Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?

«‹›2 »

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Cheapest in terms of caloric density maybe, but most filling definitely not. Many processed foods are specifically designed to not be filling. From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&:

quote:

To get a better feel for their work, I called on Steven Witherly, a food scientist who wrote a fascinating guide for industry insiders titled, �Why Humans Like Junk Food.� I brought him two shopping bags filled with a variety of chips to taste. He zeroed right in on the Cheetos. �This,� Witherly said, �is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.� He ticked off a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say more. But the one he focused on most was the puff�s uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. �It�s called vanishing caloric density,� Witherly said. �If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there�s no calories in it . . . you can just keep eating it forever.�

Sugary drinks are the best/worst example of that, as our bodies don't handle liquid calories well at all: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...d626a36e215.pdf

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 05:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:18

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

khwarezm posted:

Additionally the poor state of education, lack of availability of good cheap food and lack of time to exercise makes it very difficult for them to easily fix the problem.

It depends on how we define "good cheap food." The conservative standby of :bahgawd:

beans and rice :bahgawd:

is cheap, filling, fairly nutritious, and pretty good when made properly (I made some just the other day). But it's never going to be good in the same way that an oreo is, nor is it as cheap in caloric density terms (but that's not necessarily a bad thing if the goal is weight loss). It's also going to taste like a pile of dirt if you just dump plain canned beans on because you never learned how to cook.

And exercise isn't really important here. At best it can provide minor benefits compared to diet, at worst it can cause people to overestimate calories they burned and overeat because they "earned" it.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 14:19

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

endlessmonotony posted:

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.

People spreading lies like this doesn't help either.

Eating less resulting in weight loss:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2006.146/full
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...31630000000.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...b0359000000.pdf

Blood lipids after weight loss:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/56/2/320.full.pdf

quote:

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.
...
Health at any size is still dumb though. If you're fat, then you ain't healthy.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 15:03

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

endlessmonotony posted:

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.

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

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 16:31

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

endlessmonotony posted:

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.

(citation needed)

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 16:57

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

endlessmonotony posted:

1

Yes, I knew what HSL is already. That doesn't provide any evidence for your claim.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 17:16

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Tesseraction posted:

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.

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.

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.

The body is not that sensitive to starvation: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69.long?view=long&pmid=15640462

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 17:39

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

mobby_6kl posted:

^^^
I can't confirm personally, but Chipotle is frequently recommended as decent fast food option for a high protein/low everything else meal for fitness/BB.

Chipotle is fine in an athletic context. It's not fine in a "sedentary office worker eating an entire burrito for lunch" context.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 18:22

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Protein and fiber actually would help soda if it's able to cause satiety. Part of why caloric soda is a huge problem is because it's handled like water in the gut. Adding lots of milk protein would help, though at that point you could just make a protein shake

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 18:42

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

SlipUp posted:

There is no reasonable middle ground with the HAES movement. Even acknowledging that there is a problem is considered a personal attack.

Also, people usually use running as the ideal weight loss exercise, but it's really not. A beginner's strength building exercise is much better for actually burning fat but many give up on these early because the actual weight loss doesn't present immediately due to the weight of the new muscle.

I have heard overweight people who didn't want to weight train because they were concerned that the muscle would be unattractive. Some people just don't have the will to lose weight or the will to admit their own short comings.

Weight training doesn't burn a significant amount of fat though

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 23:02

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Mr. Wookums posted:

Define "burn;" it's better than cardio.

I can't find studies for weight training right now, but running is around 100 calories per mile: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22446673/

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 23:41

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Onion Knight posted:

Weight training is way better for losing fat, though, because muscle maintenance will passively burn more calories. A totally idle person with very little muscle will burn far fewer calories than an idle person with lots of muscle.

This is another pernicious fitness myth: http://weightology.net/muscle/the-50-calorie-per-pound-of-muscle-myth.html/

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 03:42

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Inferior Third Season posted:

It's not a "myth" just because it isn't some arbitrarily high number. Even the guy is saying that he gets an extra 200 calories per day extra burn from the muscle mass, which is a considerable fraction of a 2000-3000 calorie diet.

I guess if you want to consider a 10% change a huge increase you can :shrug:

The time spent just maintaining that mass could be spent doing cardio to burn an equivalent amount

deptstoremook posted:

If overeating is an addiction, then the intervention of "telling overeaters to eat less food" is about as effective as "telling heroin addicts to use less heroin;" raising awareness about the negative health effects of obesity is about as effective as raising awareness about the negative health effects of smoking.

You mean in that it works? Maybe not so much for getting people to quit, but public health campaigns have worked to break the cycle of new tobacco users. Additionally, raising awareness can spur innovation that attempts to create healthier alternatives (like e-cigarettes)

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 18:06

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

^^^ http://aspirebariatrics.com/about-the-aspireassist/

OneEightHundred posted:

Totally unrelated: The focus on soda might be a red herring. While soda sucks, the increase of soda consumption from the past 3 decades has been almost entirely at the expense of milk and orange juice consumption. While that's obviously not an improvement nutritionally, the net calorie difference from that is almost nothing. People are drinking different liquid calories, not more.

Orange juice sure, but milk is different from other liquid calories. It's more satiating (due to the fact casein coagulates in the stomach) and its calories tend to be compensated for better in terms of eating less food. That makes it unique among caloric beverages (except protein shakes).

Arglebargle III posted:

Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that?

Cultural revolution

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 19:38

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

OneEightHundred posted:

The main thing that would help is just requiring restaurants to list the calorie counts of items.

Oh and that calorie count printed on the front of the packaging in a way that's highly visible thing that a bunch of companies have started doing needs to be mandatory.

The studies on restaurant calorie labeling haven't found it to do much of anything: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123618/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719868/

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 03:51

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

The chicken burger is called a double down, and the worst thing about it is that it's the food equivalent of clickbait. Oh no, chicken, bacon, and cheese, those totally aren't things people eat at home all the time :rolleyes:

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 06:05

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

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.

We keep talking about throwing fad diets out and moving towards a model of having better habits, but that lack of control and stability can be a significant hurdle.

Cooking nutritious meals doesn't take enormous amounts of time or effort unless you want it to

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 15:22

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Solkanar512 posted:

You must have missed the part where I was talking about the effort required to change all sorts of habits for the long term. I don't really care if you have a 10 minute recipe for boiled chicken breast and raw veggies because that isn't the point. We're talking about changing habits (eating, exercise and sleep) for a lifetime here, not your favorite way to season rice and beans.

Yes, and the habits to be developed are not difficult. It's like saying after long shifts at work there's no time to brush your teeth

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 15:48

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Solkanar512 posted:

No one can shop/prepare/cook/eat a healthy meal in the time it takes to brush one's teeth. Nor can they go for a run or get a good night's sleep. This is an incredibly bad comparison.

Help me d&d, what is a simile :confused:

What you're missing is that it's not about lack of time. All the time in the world can't give you carrots that taste like oreos.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 16:22

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Solkanar512 posted:

You're being absolutely ridiculous if you think that the inability for many people to have control over a or simply plan a significant portion of their day isn't a real hurdle towards improving long term habits. How about addressing the points I'm making rather than whining that I won't accept your terrible framing?

You aren't making any points. Putting frozen vegetables in the microwave and seasoning doesn't take more than a few minutes. Making rice doesn't take more than a few minutes, and is easier than brushing your teeth if you have a $10 rice cooker. Putting salad in a bowl and mixing with dressing doesn't take more than a few minutes. These things are all easy to do, and having more time won't make them happen for more people.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 16:47

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Ervin K posted:

If someone doesn't feel any of those things then I don't see how you can get them to do anything, no amount of new government regulations will do anything.

Oh there are ways:

Anyway, saying "personal choice" is just a cop-out. It doesn't answer the question is to why so many more people are fat now than a century ago.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 18:17

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Cole posted:

Because terrible food is way more plentiful than it was a century ago and physical activity has overall gone down with the rise of the internet and video games.

Exactly. And while many attempted solutions recognize the problem, they simple nibble around the edges. People are less active because they spend all day at sedentary jobs instead of labor-intensive ones like agriculture. Going back to jobs like that is neither feasible nor desirable, and suggestions like "walk 30 minutes three times per week" barely make a dent. If you aren't active at your job, it takes a lot of dedication to generate the enormous calorie deficits we don't have anymore.

When talking about food, there's thousands of one weird tricks out there. They all "work" if and only if they're able to get someone to stop eating so much calorie-dense stuff. It's a literal marshmallow test, and unfortunately it's human nature to fail it.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 18:34

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

computer parts posted:

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.

Some of it is the proportions of what foods are available. Calorically dense, non-satiating foods like oreos could've been made by someone in the 19th century, but the price would've been too high for most people. Nowadays they're cheap and plentiful.

People still eat foods high in protein and fiber (which are important to satiation), but nowadays the salad is drowning in oil, the burger is on a highly sweetened white bread bun, etc.

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. What magical solution do you have that will save all these people who apparently have no control over their lives? There seems to be a handful of people in this thread who seem to be absolutely terrified at the idea of personal responsibility and just cant accept that some solution that doesn't involve some massive government intervention is all we have. So please do let me know what you have.

In order for it to be an answer to the question "why do people get fat?", willpower would have had to change in some way over the past century, which is doubtful.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 19:16

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Ervin K posted:

Why do you think that?

What would have caused willpower to change then?

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 19:48

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

computer parts posted:

A reminder that both of these proposals will disproportionately target poor minority women.

Combine it with universal food stamps, or better yet, a universal basic income

# ¿ Nov 26, 2015 02:15

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

The fact that people can learn to like new foods later in life is irrelevant. Sugar and fat still hit special buttons, and that happens no matter the culture. Even in Japan people are consuming more fast foods and sugared sodas. They just have extremely strong cultural and legal consequences for obesity that we don't: http://www.ibtimes.com/japan-has-many-problems-obesity-isnt-one-them-1038090

Also lol at reducing an entire nation's cuisine to "Mexican food? That's kids stuff, right?"

# ¿ Nov 27, 2015 14:22

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

"Added" sugars are nutritionally no different than other sugars, what's the point in requiring labeling for them?

# ¿ Nov 27, 2015 18:36

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

From the tooth perspective, setting a DV for sugars makes about as much sense as one for trans fats. For overall health, it's difficult to differentiate "simple sugars" from other carbs at least if you're not diabetic. The only exception that that is fructose, which seems to start causing metabolic issues at around 50 grams per day: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Abstract/2010/07000/Fructose,_Exercise,_and_Health.15.aspx

# ¿ Nov 27, 2015 23:44

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Apple juice straight from the apple has zero added sugar but has as much actual sugar as an equal amount of coke, and isn't much more nutritious either! That's why talking about "added sugars" is dumb; there's nothing inherently good about sugars native to a food

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 16:20

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Where are we getting 145 calories? The numbers I've seen are more like 100 calories per mile for running, which is less energy efficient than walking

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 18:37

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

LeeMajors posted:

I have never once said it was. 20g of sugar in an apple is better for you than 20g of table sugar, however. Objectively. Because of bioavailability. What *is* useful is knowing how much sugar was added by the manufacturer.

That's great, but talking about added sugars won't lead to selling apples, it'll lead to selling things like apple juice. We've already see McDonald's push it as the ~healthy alternative~ for kids. It'll lead to sweeteners like maple syrup and honey used to get around "no added sugar." Food manufacturers will never care about health when accouterments of health work just as well

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 19:37

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

SlipUp posted:

Weight yoyoing is super unhealthy

This is common knowledge that actually isn't supported by the studies

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 23:03

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

SlipUp posted:

I've listened four different studies that show that not only does eating less not work due to the neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes a reduced caloric intake causes, but that eating healthier and exercise in combination is the best way to lose weight, and there is a scientific consensus of this.

None of the sources the SANE page cited were studies. Two were books and two were review articles on fructose. I'd note that none of them were actually cited in the SANE page, instead being tacked on at the end, and the SANE page didn't specifically mention fructose at all.

SlipUp posted:

This is disproved by the sources I listed on this page.

Did you read them?

# ¿ Nov 29, 2015 18:20

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

SlipUp posted:

So your issue is with the sources editing, well okay then. I did read them.

What do you think of the study I posted earlier regarding our conversation about the health effects of yoyo weightloss? That is something of which there isn't a consensus but there is some research that does indicate that it exists.

Yes, there are a few epidemiological studies. More studies have been done (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205264/), and while the evidence isn't conclusive it appears that confounding factors were causing the apparent unhealthiness.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2015 18:58

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Lots of food science is about trying to do that, but anything you eat has to come out somewhere. Things like the sugar alcohols and olestra lower calories at the expense of GI issues.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2015 20:28

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Zero carb diets aren't actually that dangerous except for the whole being tired and smelling bad thing; in fact epileptic kids have been kept on them for years. Glucose can be synthesized in the body

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 22:22

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

0.8 pounds per month is not an impossible to calculate amount in terms of diet. Cutting out a single can of soda per day would be more than enough

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 19:47

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Flaky should come back to YLLS and call me a shill again when I point out how unreliable self-reported food intake data is

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 06:14

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Coylter posted:

What did you seriously take that as a "Eat only beans" statement.

They sell them in a can which you can mix with tomato paste or something and are absolutely fine to eat. I ate cans of straight beans as my lunch for over a year and they never lost their appeal. Beans are delicious.

Yes, people who do not eat have a low BMI. It's important to have a diet that is conductive to living.

Jesus loving christ.

Tell me what a "processed food" is and how your definition doesn't include tomato paste

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 21:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:18

Series DD Funding: Nov 25, 2014; by exmarx

Coylter posted:

It's within my personnal limits to what i consider acceptable. Look i'm not an extremist lol.

So "foods I like are good, foods I don't like are bad" then

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 22:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should we take thin privilege and health at any size more seriously?

«‹›2 »