|
I think the biggest issue is that people just haven't gotten used to the idea that you have to pay attention to what you eat. Unless you break out the food scale it's really easy to go a couple hundred calories over on lunch (especially if you fill up your soda for the road) then snack, then dinner, and suddenly you are slowly gaining a pound a month over the next x years.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
It's really weird and sad seeing people get caught up on loving stupid technical details cuz it's so important for them to be right and slip be wrong. Of loving course keeping the weight off matters. If at any given time 10% of the current obese population has dropped to a healthy weight, but overall everyone ends up yoyoing back then we haven't actually done anything but make a graph look nicer. Reading this thread the best way to lose weight is to stop eating. Period. Also the easiest. And best. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Are people lazy because their office workplace has a traditional desk and chair, like every office forever until recently? It's not like the fact that your sitting makes any job automatically easy or relaxing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
SlipUp, you should really just give up. Fishmech and computer parts don't care about people, they don't care about health or who is losing weight or how to keep weight off, they care about you being wrong. That's their only goal in this thread, to 'beat' you in this 'debate'. Everyone arguing with any good faith at all knows that if it were as easy as "just eat less durp" then obviously we wouldn't have a massive public health crisis looming. Edt- not on the thread, but on those two. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
It's a good thing we live in a frictionless sphere of social existence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What are you even trying to get at, at this point? Cole posted:This thread was really informative like ten pages ago but now its kind of just people seeing who can be the rightest. But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Example: "Calories in matter, but calories out don't. If you increase calories out people just eat more. If you reduce calories in the pounds just melt away." Hahha or effectronica. Jesus. "Calories out is hard therefore they don't matter." Health? wellbeing? Actual long term change created through a combination of a number of good habits slowly built up over time? Nah, gotta be pedantic and win that internet. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Everyone keeps saying "x is easy" but no one really has an agreed upon definition for "easy". That goes for both individual people everywhere trying to do the 'easy' thing and for posters on this board arguing about what is "easy" without saying what "easy" actually means. Maybe "easy" isn't a useful word in this discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:4. Added sugar I will absolutely agree that he was right about this. I think he's completely off base about the other argument, but he is absolutely right about this one. "Added sugar" is absolutely a useless phrase.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I only eat raw carrots and dry cereal, AMA. Where do you tend to land on the bristol scale?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Everyone is focusing way too much on coffee when the point is about how the American pallate is trained to love the foods that are least healthy. Because saying JUST EAT LESS sounds great but maybe it's ok to look at why that's hard for people. Having to pour extra calories in thing to make them palatable, such as but not exclusive to coffee, is in fact a thing people do that contributes to their weight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Right. All I was saying was our tendency towards overly sweet or fatty things, especially given the rise of sweeteners in 'low fast' foods, is going to contribute to the general problem of Americans eating too many calories. Acting like palates aren't a thing is absurd. Just look at Hershey's chocolate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have evidence for this "palate training" thing? No, I never said a word about palate training. I don't know why you put it in quotes. Edit- oh further up. I was just using his phrasing. If you are going to pretend palates and acquired tastes aren't a thing I'm not going to engage you at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hershey's chocolate isn't any less healthy then the chocolate they have in England or whatever, it just tastes different. For that matter a lot of Americans consider English sweets and chocolates to be too sweet or too intense. I wasn't talking about Hershey's and obesity, but Hershey's and palate. Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a evidentiary basis or a causal explanation for how palates and "acquired tastes" function, or how they influence obesity rates? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Yeah there is no way to determine if one source of calories is better for you than another at all ever. Why are you even posting in this thread? You live in a very different reality from the rest of us, you should post on that world's food thread. fishmech posted:And again, coffee in basic preparation is an acquired taste. Other things people eat have nothing to do with that. People can acquire a taste for coffee, but not a taste for other things, say food overloaded with sugars and saturated fats. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Careful fishmech, you are coming dangerously close to making it sound like this has any nuance
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You're Fishmeching again. Your point is trivially true and irrelevant. Please stop. I'm pretty sure he can't help it. He's literally said fishmech posted:You can't adjust tastes to enjoy bland or lightly seasoned vegetables as much as foods that are practically tailor made to appeal to our senses of taste and smell. fishmech posted:I think this concern is utterly ridiculous. Especially because "ridiculous" flavors tend to be novelties and gimmicks that don't actually taste good. Like there's no way this Mountain Dew sauce wings is going to taste good enough that someone will prefer it. He has also pounded the "Only calories" drum all thread fishmech posted:You take the things you eat, and you eat the same things, but less of them. It's simple. You avoid switching to other foods and mistakenly eating more. People just don't bother to do it Yet suddenly when it is expedient for him to 'win' there's a lot more nuance about what works for different people and what doesn't. fishmech posted:Because, for example, a lot of people found it was easiest for them to cut to the requisite low calorie rates needed to not get fat if they avoided fats. Other people, sugars. Other people, carbs in general. Still other people did it by only eating foods that at are green in color. Others swear by never eating anything red or purple. Basically there are assloads of things you can do that for a particular person, can get them into eating the necessary low amount of calories. They all work equally well, and none of them work at all if the person manages to overeat anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There's no contradiction there. He's expressing these as methods of getting people to eat fewer calories, as he says right in the passage you've quoted. It's saddening how quickly people let their fury blind them in the case of fishmech. All diets are fads until it became expedient for them not to be. Edit- This also seems pretty contradictory. fishmech posted:The idea that the horror of things tasting good is what's causing people to be fat is hilarious, and tends to betray a lack of understanding of just how little is needed to be added for things to be appealing even to the dreaded Guy Who Eats McDonald's A Lot. fishmech posted:You can't adjust tastes to enjoy bland or lightly seasoned vegetables as much as foods that are practically tailor made to appeal to our senses of taste and smell. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Watch out this guy's got a platitude!Discendo Vox posted:drat it, I have work to do! let me live, thread! I'll tell you what little I know on this in a couple hours. The fun thing about any area of scientific research is it takes like a minute of scratching the surface to start seeing massive problems in practice. You are the best poster you can't leave!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Take your foodie puritanism bullshit to the dumpster of history where it belongs. My what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Please explain how your position is different from his alleged strawman?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're the one making GBS threads up the thread because you insist on exclusively meta discussion. It's also interesting that you think hundreds of millions being healthy or not is "trivial" but whatever. As far as I can tell your solution to the problem is billboards that say "Eat less food, fattie." everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's the only thing that actually applies to all overweight people, or even a plurality, let alone a majority. But specifically "keep eating what you love to eat now, just eat less of it". Why do you insist on only the broadest possible approach to the point of absurdity? Why cannot others engage in a discussion of other approaches and their possible effectiveness? For example, more focused mental health efforts for those on who are depressed, possibley suicidal, due to their obesity? http://www.suicide.org/morbid-obesity-depression-and-suicide.html Perhaps even exercise regimes, which are show to help with depression and will help build exercise habits to encourage health when goal weight is eventually reached. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why do you, apparently, want to focus on solutions that will only work for a tiny fraction of the population in question and backfire or do nothing for the rest? What makes you think I want to do that? I'd like to have a discussion about anything other than "eat less, fattie." at this point. The meta discussion you so loathe is a refreshing change. Do you have some data on what works on various portions of the population? I'd be interested to read it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because you express anger at the discussion of the real, globally applicable, solution. And the rest are what I described. No. Accusing other people of anger on the internet is a silly and childish thing to do since tone can't be read as easily as you pretend. fishmech posted:
Hmm. Perhaps efforts to incentive people would be effective. At my workplace our healthcare coverage includes small cash rewards for engaging in some basic data gathering and health rewards for people who start engaging in their program. The goal of the program is clearly long term cost reduction. Perhaps a government backed, wider spread version of the same thing could work. It could help bring individualized help to people as well as create environments where people could feel a sense of community in achieving their health and weight goals. Obviously it should be paired with further outreach to destigmatize mental health.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I have genuinely enjoyed this conversation. Perhaps now that it's clear what you think the thread can carry on without you bringing it up every time anyone says anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're wrong, because you try to conflate "people won't comply" with "will it work". And that's about as stupid as saying chemotherapy doesn't work because some people refuse to take it. And you're also wrong, because you act like it's the hardest to comply with when it's the easiest to comply with long enough to exit obesity and enter normal weight ranges. Easy is not a productive word in this conversation. You've already acknowledged in the thread that different approaches work for different people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Fishmech is basically Dr. Rudi Sometimes he says smart things but for now he's going on ignore forever. Shut the gently caress up, fishmech. Zodium posted:No, it doesn't "apply to all overweight people" without qualification. "Eat less" falls under the same efficacy category as many other diets, namely "It would theoretically work for all overweight people, if we could ensure compliance," but we can't, like every other diet. People are yelling that you're a moron because you're obliviously ignoring the compliance issue, which is actually the only issue worth discussing. hth I still like the idea of wider spread incentivization of health improvement. Everyone likes money.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the other hand, "eat less" doesn't have the externalities of many other diets, and their associated negative social consequences, so it's still superior. quote:Only a lickspittle would brag about this. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It, um, really does, though. There can be specific dietary approaches to consuming fewer calories, but what I referred to as a "type 1" diet, reducing calories in, is pretty much categorically the best diet to use unless you have fairly specific health conditions. I think you are misunderstanding what I was disagreeing with. Well, that and wanting to discuss the approach without continuous bombardment of "HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS I CLAIM DONT WORK" but that problem is solved now. Eating less overall is the way to go, but it's difficult for people. The approach is what I was arguing. It needs to be broader than "eat less fatty." Perhaps "Try combinations of diet and activity til you find one that produces results while building good habits both health and nutrition-wise. Here are some starting points..." and maybe a bit of "way to go not gaining any significant weight this year, here's a $100 gift card" as well. edit- This is a super interesting thing you shared. Random bit I liked quote:Ross described evidence from his work showing what happens when people in the regulated zone both increase their physical activity and consume more calories relative to baseline. He and his research team found that when participants, both men and women, exercised an additional 50-60 minutes daily for 4 months and consumed an additional 500-700 calories Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I find this entire line of argument to be attempting to equate morality to fitness ... The fit people at the gym are "good" and so wouldn't do a "bad" thing. No one said that. Biking on the sidewalk if you have any sort of speed at all is super dangerous. You might need a therapist or something, not kidding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
A lot of people aren't keeping track of any of it though and that's who he is talking about. They do more or less the same thing food-wise but get sedentary without thinking about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Flaky, are you trying to make a point or just trying to poo poo on the guy for sharing a story I honestly can't tell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:You're confusing claims about a product "vitamin b-12 supports blood health" with claims about what the product is "this contains vitamin b-12". It's sort of legal to lie about the former for supplements, but not the latter The question, again, isn't in legality but in actual enforcement. It's also illegal for me to go 5 miles over the speed limit yet here I sit home from work seconds earlier than the earliest I could legally arrive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Seems like they might have lower body fat at least. Could this be a correlation to vegans being more health conscientious generally? Even if they aren't actually healthier, they are already baseline paying more attention to their food.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Fishmech takes all arguments completely out of social context. Or any of the context in which they are being used. "A minor dose of arsenic every 10 years is actually good for you therefore eating appleseeds is healthy". He's not even technically correct because i bet if i plan it right I can eat a small chunk of iron "healthily" in his metric. Everyone else should just continue to use the sliding scale as normal. Broccoli is healthy, a coldstone creamery sundae is not.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I agree with fishmech on HFCS though. A lot of people get led to believe that high-fructose corn syrup (aka mostly "fruit sugar" from corn, dissolved in water and a lot of the water evaporated) is somehow worse for you than cane sugar (ooh how natural and raw) and buy some feel-good label cane sugar soda even though it's still just sugar dissolved in water. HFCS is sugar and it's okay to call it sugar and recognize that the entire sugar category is what's often metabolized into fat before the consumer can use it for physical activity, not one scapegoat with an industrial-sounding name. Oh yeah, those people are the same people that think fukushima is going to wipe out all life in California in 3 years. its been "in 3 years" since it happened. gently caress those people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Flaky posted:quoting this for posterity He refuses to discuss outside of the context of "Rule One: Don't die. Rule 2: Less calories (and/or direct fat extraction)." Both of which I will stipulate are absolutely true. When I'm bored at work tomorrow I'm going to look for information about awareness of the degree to which people are endangering their health. Presumably their doctors are telling them, so how much of this comes from people not seeing a doctor regularly? What can we do to improve outreach about weight loss? Maybe we should treat it as a public health crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I did not see that one coming! That's creativity! Fishmech will always be right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Shutup.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:WELL I GUESS THEN WE HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE Great, are we allowed to have this thread without fishmechs constant input yet? all he does is drag the discussion down I can't believe he doesn't get banned for that poo poo. He's literally smothering discussion, stop engaging.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 16:03
|
|