|
Stanos posted:Diets don't 'work' because half of them are stupid crash diet stuff and you can't make it temporary if you don't want to rubber back back when you've lost the weight. You can see this just in the phrasing people use: "I'm going on a diet", versus say "I'm changing my diet".
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
There's not really a single "bad food" you can point to and say that this is inherently unhealthy. You would have more success regulating dosage/portions, but to do that requires rationing which is never going to be a popular method as long as the food actually exists. Brannock posted:
Well, anecdotally for me it's a lot more than what you seem to be presenting. Here is a floor plan of the grocery store I shop at (not the exact store, but the same general design): https://www.heb.com/static/pdfs/guide-sanantonio-102.pdf Ignoring the inedible stuff, the vast majority of the layout is devoted to fresh produce, minimally processed things like cheeses and meats, and a wide variety of other basic things like canned foods or pastas. Meanwhile, frozen items have a small handful of shelves (there are also more shelves devoted to things like cookies & soda, but it's still not really that much in the grand picture). Certainly there are other grocery stores that do things differently, but I notice this quite a bit. Even Walmart has major chunks of its floor plan devoted to fresh produce & bread instead of just pre-processed stuff, and the latter is much more attractive for them. computer parts fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Mexico also has an increasing obesity epidemic. Hence historically. In both cases the issue isn't "people forgetting their food culture in favor of capitalism" or whatever, it's them not being as active as they were in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Hooooooly poo poo, look at Saudi Arabia, fully half of its adult female population is obese. I mean, so would you if you could eat stuff like this all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Fine. Outlaw a BMI over a certain number if the body fat percentage is also too high so you don't nail bodybuilders. Cops can eyeball/cite 420lb. blobs on the street and it'll create the appropriate atmosphere. Let them figure out their best personal solution then starting with skipping meals. This solution works because it allows racial profiling as a viable tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:It should also be noted that in S Korea, the place I brought up earlier, their fast food sizes run significantly smaller than they do here. Their larges are more compatible to our mediums. Which apparently isn't doing much based on their rising obesity rates.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:If you don't think it has an effect on fast food intake you're being willfully obtuse. Well, in that case then fast food intake obviously doesn't matter as much to obesity rates as you have concluded, based on S. Korea's rising rates.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Cole posted:The obesity rates in S Korea is 4% though. So it has risen at most 4%, which is pretty insignificant compared to here. Depends on the rate. Also it likely depends on age distribution as alluded to earlier. If only 4% of (eg) people under 30 were obese, then that's great, but more likely it's much much higher for young people and the elderly who lived during the time it was a backwards dictatorship are keeping the numbers down.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
SgCloud posted:What about vegetables and fruit? Usually cheaper and more prevalent (i.e., you can get them during larger parts of the year) than Europe. Although here anyway, the latter is usually because we get them from Mexico & South America.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Not enough is being talked about this. How in the hell do you expect people to cook healthy things at home or exercise regularly when they have to work multiple jobs, have hosed up split shifts or get to work massive amounts of unscheduled overtime? Even if you do nothing more than sit at a deck, you're going to be mentally exhausted after 10-12 hours of that. A lot of that has nothing to do with the average workday. For example, you might work multiple jobs but still only work 40 hours a week.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Also what they don't tell you about fish is that most of it is frozen anyway, the "fresh" stuff is just left out to go bad quicker.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are you only considering averages when I'm talking about something completely different? Also, you understand that there's a thing called travel time, right? Or that shifts might not line up nicely with available transit options? Of course transit times exist, but your argument is much more solid if you instead argue for regaining full time employment instead of "cutting the work week".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are people really getting fat because they're going to the store and buying tons of junk food and soda, though? Yes, that seems to be what the "just buy rice & beans" people are arguing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also American restaurant portions are just out of loving control. Cheesecake Factory portions are routine now it's a national disgrace. Eh, on the other hand it's culturally acceptable to take home half your meal here, while in Europe you get weird looks if that happens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
There are multiple answers to "why are people getting fat" that people have claimed ITT: 1. People are eating some strange new food that makes them fatter. 2. People are eating more food in general. 3. People are eating the same, but their activity level has decreased. All of these factors probably have at least some contribution, so the question is what do you want to do to deal with it? " Personal willpower" is so far the least convincing argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:And why is that exactly? I'm really curious because it's seems like a perfectly fine argument to me. I mean it's not a magic cure all that will solve all problems but at least it's grounded in reality. Because in most other situations "personal responsibility" will brand you as a Libertarian. It's kind of hard to see why it wouldn't here, especially since this is an issue that's highly correlated with poverty. (Yes, I mean poverty within that particular nation-state, not that poorer countries are more likely to be obese when in fact the opposite is true)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Honestly even just listing amounts of calories and and all that such doesn't help much. After all, that's been radically improved by making that stuff on all the food at the stores since the 90s mandated nutrition facts labels, but it only tells you for a "2000 calorie diet" based on a certain model person and yadda yadda. Also a 2000 calorie diet is actually far below what most people need, especially if they're actually active.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:increase the tax exponentially if it's an irresponsible parent giving health problems to their kid A reminder that both of these proposals will disproportionately target poor minority women.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:This analogy doesn't work the way you think it does. If 'unprotected sex with strangers' is 'eating anything and everything you want', then 'abstinence' is the equivalent to 'starve yourself to a sub-20 BMI!'. Sex-education that emphasizes appropriate protection is where you want to be and that is our 'portion control'. Except in this analogy your sex ed is "condoms exist, but you'll have to figure out where to buy them and oh there's also a million different versions, of which a significant proportion are fakes". Actually birth control would probably be a better stand in for condoms, but same idea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:While no different nutritionally, there is value in being aware how much is native to the product and how much is added for taste. Not really, any competitor can just make a "low sugar" version and advertise it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Sounds like a net positive, as opposed to hiding added sugar in your ingredient list under 6 different kinds of syrups. No, I mean in the status quo people can just make a low sugar version.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
Or what it would do is encourage minimizing "added sugars" while ignoring overall sugars (or calories, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Minimizing or reducing added refined sugars would be a net positive. Even if overall sugars went up?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You walk 1mph? Average walking speed is about 3mph, so adding a walked mile there and back (so 2 miles total) would add 40 minutes total.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Eventually they hit the upper limit of the caloric intake derived from their lifestyle though. Very few people keep eating and eating as they balloon, many overweight people have simple settled in a comfortable but unhealthy routine. I made the assumption that he's eating exactly the same to show that weight lose is in fact possible through exercise, which you contest. Finally, I find it hilarious that the person who sole idea to contribute to combating the epidemic is "don't eat so much" can turn around to other people and say if their idea is so good, why is there fat people at all. I guess the question is, what makes you think this person won't eat more to compensate? Especially since we're talking about less than 300 calories, which is like a large soda.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Maple Syrup and Honey are still added sugar when put in apple juice. Not if you market it as "Apple Juice with Honey".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You said it yourself, these people will have to feel hungry. Feeling hunger causes stress, which is a detriment to human health. It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:You are technically correct. Stress is a part of our physiology and has beneficial aspects to the human experience. So does pain. If somebody said "This would cause pain and that would be detrimental." and you said "It's not a detriment in all circumstances, no." it would be overly semantic, as it is here. Well, you're also assuming the stress is chronic, when instead it would be temporary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Would it not impede weight loss in some way? Yes, but so does the stress generated by extra exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The difference is that the person who is exercising is pre occupied with something and generally consumes a lot of fluid(Hopefully water.) which inhibits the feeling of hunger. The person focusing on not eating is the person trying not to think of camels. Boredom causes stress and hunger too. I don't see why someone not eating can't drink water too. Oh and it's not like they're skipping a meal, they're just ordering 1 Big Mac instead of 2.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Okay so here is the problem, you are directly addressing points I was making to fishmech, and I don't feel like those are the points you were trying to make? If you are trying to follow fishmechs reasoning I would say that 1 big mac is only 257 calories and while I think that would be a good start by his own definition is not "meaningful" weight loss. If you're following your own reasoning, I would point out that you could work out, drink water, and kick it back to 1 big mac and you'd lose double to triple the calories, not feel hungry, (Less likely to overeat.) and not feel bloated by just drinking water without sweating it out. (Ironically gaining weight due to water retention.) Yeah and the point is that it's easier to just not eat a Big Mac instead of doing all of that. Like here's the point: If a Big Mac has 250 calories, and working out for an hour burns 250 calories, then not eating a Big Mac is equivalent to working out for an hour. It's much easier to not eat a Big Mac then to work out for an hour. Yes, if you did both you can reduce your net calorie intake even farther, but that's not the point. The point is that between two activities that reduce your caloric intake by the same amount, one of them is much easier than the other. Because it's much easier, it's much easier to sell to the general populace.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:It's not easier though, it's just easier said than done. No, it's objectively easier. Doing Nothing is always easier than Doing Something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Your body is not doing nothing at any time. It's the difference between resisting the urge and not having the urge at all. Not Doing Something is easier than Doing Something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Enjoy your abstinence only approach, they have been so successful in the past. The abstinence of only eating one Big Mac instead of two.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:The abstinence of intelligence apparently. I see you've had a headstart on that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:What does science say about all this? That's a self selection bias. For people in current society, if you lose a lot of weight you're likely to both do constant exercise and eat less. It says nothing about the relative ease of doing so for people in general.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Oh hey more research. Best is not easiest. Again, learn to read.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:They've said exercise is irrelevant to weight loss, that is factually false. I never said exercise is irrelevant, I said it was harder. Your data doesn't support the latter point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:If you fail to keep the weight off, than it wasn't that easy was it? That's actually a completely different metric, which is relapsing. If eating less was so hard, you wouldn't see weight loss in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:22
|
|