stressed and sick fucks up your internal mechanisms regulating how much you eat / store. The Larch posted:That's not how proof works. It's proof what we're doing is not working.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Are you trying to make some sort of dumb dichotomy where choosing to eat less doesn't work but being forced to eat the same amount less does? Because that sounds pretty bullshit, op. It's not a dumb dichotomy - one is where the person themselves chooses how much to eat, and one's where someone else does. Both of these can result in weight loss. However, people do not in general have the ability to resist hunger when tired or stressed. kikkelivelho posted:What percentage of people actually have a medical condition that makes losing weight hard? I remember reading an article or a study or something that suggested that most diets fail because the people doing them blatantly cheated or didn't follow the instructions at all. Weight gain and loss depend entirely on the persons own habits, so turning it into some kind of a privilege issue is really dumb. Over 20% lifetime prevalence for long-term obesity-causing diseases currently. Weight gain and loss have little to nothing to do with the person's habits and everything to do with the environmental pressures set on them. Try starving and still getting work done. It's a delightful feeling. You refuse to believe not everyone is like you, white, privileged, healthy and rich. Series DD Funding posted:People spreading lies like this doesn't help either. I checked all those studies and literally zero of them controlled for factors caused by the methods used for establishing the diets. Counter-studies? Conveniently illegal. Can't expose people to those conditions deliberately in the name of science. So, you're forced to look into studies on the effects of cortisol on sleep, effects of cortisol on weight gain, effects of poor sleep on tissue insulin resistance, effects of insulin resistance on insulin levels (well that one's easy), effects of insulin on lipases, effects of lipases on the body's metabolism, effects of sleep on leptin, ghrelin and the body's ability to process nutrients. I cannot unfortunately not find non-paywalled links to those. The short version is that poor sleep and stress throw metabolism into a lovely state where the body cannot correctly regulate hunger. How the various diseases interplay into this is a chicken and egg scenario, in that we decidedly know which one was first but they're still pretty interdependent. People who do not get proper rest - both mental and physical - get sick AND fat. Fixing this is relatively easy if you have the means to do so, but it requires for the stress (especially involving stress regarding money) to stop and people to have enough time to properly take care of themselves. Blaming fat people for being fat only results in them being sicker and fatter (and studies explicitly back that one up). Fat people trying to diet and exercise while already being exhausted from their daily lives only make themselves miserable - and fatter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: "Almost in direct contradiction" meaning "completely consistent". My initial argument stands. It doesn't work for losing weight on an useful way, because if the people were capable of consistently resisting that hunger they wouldn't have gotten fat in the first place. And all of these studies that result in positive effects regarding weight loss do not do it with only weight loss through diet and exercise, it also involves massive other lifestyle changes, mostly in the way people schedule their time. And the studies generally don't deal with the kind of poor people who don't have the money for doctor-guided therapy, the time to rest or the ability to stop worrying about money - or the very people this epidemic is affecting. Series DD Funding posted:None of which contradicts what I said. Eating less results in less energy availability resulting in weight loss. The problem is in the eating less, not its effects No, which should explain how your point wasn't applicable to mine to begin with. Eating less results in less energy availability which results in weight loss... assuming the lipases work. Which they don't in a statistically significant amount of people. Take these people away from their daily lives and put them in a regimented, doctor-supported schedule and suddenly they begin working again, because it's the stress and lack of rest loving them up, making studying it a problem. And this is assuming the people are capable of eating less and still able to do their daily tasks without a further detriment to their survival (continued employment) - they're already stressed, further fatigue easily pushes them to a point where their work quality is unacceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:(citation needed) 1 XMNN posted:Are you saying that the body doesn't break down it's fat reserves when it's starved? Only when certain criteria are met. These criteria are substantially hosed up by lack of slow-wave sleep and stress hormones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Blister posted:What criteria allows the body to operate continuously without food with no weight loss? Did I say that was going to happen? No, you'll just die. Well, you'll feel like utter garbage and oh-so-hungry first. Most people stop caring after long enough of that. They diet, see no benefit, grow worse health-wise, their willpower breaks due to the hunger. No amount of dieting would cause weight loss, but it's their fault anyway for not dieting hard enough. fishmech posted:Nope and nope. You argued there is no evidence that reduced consumption leads to reduced weight. There is assloads of evidence that it does stretching back to the beginnings of history. I argued eating less does not work for losing weight, as you'd have noticed had you quoted the entire line. I'm not backpedaling, you've just gotten lost in the straw.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:25
|
|