|
evilweasel posted:I just really don't get how anyone can reconcile the reality that obesity is increasing and the argument that weight is based on factors outside the person's control like genetics. Cole posted:Actually the problem, in my opinion, is that I can get a cheeseburger for $1.06 or if I'm feeling crazy, I can get a burger from KFC that has pieces of chicken instead of a bun The thing that has less calories and more nutrients than the equivalent burger on a bun elsewhere? The thing that everyone freaked out about as a huge kneejerk reaction without actually considering the nutritional content? That thing? There is nothing unhealthy or bad with eating a McBurger or a Double Down or the three course meal at Carrabba's with loving alfredo sauce. It might be bad if that was all you ever ate, but if you take your total caloric intake (and any extra expenditures) during the day into consideration, you can still lose weight fairly rapidly. There is nothing inherently bad about most restaurant food. There is something very wrong with our instincts about HOW MUCH food to eat, given modern choices, convenience, and availability. Like so many other things, our intuitions are bad, but we can make up for that by realizing that our intuitions are bad and actively thinking about it - counting calories, for example. There are almost certainly edge cases with biological abnormalities that prevent the burning of stored fat or whatevs, but this minority is not the cause of the epidemic and so not germane to this topic. There is very little "bad food" to ban. If you make McDonalds limit meals to 700 calories (say) fatasses will just buy two or three. Almost all nutrition regulation, other than in labeling, is not a real solution. It's public health theatre. Clear, mass education about exactly what to do would be the most helpful thing. People are ignorant and they are too busy to give enough of a poo poo to research it - most people couldn't tell the real information from the bullshit anyway. There is so much misinformation from people selling you poo poo it isn't even funny. Make an independent government office with guaranteed funding (to keep the lobbyists as powerless as possible) that compiles, clarifies, and distributes dietary information to the public. poo poo, free dietitian and personal trainer consultations for everyone. Free food scales to everyone on food stamps. It would almost certainly pay for itself many times over. That's if you actually want to help people and reduce the drain on the medical establishment. If you just want to laugh at fatties or feel superior, then just tell them to stop being fat but don't address the culture of ignorance and overwhelming amount of $Big Fat$ misinformation.
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
I would be fine with a sin tax on foodstuffs completely absent of nutrition, like soda or candy. Heck, just removing the "this is food" qualifier from them would make then taxable in most places. I don't think this would do much, though. Regulation of portion size is almost as useless. Some few people might think twice about ordering a second portion/meal, but most wouldn't. We've already been convinced that serving sizes listed on products are both totally arbitrary and complete horseshit. The idea floated upthread about hitting foods that have certain calorie/nutrient/mass ratios seems intriguing at first glance, but in practice it would be a nightmare of loopholes. Serving size one Oreo comes to mind. What about buying a bag of sugar in the baking aisle? Ingredients are except, you say? Well this cheesecake is just an ingredient in the DQ Blizzard recipe printed inside the box! No more tax/labeling. Oops. It's all very regressive and punitive anyhow. Add more and better health information in schools. Provide everyone 18+ with free dietician consultations, and charge a fee for not going to them, Obamacare style. Make sure they are available at all hours or make people legally unpunishable at work for going, like jury duty. We can call them Life Panels. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
My very first quote is not edit, after all these years! Thanks phone posting! For content: on fat acceptance: we should be respectful and polite to all people. We should not be respectful of all ideas. The idea that a 400 pound, five foot tall woman is healthy is not a respectable idea and should not be treated as merely a different opinion or preference. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Combine it with universal food stamps, or better yet, a universal basic income These are both good ideas. After getting off food stamps, I realized that I was actually putting more consideration into eating cheap rather than healthy since that money could go to other things. Giving food-only money to everyone would promote health, and it would make it more acceptable to disinclude certain consumables like soda and candy from the program.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you want a sin tax based on a lie, and to further lie more. Ok. Let's be real here, as doing a tax on drinks that are like sodas would also apply to most juices, whether fresh from the fruit or not, most coffees people buy, and so on. Did you read my entire post or just sprain your finger mashing the quote button as soon as you saw something objectionable? Are you unable to discern tone and notice context? I said I would be "OK" with it, meaning I wouldn't put any real energy into fighting it, but that it probably wouldn't help. Yes, it might also apply to most juice and almost certainly should apply to 1200 kcal bottled Starbucks drinks. I went on to say that regulation like that is pretty stupid and useless and that free and heavily incentivised professional medical advice would probably work best. I'm on your side. loving chill
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Make walking in public while above a certain BMI/body fat percentage (whatever point that obesity is defined as beginning at) a citeable offense no different than smoking the chronic/smoking anything on public property is in some cities like Los Angeles.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This entire thread is just finding any reasons people are fat aside from "you eat too much and like poo poo and you need to exercise more" What you say is trivially true about individuals, but useless as a driver of public policy. You don't deal with an epidemic like you deal with that one guy you know. That position is just as absurd and counterproductive as the pro-austerity comparison of a national budget to a small family's bills.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:People already know being fat is bad, it's not like it's news to anyone or that running such a campaign would alert people that fat is bad which they didn't know before. People know in some vague way that being fat is bad, yes. Many, many people don't know just how bad. Also, the prevalence of beautiful at any size people on talk shows and whatnot trigger the intellectually lazy 'truth must be in the middle' mindset allowing people to justify being overweight as long as they can still buy clothes off the rack that fit. I really don't think the health effects are as well understood by the general public as you think they are. And people certainly don't know what to do about it and how to really change. Even putting some effort in, there are hugely contradictory sources of information out there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Cole posted:But it all comes down to the same basic principle: eat less. Even if it's less lovely foods. And that is pretty common knowledge. What everyone knows in 2015 if that the concept of "going on a diet" doesn't work. Also, the "eat less" basic idea leads to people eating salads with more calories than the burger they're skipping, freaking out about the double down, and buying into trendy packaging and marketing fads like "low fat" and "all natural" You could reduce the volume, mass, etc of your food intake and still be fatter it less healthy as a result. Serving sizes are intentionally obfuscated. It isn't obvious it simple, and takes time and mental effort that the people who need it most feel like they can't afford to invest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That people are willing to convince themselves "well it's ok for me" has little bearing on whether they actually know it's real bad. They don't need to know that +34 pounds of weight equals directly 167% increased risk of health condition subtype B, which is the level on which they "don't understand the health effects". Maybe the things I've already suggested upthread. Certainly not yelling at anyone. Free, incentivized health screenings and dietician consultations. Food scales. SNAP for all. Government funded independent help line for losing weight/ eating better/ being healthy. Market the poo poo out of " you can do it, we will help, it's free and you'll live longer and feel better and not have your foot amputated in your hoveround. Or resign ourselves to being the people from Wall-E, and just laugh at the fats while they eat away at our health care costs, smug in our own sense of superior intellect, willpower, and sexiness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:Then why does almost every woman's magazine you see at the checkout line have something about a fad diet on it? Why would you need a new fad diet every month if they worked? Desperate people grasp even at things they don't think will work. Also, few think "women's magazines" are serious journalism or nutrition advice, they are a fun distraction/ toilet read, and people like to take the tiny step of buying a magazine to tell themselves they're doing something about it, but don't actually follow through with anything. This is extremely common. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:None of that really helps. We haven't tried it. You don't know. Stop acting like you do. You suggestion of "everyone should eat less, buy we shouldn't tell them why it how" is stupid and useless. It's true that if everyone ate less they would weigh less, but that is a tautology, not a public policy suggestion. It is patently obvious that people simply don't know either how bad their situation is and/or realistic non-terrible things they can do about it. If we really care about the issue we should make it as easy as possible for any citizen who wants to make a change. If someone doesn't want to offer support, then the answer to the obesity epidemic for that person is "who the gently caress cares" which is fine, if misanthropic and antisocial, but kind of means they should find another topic to post about. As far as expanding SNAP, I can definitely tell you that it's psychologically easier to buy healthier food which is more expensive when you know you can't also use that same money to buy gas or video games. Admittedly, if prefer a BI or even GMI, but that's not germane to the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What? I have no problems with telling them how: you tell them to eat the same stuff they eat now, just less of it. And the why is "because then you won't be fat". This doesn't require a phd dissertation. quote:Define healthier food first. Because dollars to donuts what you think is healthier is in no way meaningfully better to eat to excess then the stuff they're already eating. I should have realized ahead of time that you were going to fishmech the hell out of everything and written out everything in absurd detail, possibly in crayon, so even you couldn't pretend to misunderstand. Some food is healthier than others, in the sense of providing more important nutrients, or more conducive to weight loss/maintenance, in the sense of having fewer calories, ON A PER VOLUME BASIS. This is important for several reasons. First, we humans expect a certain volume of food, both socially and biologicaly. If we could somehow eat 3000 calories (and all vital nutrients) in a single capsule, one per day, we would be miserable and hungry and feel awful. Since we are not bleep bloop robots, this is an intolerable situation for the vast majority of the population. There are foods that can keep us satiated without providing too many calories for our weight goals, but what they are, and even that they exist, is non-obvious. Furthermore, such micronutrient dense, macronutrient light foods do tend, as a rule, to be more expensive than their higher caloric density counterparts. Examples might be dark greens vs iceberg lettuce or lean cuts of meat vs cheaper, fattier meats. Similarly seafood is generally more expensive, yet POUND FOR POUND healthier than many other meats in terms of both nutrient content and caloric density. Chicken breasts are many times the price of chicken thighs. Therefore to be equally satiated, one must spend more money on breasts or consume more calories of thighs. This shouldn't be a revelation. There is also a social factor at play. Many people don't have to work as hard to stay fit, and others simply have fewer responsibilities and find exercising easier to fit into their lives. Some are simply morr active because their hobby just happens to be an active one, and they gain a beneficial but unintended weight benefit. Many of these people unknowingly put peer pressure on friends, family and coworkers to drink more, eat more, try some of this appetizer, or just choose restaurants where eating filling but lower calorie meals is all but impossible. They aren't researching fitness and calories and weight loss BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO. Smokers and nonsmokers alike know about second hand smoke, lung cancer, and the fact that there are programs to help you quit, because they were advertised (fairly heavily) to everyone, not a self-selected group. People who don't have, or don't think they have, a weight problem are often discouraging out actively harming the attempts of others AND THEY MOSTLY DON'T REALIZE IT. It is a social problem and requires a non individualistic solution. Your nutritional libertarianism is, like all libertarianism, only functional in ideal conditions using soulless automatons in a frictionless supermarket and does not obtain in the actual world. Helps you be smug, though, I guess. Edited only to fix swype autocorrects The Bloop fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Yo check it out, all fat people drink soda all the time, and soda is more expensive than water in almost all of the US and Canada by virtue of water costing like nothing at all and everyone having free access to water in their own home. This isn't economic, it's just fat people being dumb as poo poo. Holy poo poo you are either an idiot who can barely read or just an rear end in a top hat intentionally misrepresenting my point. Maybe both? There are multiple factors which may apply to people and maybe none apply to all people at all times. Social eating and peer pressure are legitimate problems. Ignorance of the physiology and psychology of weight of a problem for both fat and fit people. Less satiating, more fattening food being frequently if not generally cheaper than more satiating, less fattening alternatives is a problem. Mounds of misinformation is a problem. Many people do, in fact, eat at restaurants almost daily, and for social and business reasons, for family treats, to celebrate something, it just to de-stress. Ignoring this or just calling them idiots doesn't address the problem. Advertising is a big problem. We are now bombarded at all points with food, food, food. Companies even spend millions to develop smells and smell delivery systems so you know when you are near a burger king or cinnabon or whatever. There are also many ads for losing weight, buy they ask come from competing commercial sources, and their contradictory nature muddies the water. I want to address these issues to address the problem. Food money, dieticians, and widespread informational availability are what I suggest. Lolling at someone trying to suss out and address the underlying reasons for our obesity problem is fine if your solution is "gently caress them, who cares, what problem?" If you recognize it as a problem, though, talking about what an individual can do to fix it with willpower, bootstraps, and boiled chicken breasts is a laughably bad approach to addressing it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Thanks for the great post. I'd also like to add that many of the problems contributing to the rise in obesity are not directly related to either food or exercise, but rather to capitalism, lobbying, and education. For instance, we do an incredibly lovely job, some would argue by design, of instilling actual critical thinking habits in our citizenry. This often leads to magical thinking and to being overwhelmed by bullshit. Navigating all the health advice readily available is very difficult, and many people just pick a personality like Dr Oz or a chiropractor or a "nutritionist" at the holistic vitamin store and listen exclusively to their advice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What if most jobs at company-lead PT? Show up an hour before work starts and get paid to exercise? This is happening with some success in various European countries. Only the big progressive tech companies in the US would foot the bill for that, though. Incentivising it with tax cuts or health insurance regulations would make this more likely. It's not even remotely panacea for the obesity problem, though, for tons of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Exercise is half of the equation, and if people can exercise without worrying about scheduling it around work then all the better.  General good health-wise, exercise is important, yes, but if you are taking about reducing obesity specifically, diet is far, far more important than exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
We're straying back into fast food = bad food territory I see. Is someone arguing that a happy meal is really a larger portion of food and/or categorically less healthy than a home cooked meal? Forming habits of moderation and occasional indulgence seems more healthy to me, long term, than a McAbstinence program.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
I have lost about 45lbs in the past five months by cutting total calorie intake and slightly increasing my activity level. It is certainly true that carbs have been cut more than other categories, but not as a goal, just as a side effect of cutting overall calories. Carbs are not magic fat makers, they are just a source of calories. I also cut fat by eating far fewer fried things, but again, not because I'm scared of dietary fat, it just happens to have s lot of calories.Flaky posted:That's more than a cup of cooked long-grain white rice every day. Doesn't really seem unreasonable to me. More than a whole cup of cooked rice? In a single day? Back away from the fork, fatty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:
It's actually easy if you have the mindset to cut through the bullshit, and the willpower to stick to the plan. Having the foresight to make the plan within your likely tolerances is vital. Simply reducing calories won't necessarily make you lose weight if you are eating a ton, so you have to figure out where your target needs to be so that you are at a deficit, however slight, overall. Any gimmick more complicated or restrictive than that is probably not sustainable and definitely not at all necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Flaky posted:"personal anecdote" Lol I'm well aware that my anecdote isn't data, but it can provide a focus for further posting and lends context to a conversational discussion like, say, a thread on something awful. Others posted personal anecdotes and I was interested and encouraged, and so I did the same in case others were interested. If you aren't interested, you can ignore it or gently caress right off. Willpower is obviously poor shorthand for a complex group of ideas if this were a scientific paper, but as it is a discussion with humans rather than robots, the point should be clear in context. Only a moron or disingenuous troll would read anything posted on this thread as willpower magically affecting weight through some sort of lipokenesis woo. You can eat what you want IF you can confine it to a limited amount of calories per [time unit], which requires information, planning, and responsible choices on other food. This just means no type of food is categorically off limits. Sometimes it's hard to make those plans or choices because of stress, money, time, or ignorance. I have proposed remedies to all of those barriers upthread. Absent those barriers, or edge case psychological issues, it is indeed merely a matter of willpower to resist a second donut or whatever it is you crave which would put you over your calorie goal. The idea that maintaining a caloric deficit requires a clinical setting is preposterous. I grant that it would be more difficult to manage under the deleterious conditions I mention above. Obviously, of course, once a goal weight is reached the deficit needs to be increased to a rough equality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Flaky posted:my qualification says otherwise I don't think you know how qualifications work. Flaky posted:No, it won't, you will simply eat those same calories from other foods. Horsefeathers. If one substitutes a grilled chicken sandwich with mustard (for instance) with their previously consumed deep fried chicken sandwich with bacon and mayonnaise, an alarm doesn't go of telling them they still need to eat 500 calories, and they'd better find another source. Most people who aren't explicitly and meticulously counting calories can do very well by themselves with simple replacements. See also: zero calorie beverages replacing sugar soda - one does not then uncontrollably eat spoonfuls of sugar to make up the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
FSMC posted:Actually they do. In a blind test, in groups allowed to eat normally those that are given diet coke actually end up consuming more calories in total than those who had normal coke. Zero calorie beverages include tea, coffee, and this new invention you may not have heard of, I think it's called Wah-Terr. The review you linked after being an rear end with the lmgtfy link is full of painful correlations like the first graph comparing artificial sweeteners with overweight in America, as though the increase in sweetener use might not be attributable to people noticing the obesity and doing something about it. I wasn't specifically defending diet coke, but the data on it at best shows an increase in craving, which, if true, simple awareness may be sufficient to overcome. Artificial sweeteners are in no way the proximate cause of anyone's weight gain.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
jre posted:His cause of death is not what makes his diet look useless , it's the fact he was obese and had a long history of heart disease. Even so, he is just one man. This argument is a welcome derail to those arguing in favor of low-carb, since it distracts from the actual issue and is statistically meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Just to add to that,Flaky posted:I can absolutely believe that our dietary guidelines are determined more by industry than health. I'd bet this is correct, but it's a total non sequitur in your post. Also, even if it were the case that mainstream health claims are competently and totally BS, that wouldn't be any kind of evidence that a particular alternative is true.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Dietary guidelines aren't set by industry, aside from an arguable case involving (iirc) dairy producers several decades ago. If we're talking nutritional labeling or nutritional recommendation structures (like the food pyramid) I can discuss the different regimes and their rationales if folks would like. USDA guidelines I'm less familiar with. I'd suspected more "heavily influenced by lobbyists muddying the water" and "decided by bureaucrats for political reasons" rather than directly "set by industry" Thank you for the effort post
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A great deal of it just has to do with bad habits, poor food education, and misinformation from the food industry, really. Being non-fat isn't really hard; it's all about habit. But Americans have a bad habit of eating garbage all day while being sedentary. We're bombarded with advertisements for fast food and soda everywhere we go. It's also easy to just not think about food. It also doesn't help that the food industry crams as many calories into everything as possible because that's what tastes best. Processed food is probably the real killer; compare pictures of things like 200 calories of honeydew to 200 calories of corn chips. We have to remember that having the mental energy to care about calories is itself often a symptom of privilege, not "thin privilege" but "easy, high-calorie food isn't the only pleasurable thing in my lovely life privilege" It's a dubious claim that such food (pizza, fried chicken, nachos, whatever) is better tasting than less calorie-dense food, or cheaper, but I think it's a pretty safe claim that in terms of money, ease (lack of skill or knowledge of nutrition/cooking) and time spent, it is by far easier for most people to have escapist food pleasure from "unhealthy" foods. The "but you could eat rice and bean mush and kale 3 meals a day for less money" argument that always comes up misses the point entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:why cook when you can just eat Hot Pockets every day? Why cook when I don't know how to make something as palatable as hot pockets? Why cook when I don't enjoy it and I've just done things I don't enjoy for eighteen hours? Why cook when I have limited resources and I may ruin the food, but hot pockets always come out the same? Why cook when I'm tired as hell from working two or three jobs and hit pockets take zero effort? Why cook when getting "raw unprocessed ingredients" requires an hour each way on the bus and they sell hot pockets at the corner store? Why cook when I'd have to turn on the oven or stove and heat up the place when a hot pocket can just go in the microwave? Why cook and just make dishes to clean when a hot pocket doesn't need any at all? Why cook when I'll have to go to the store more often to have fresh ingredients but I can have a months worth of hot pockets the day I get my food stamps? Why put in the effort to try to cook when I'm just a poor piece of poo poo who doesn't deserve nice things? There are a number of pervasive issues well beyond laziness
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:In real definitions, you're trying to talk about an oxymoron. Food is calorie dense because it has a lot of nutritional value. If it has little, then it is calorie light. Your intentional oversimplification implies that I can just eat bags of flour or sugar and nothing else and be fine since they are full of "nutritional value" There is more to value in nutrition than mere calories.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you crush up multivitamins in the gallons of Coca Cola you drink in a day, it's neither going to make you less fat nor help you feel any fuller. "Empty calories" is an oxymoron. I didn't say "empty calories", you did, oxy. You can't seriously be arguing, though, that an all coke and multivitamin diet would make a person healthy, right? Or like I mentioned, bags of nothing but sugar (plus multivitamins just to put that one to rest)? I'm sure monodiets would never lead to constipation or diarrhea, right? Or intestinal blockages or other digestive issues? Or do you want to reconsider the extreme statement that there is more to value in nutrition than calories (and multivitamins)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
You people? Really? I've not obsessed about soda at all. In fact, I was posting about people who eat only hot pockets, and YOU brought up coke and multivitamins. I then pointed out how stupid that was. Do you read other people's posts at all? Do you even read YOUR posts?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hot pockets, coke, same thing. The only things that provide complete nutrition on their own is specially engineered foods, and decrying a given food for not being complete is ignorant as hell. You goddamn dumbass. You started out saying only calories have value nutritionally, then introduced the brilliant coke and multivitamin diet, and now are railing against something else you just introduced all by yourself: complete food. People really DO eat nothing but pop tarts and hot pockets (and coke probably) by the way. You keep mistaking people talking about a social problem for some kind of biological claim. We are interested in discussing a societal solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's not a false dichotomy. You will be hungry if you're going to start losing weight if you're obese. Stop trying to tell your little fairy tale where it doesn't happen, lying to the people you're trying to help isn't a good plan! My god you are an rear end in a top hat False Dichotomy: Hungry - Not Hungry Actual Idea Being Presented: -----Very hungry -------less hungry-------less hungry still-------even less hungry but still somewhat hungry sometimes------- It is not a lie to suggest that there are strategies that can make someone LESS hungry while losing weight. You rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's not a false dichotomy, bro. fishmech posted:It is a lie that doing this actually makes you not miserable. Me? Actually, you're wrong about me. It didn't make me miserable at all. Was that supposed to be a general "you"? In that case, data or gtfo My anecdote in this case is data, since it only takes n=1 to disprove your universal (wrong) claim.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because there isn't. No single guideline or strategy works with the majority of people. Says you. Of course, even if this is true, all that means is that we need to find two or three or ten strategies that together cover a majority of people. Then make educating the public about these strategies a priority, making the information and ability to utilize it (food scales, checkups, trainers, cooking class, whatever) freely and readily available. Or we could just tut tut at the fatsos under our breath as you would, and mutter to ourselves "they simply should have eaten less"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Why are we discussing a societal problem that has already been solved? America is not the Netherlands, for starters. There is a wider variety of subcultures and messaging. "Eat less and exercise more" is what 99% of people would probably answer if you asked them how someone should lose weight. Then, nearly every aspect of our culture makes this difficult for various reasons. Possibly worst of all is all the competing claims of what is healthy from various interests. Even if you do go to the gym, the most accessible gyms tend to have a counter selling high-calorie "energy drinks" or protein shakes and ignorant busy people will think they are doing a good thing by drinking one, probably consuming more calories than their half hour of cardio burned off. I agree that an official position to try and counteract all the misinformation is important, but Americans also variously distrust government instructions on how to act, and think lobbyists run the show, which are two challenges for direct messaging. I think an independent official organization that doesn't need to fundraise would be a good move.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Cingulate, thanks for the good posts. Fishmech: It's not that "eat less" is an attack, it's that it's a failure. It has failed. You are like the abstinence only "educator" who either can't figure out where all the babies are coming from, or knows and the answer is "whores". Abstinence only as a plan very obviously prevents pregnancy if followed. Yet it's a total failure as a policy program, and likely increases STDs as a knock on effect for it's idiocy. Yelling "eat less, fatty" is just as effective as yelling "just don't gently caress, sluts!" It also has very negative knock on effects like making people mistrust health advice or not seek assistance since the One True Way is so gosh darn simple. And that's the problem, you are technically correct in a certain abstract way and yet obviously wrong in practice. You seem fine with giving up at this point. Others think there are solutions to this in a collective, pro-social, policy-driven way. One of the ones I have suggested is free, in fact incentivized, meetings with professionals who CAN individualize plans with people. This policy, one of individual plans, is generalizable to everyone, and I can't see why you wouldn't support it other than some libertarian "gently caress them" mindset.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:stop loving whining about how much you hate the idea of eat less. And as an aside it's going to take a lot of time or training a ton more doctors to individually counsel hundreds of millions of people and trail and error your way to an EAT LESS diet that they'll actually stick to and enjoy. I firmly believe that everyone that isn't a child or mentally handicapped (and many that are either or both) understands that eating more = gain weight and eating less = losing weight. I don't have the data to prove this, admittedly. I dom't think it matters, though, because it's not quite that simple. Even if you could get the message "Eat less" to everyone, and they believed it and they did it we would still have an obesity problem because that is incomplete advice. If they are eating enough to gain weight now, they may eat less and still be eating enough to gain weight or maintain their weight. I have been arguing that the general population is ignorant of the specifics and that they need education. Yes, the official position should be caloric deficit is the thing you need and miracle diets and fad diets are crap. Yes, this is currently not the primary messaging for a number of reasons. In addition to this, availability of food, understanding of portion sizes and caloric density, purchasing, preparation, and storage strategies, and having the necessary tools (and knowing how to use them) are all problems. Portion sizes can be confusing and are often presented in intentionally misleading formats. Many monied interests have enormous financial incentives to muddy the waters. A source like I describe could list hundreds of by meal, daily, weekly, etc menu suggestions with cooking instructions, cost breakdown, and full nutritional information starting simple and allowing users to drill down as complex as they'd like to go. Include tools for budgeting calories and dollars and provide SNAPlike benefits for creating a shopping list and sticking to it. Not every meal on there will be appetizing or applicable to every person, but it will be a resource that everyone can use if they want to and allow customization for individuals. Look, a crazy strategy that can assist most people! Next I will find the celestial teapot and the invisible pink unicorn for you. Also, nice on the "it's to expensive so gently caress it" attitude regarding public health issues
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Broccoli has no magic powers, and no one claimed it did. It's just that you'd have to do nothing all day but eat broccoli in order to even maybe gain weight due to its low caloric density. Not that many people want to eat only plain chicken breasts and broccoli, but that wasn't your point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
There are plenty of spices and flavorings that add little or no calories. Not everything needs ranch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 15:29
|
|