|
khwarezm posted:Through all of this there have been suggestions that we need to rethink our stances on fat. There have been studies performed that suggest dieting simply does not work and telling people to sort themselves out and go on a diet is totally ineffective, 95% of people who go on diets fail to actually keep the weight off in the long term, and the effects of your weight fluctuating wildly over the years as diets come and go can have its own negative health effects. Effectively, if you're overweight its going to be a life long problem for the vast majority of people. Even if you do lose weight it probably won't really help with the health problems associated with obesity, such as heart disease. That doesn't even touch on the Genetic aspects of weight. This paragraph is a good example of the terrible misinformation that gets spread whenever weight-loss is discussed. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._healthier.html This article does not actually provide any evidence that diets don't work. It argues instead that diets are not worth the effort. In fact, the article doesn't even mention a particular diet, except a single diet which seems to work pretty well (The dieting woman kept her weight off). Claiming that weight loss does not affect levels of blood pressure, cholesterol etc. it cites this paper. One pg 866, you can see that the average amount of weight lost among participants was 2 pounds, a completely irrelevant number. The article also mentions the second paper you have linked. http://www.clinicalendocrinologynew...491e565887.html Read the second paragraph, weight loss through diet and exercise decreased risk of kidney disease, depression, and care costs. So, it does reduce the risk of health problems, and pushing attention onto the risk of heart disease is dishonest. Another important thing, the subjects of the study all had type 2 diabetes to begin. That's a disease with its own consequences, one that doesn't go away with weight loss, but can be prevented by losing weight before it develops. Really It's mostly bs. The most proven way of losing weight is to limit how much you eat. It is physically impossible for your body to conjure up calories out of thin air. People who can't lose weight, or regain their weight, are eating more than they should. I don't think people should shame and disrespect anybody, because stressing somebody isn't going to help things at all, but weight loss is entirely a self-directed thing that is easily controllable.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:This is what annoys me more in this debate, its incredibly easy to just tell people to stop eating and that weight loss is self-directed and easily controllable, we've been doing it for decades and evidently it hasn't made a lick of difference on a large scale. People are getting fatter just about everywhere, we'll always get somebody like the poster above me saying 'Well I did it easy enough, why can't you?' but people are just not losing weight at all effectively despite vast amounts of time and money spent on diets or similar programs. Evidently its a lifestyle problem and we're failing to address it, what gives? I agree completely that obesity comes from a person's lifestyle, but there's no other physiological answer to the question of "how can I lose weight". We are seeing some decreases in obesity rates, mainly in young children, but children are the only people that have their diets controlled by others. It really speaks to how obesity is reinforced by your brain and your habits, because this "easy" answer appears to be incredibly difficult. The big issue is that "Lifestyle problems" are beyond the control of medical services, regulatory agencies, or government departments. There are worse things than overeating, and we can't stop people from doing them even when we make them illegal. Fad diets and superfoods et al. are confusing bullshit that hide our own physiology from ourselves, they're practically on the same level of selling snake oil. The problem with packaging solutions is that even though the solution might work, people only understand the packaging. This is how people lose weight through Weight Watchers or something, get satisfied and cancel, and then put the weight back on. The only helpful thing I can imagine is continued reinforcement of the "easy" solution of counting calories and portion size. Unlike economic policy, this is the one true way of weight loss, and the government should outright beg people to ignore other solutions. We should not shame people into losing weight, but allow people an understandable, concrete path to losing weight. There should be no confusion or despair if somebody tries and fails, they should just need to start again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
endlessmonotony, I don't think you're putting enough effort into your posts to deserve a direct response. Obesity has lots of causes that would save people money if eliminated. Soft drinks are totally devoid of nutrition besides their sugar content, and a lot of people have them with every meal. Compounding this is how the average American meal size has been normalized as being way bigger than appropriate. Reducing consumption would only save people money, regardless of whether you eat beans and eggs, hash and sausage, whatever etc. The obesity paradox can be understood when taking the conditions of the original studies into account. Data was taken from patients already admitted in a hospital, meaning their symptoms had advanced to state where home-care couldn't help. During the progression of a serious illness, wasting disease, a severe unexplained weight loss, is symptomatic of the end stages of many chronic illnesses. At this point, it is not a calorie deficit that is causing weight loss, but bodily functions shutting down and cells being cannibalized for energy. Wasting disease precedes death. With this context, it's easy to see how the thinnest chronic illness patients in hospitals have a higher mortality rate. Their weight is a product of the disease, and doesn't correlate to the weight of a healthy person. BexGu posted:We also need to divorce the notation that "Fresh=Healthy". Chipotle and Subway are horrible, horrible foods for people that pack in a ton of calories that too many people think are a healthy lunch. Marketing has just become way to good at praying on peoples lack of food size and calories density understanding. At least people by now know McDonalds/Fat Foods is unhealthy but haven't figured out that Subway/Chipotle can be just as bad. Are chipotle nutrition labels accessible at their stores? I've been to subways where they'll give the nutritional data for like, 2-inches of the bread just to make things difficult. I know that chipotle tortillas are some 300-400 calories. fishmech posted:It's that, but it was also about encouraging people to try to be as healthy as possible even if they can't get up from very underweight or down from very overweight. I feel that it's very difficult to produce an internet movement that isn't quickly hijacked by the most vocal, least conscientious people that have the same agenda. HAES nowadays is just a acronym for "let me be fat, do not bother me". I will again reiterate that the most effective way of helping people lose weight is to make it an easy and understandable process. I would have half a mind to ban marketing fad diets and quasi-artisanal millenial processed foods because all they do is prey on people's ignorance and inspire hope in a marketing phrase rather than presenting a solution. People should not be shamed, and should not feel shameful or confused during their weight loss effort, they should be offered the reassurance that the one true way of portion control is always available and beneficial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ It definitely is if you get the bowl-less burrito thing. At that point, it's just a bunch of beans, veggies, and meat, which is sort of the musclehead ideal meal. But I don't think the average person really fathoms just how many calories there are in a single tortilla. If the store doesn't display that stuff, that's essentially tricking people who eat there in the hopes that they get healthier. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
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. True that excess calories leads to weight gain, it's important that people don't accidentally give themselves nutrient deficiencies because they cut down on beans but didn't stop drinking sugar water. If sodas could somehow have fiber and protein in them, there'd be less of a case for cutting them out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Blister posted: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" Do they? I have a bag of chips in my cupboard and the nutritional stuff just looks like the remnants of a potato.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actual vitamin and mineral deficiencies are quite rare in America. Many vitamins and minerals are themselves useful for preservation or other things, or are just plain cheap, so they get sprinkled into nigh on everything. Typically when we see Americans who have vitamin and mineral deficiencies, its cases of extreme poverty where they can't afford and thus don't buy sodas to begin with or people adopting strange dietary restrictions from some fad or another. Separate from all of that too, many deficiencies require chronic lack of the given item in your food to manifest, if you manage to get a small amount once a year then you'll be ok. Sure, it's best to get as much of them in small bits each day just for consistency's sake. I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If there really was a liquid that had nutritional content as a regular meal, I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. This liquid doesn't even exist, so I don't want to talk about it anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Nah, soylent is a weird yuppie scam. The drink that gives the same nutrtional benefits as real food is a myth, and there's no point in arguing about myths.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Look, just take milkshakes for example. They exist, they've actually got a decent amount of protein in them - a 20 ounce serving contains 19 grams of protein, 39% of the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet. It even has 4 grams of fiber, which is is 16% of your RDA. They've also got a goodly amount of vitamins and minerals They're even served by nearly all the same places people are getting soda with their meals. " I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. " - me Do you agree that if broad segments of the population were educated in what exactly their nutritional needs actually were, people could be able to make better informed opinions of what they should or should not eat on a regular basis? quote:You're gonna need to unpack what you think is "real food" and "nutritional benefits". FYI, we've had liquid meals that doctors consider to be wholly suitable for long term living for decades on end, Ensure and other such products. Real food is the kind of food that people find relatable. A lot of people don't have the money for doctor-approved shakes, or don't have knowledge to sift through similar looking products, or prefer to eat things because they're more familiar. Most Americans eat things that don't lead to nutritional deficiencies, as you said. Get them to eat less of it, and obesity declines.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Yes Do you know of any other weird yuppie scams? My favourites are all the varieties of fried starchy vegetables like yams or carrots squash chips/fries that are exactly the same as potato chips but come in "artisanal" plastic packaging and old-fashioned font.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:43
|
|
