|
Most obese people are not nutritionally deficient in anything except the nutrients in which people of normal weight are commonly deficient (like vitamin D, vitamin B6, iron in women). Deficiencies vary quite a bit by things like race and ethnicity, or by income, but not by BMI. I truly have no idea why this is an argument. People are fat, ultimately, because they overeat. Their dietary choices influence overeating. This is not only through the lack of satiety from a given food, but also by certain foods that actually promote increased hunger. There are, therefore, foods that will make it more difficult to stick to a diet that allows one to maintain weight. It's a misnomer to call these "unhealthy foods," but they are still foods that should be limited in the context of a diet because it is nearly impossible to have a healthy diet that involves a substantial amount of them. Many of these foods fall into the very arbitrary and very loosely defined category of "processed foods," so even when people use that poo poo garbage term, they might be making a reasonable point. There are also foods which make it very difficult to overeat, and many of these fall into the very arbitrary and very loosely defined category of "whole foods," so even when people use that poo poo garbage term, they might be making a reasonable point. Thank you for your time.
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Some ways of eating X calories will leave you more hungry than others. This is all that most posters are trying to say.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And those ways are so variable among different people that there's none you can recommend to the average person, sight unseen. Absolutely false. There are many foods which universally promote satiety relative to calories, such as lean protein and fibrous vegetables. There are many foods which universally promote hunger/reward relative to calories, such as high sugar candies and baked goods, sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes. What is up to the individual is finding a balance that allows for a sustainable diet at below maintenance calories. Moreover, though at no point have I been obese, I personally lost 20 pounds several years ago without feeling any more hungry than on a diet where I was gaining weight. It is possible, given intelligent food choices, and aided by exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:None of that's good enough to make up for suddenly eating thousands fewer calories per day less than you used to. And that's what you need to do start getting down from obesity. Again, assuming you aren't going to get a lot of it out of the way through lipo or similar interventions. Yes, but: (1) That does not mean there are not different degrees of hunger. You are not either hungry or not hungry. Food choice will influence this. (2) Someone who is 300 lbs can begin eating like someone who is 280 lbs, and reduce calories further as they lose weight, rather than immediately eating the calories for their goal weight. This is actually the standard medical recommendation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Fishmech, sorry, but you are fundamentally and provably wrong. If you do not believe it is possible to lose an average of ~2 lbs/week while fully comfortable and energetic, go ask YLLS about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Just not eating all they wanted already makes them not fully comfortable dude. Change is not comfortable. People don't get fat because eating too much is unenjoyable. You are wrong. People often settle on diets that make them feel better than before. Are you projecting?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Autistic? Not autistic? It is not false. It is in fact a dichotomy. Anyway, literally nobody important in public health, nutrition, or obesity research agrees with fishmech so we should all let him have his moment and move the gently caress on. The best case scenario here is that we end the discussion with him thinking that he's smarter than everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Before now, I thought it was self-evident and common sense that there exist behavioral strategies that can make eating fewer calories easier, but I guess you can't assume anything in D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Crystal Geometry posted:I don't think this is what he's actually arguing. Given how he mentions YLLS and stuff I think it's quite clear that fishmech understands this. I think he's saying that these strategies don't work unless the person is committed to them, and that creating such commitment on a macro level isn't possible. Odd interpretation. The claim I'm reading is that there are no guidelines or strategies that can help a greater number of people remain committed to losing weight than saying "eat less."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
http://www.satin-satiety.eu/project-overview/quote:Why do some foods fill us up quicker than others? Food experts understood that flavour, texture and visual appeal of foods contribute to the sensation of being “full”. The SATIN research project is dedicated to identify which ingredients and processing methods of several food components (proteins, carbohydrates, fats) and categories (bread, fish, dairy etc.) accelerate satiation, suppress appetite and extend satiety until hunger appears again. Satiety-enhancing foods can help with energy intake and weight control. There are existing foods that will fit into this framework; it doesn't require novel formulation. http://www.full4health.eu/project/ quote:Obesity is a major public health problem across the developed and developing world. Fundamentally, overweight and obesity is the consequence of calories ingested as food and drink exceeding those that are expended through metabolism, thermogenesis and activity. Excess calories are stored as body fat (adipose tissue). Accumulation of excess body fat is associated with metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease that have a major impact on longevity and quality of life. Although a number of drugs have reached the market for the treatment of obesity, most of these have subsequently been withdrawn due to the emergence of unacceptable side effects. This has provided additional impetus to attempts to develop dietary strategies for the obesogenic environment, and specifically for a food solution to address the issue of over-consumption of calories and the consequences of this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
It's incredibly difficult to eat 2,500+ calories in grilled chicken breast and broccoli compared to 2,500+ calories in the things obese people actually eat. That's not really up for debate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
I'm sure people are sitting down and plowing through 6-8 chicken breasts in one meal all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:Except carbs, which have a ton more calories than most things so you shouldn't eat them. Um I'm really tired of playing the "are they trolling or just stupid" game in this forum
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Fat people certainly have done it and do it, so it's stupid to tout any foods as "a thing you can eat all you want of and not get fat". If you were just trying to say "if you eat a reasonable portion you won't get fat" then hello, that's also every food ever. Though someone else was, I wasn't saying anything as extreme as "you can't gain weight on mostly chicken," because people do that (but usually deliberately). I'm saying that the dude who eats mostly chicken is far less likely to gain weight than the dude who eats mostly fast food and sweets, because you need to eat a comparatively massive volume and weight of food to get the same calories off of chicken. Most people get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a pound of lean meat, whereas most people don't get a "stop eating" signal when they've worked through a Big Gulp of soda.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Don't argue with me about things I'm not trying to argue about like "lol there's chicken in fast food", I'm disproving the following moronic claim: "Calorie for calorie, all foods provide the same satiety response." The research programmes I posted about upthread are fundamentally based on the idea this is not true; most public health solutions are based on the idea that this is not true; the demonstrated short-term success of food-class-restricted diets in RCTs is explained by this not being true; and I can't imagine you can find a single legitimate citation that claims it is true. In contrast, it's trivial to find articles that claim the opposite, that calorie for calorie, different foods produce different satiety responses. Five seconds of effort got me this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 quote:OBJECTIVE: BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You definitely feel more full after 600 calories of steak or chicken than 600 calories of pizza or chips. Part of it has to do with the body's glycemic response to simple carbohydrates. I'm debating whether this is worthwhile to point out, but I'm pretty sure the relationship between glycemic index and hunger is weak at best. e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968699 It's a bit more complicated than just carbs -> insulin -> hungry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It is correct that your experience that you can shovel a whole bunch of pizza in your mouth and don't want to do the same for chicken is irrelevant. So stop saying it. The same is true at a population level. Calorie for calorie, chicken breast is more satiating than pizza. It may or may not be universal, but it certainly is true for the majority.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're aware pizza with chicken on it exists right? To consider them to be entirely seperate things is folly. I did not see that one coming! That's creativity!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:and people's tastes vary so widely that there's little to recommend. Due to the way many people's tastes and preferences run, what one person could happily sit and eat all day is what another person might only be able to stand a moderate amount of, and a third person would outright refuse. This has been refuted by published research, including, but not limited to, studies that I already posted. There is no universal diet plan. There are individual foods which are more or less satiating, universally, because of their physical nature and how human beings respond to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:While these posts can't both be wrong, they both have the same serious flaw. fishmech claims to know something about every single food (there is no individual food for which a person won't vary), and BRAKE FOR MOOSE claims to know something about every single person (there is a food for which all people don't vary). Neither of these can be supported. This is true, and it is a mistake in logic. Since it is not essential to my point, I will back off on "universally." Some of the major contributors to satiety are volume, palatability, and protein, fat, and fiber content. Individuals are likely (if not certain) to vary in sensitivity for things like stomach mechanosensation, sweet taste perception, and hormonal response to macronutrients, so individuals will certainly have different subjective satiety ratings. That the effect exists, and is strong enough to pick up in the kinds of studies that nutrition scientists do, is sufficient ground to block out foods into groups of "high satiety" and "low satiety" as recommendations to the general population. In other words, foods at the low and high ends of the "satiety index" are likely to be low and high across the population, because it depends on basic biological mechanisms that are essential in metabolism. The important take-home is that this makes it effective advice for food choice: if you want to feel more full for fewer calories, try these foods. This is useful advice to incorporate into a diet plan, since consistent adherence is the #1 problem. This doesn't solve non-homeostatic eating (not hungry, but eating anyway, out of habit or desire for some taste) but it certainly makes things more pleasant. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I really haven't seen the evidence of the opposite of my post, which is a food that every human being both loves and will happily eat a whole lot of. Who ever said you had to love it? You don't have to love it. You have to eat it. We're explaining why you don't have to be hungry to lose weight. Not claiming that weight loss is easy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
FSMC posted:Fishmesh doesn't believe what he is saying though. The issue isn't that he's stupid or wrong, it's that he thinks he's more intelligent than everyone and can out argue anyone whatever their position is. He is simply trolling, and the fact most people don't notice and argue with him, means he's pretty good at it.. It's usually interesting because he makes people fix their bad arguments, and this forum is bad argument central. It's just annoying when he's either clearly wrong and losing badly (e.g. here), or is only right when he totally misrepresents what people are saying (e.g. Uber). More often than not I actually find it interesting, as opposed to posters like MIGF, Arkane, etc. I like to engage because it forces me to think about the words I'm using when talking about something I care about. And also, because Fishmech is fat and I thought there was the outside chance he might have internalized what he's saying out of self-sabotage. I'm done now though, because I finished making my points.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
To be completely fair, most HAES bloggers or "fat activists" are the mobile obese. They aren't anywhere near 500lbs. They're fine with moderate walking and swimming (and the new craze is pole dancing...) The people who are scooting around in motorized wheelchairs aren't as delusional as the people who are living normal lives but obese. And that is the sinister part - these people have decent bloodwork and post videos of them being not entirely sedentary and extrapolate that to perfect health. Most of these people are not having health problems now aside from limited physical endurance (which, as they'll note, is true for anyone who doesn't exercise), but they are at massive risk for health problems as they age. I wonder if there are any "body positivity" people out there who openly poo poo on HAES. I've seen some who will never say a word about it (e.g. plus size fashion bloggers) but I get the impression that their audience wouldn't tolerate the suggestion that losing weight is a good idea even if you're happy in your body. That seems so weird to me, but I've never been in their shoes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 16:57
|
|