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?

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mr. Wookums posted:

I forgot the full context and latched onto that phrase, my bad:

Added sugars: FDA is proposing including the percent daily value (%DV) for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label of packaged foods, giving consumers additional information for added sugars similar to information they have seen for decades with respect to nutrients such as sodium and certain fats. The percent daily value indicates how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet and would help consumers make informed choices for themselves and their families. The percent daily value would be based on the recommendation that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10 percent of total calories.

Can you explain what added sugars actually means? Like is the caramel on a caramel apple added or part of the product? I see their explanation in the Q&A, but I don't think it answers the question.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 01:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trent posted:

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.

Is there evidence that obesity is a net health care cost? People dying at 50 from a heart attack seems cheaper than at 80 from various cancers. I'm not suggesting obesity as a cost saving mechanism, just that promoting health as cost saving incentive is sometimes counterintuitive.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 20:07

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SlipUp posted:

I'm kinda surprised the eat fewer calories crowd has such a beef with this. Cutting out sugary drinks in favour of diet soft drinks, black coffee, or just water is a great way to shave off tons of calories. If someone has a caramel macchiato and a can of coke for each lunch and dinner, switching to black coffee and diet coke would shave off about 508 calories. That's a small meal! It's even easier than eating less, it's just eating simpler.

It's not that this specifically is a bad idea, this, on its own, is a good thing to do. The problem is that people broadly don't seem to understand what are good substitutes or how effective those substitutes are. "Eat exactly what you do now, but half as much" is basically impossible to misinterpret, even if people will just refuse to do it.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 17:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SlipUp posted:

I don't think advising obese people to eat less is really that novel an idea, and yet here we are.

How many people does it take to refuse to do it before we try something else?

e: Also the simplistic half truth does nothing but promote cynicism in the system. We should give people the facts, even if they're hard to understand. To do otherwise is paternalistic and condescending.

Advising people not to drink Coke isn't a novel idea either, yet Coke still exists. I'm in favor of education, it's just current advice needs to match the existing education of your audience.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 18:12

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SlipUp posted:

Even the dumb need options. Even if I were to accept the low education as barrier to pertinent information the solution should be better education, not dumber information.

Right dumb people need options, and currently their option is "eat less food", because society has totally failed to educate them in a way that they can usefully employ other strategies. Separate from what their current options are, we can talk about education, though our education attempts have historically been really bad/objectively wrong.

quote:

Are you content with the status quo?

I see language like this pretty frequently, and I don't understand it, and I think it might be part of a pretty fundamental divide. I obviously don't think society has reached a global maximum, and I don't think I would ever be content with something other than a global maximum, so I'm not sure how I could ever say yes to this question. Similarly I see people ask whether something that happened in reality is acceptable, where I don't see any other choice but to accept that previous events actually happened.

There's things I think we should do and other things I think we shouldn't (like train people to enjoy specific bitter foods), but thinking that one thing isn't an effective thing to do right now doesn't imply anything about how I feel about the status quo. I've also not advocated for half truths or misinformation.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 19:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SlipUp posted:

One option isn't options, and you deny any other option because people are badly informed so we should continue to badly inform them, but you don't advocate half truths.

If you want to talk education Foods class and Gym should be mandatory, and gym should be reformed from loving around playing games to actually learning the impact of physical activity on your body.

I've never suggested that we continue to badly inform people, I'm saying what strategies are available in the presence of badly informed people. If you want to write alt fiction about strategies we could use after we've solved certain problems, that's fine, but it should be prefaced with the counterfactuals you're exploring.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 20:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SlipUp posted:

I never agreed that people are badly educated.

I didn't realize this is in dispute. Did you not see the "one weird trick to lose belly fat" ads? Fat-free? There's a non-trivial group of people who think GMOs are unhealthy! My local PCC was selling non-GMO turkeys. Like what sort of evidence would convince that your average US consumer doesn't have a sufficient education to design a diet consisting of foods they aren't already eating that would achieve weight loss? (edit: I forgot about the "No rBST*" "*rBST doesn't actually matter")

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 22:27

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

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."

I would argue there's currently no good way to know you're helping a greater number of people. Eating less calorie dense food is a good idea, but how many people hear that and then think it's ok to have twice as much ranch dressing, because they've started using the low fat variant? People who have the education to build good diets aren't the people who need guidelines.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 20:17

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

As a guy who can eat a metric gently caress ton of food, I will tell you I can down 3000 calories of Pizza easy peasy and not even get close to eating the same calories for chicken. After a couple of grilled chicken breasts, I'm done. I can barely finish an 800 calorie ribeye streak that I order at one of my favorite places.

I don't want this to be a dick measuring contest, but you should just understand that people who actually eat a lot of food would consider 800 calories of ribeye steak to be a small portion (in fact I'm curious how your favorite place is cutting/cooking ribeyes to produce a 800 calorie portion). Maybe your math is just off, but people in general seem to be massively underestimating how much food a person can eat if they put their mind to it.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 20:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

I was just ballparking the calories based on remembering the nutritional details. Also, I think we're talking about different types of people here. I am talking about the general fat person, like myself, and not Mongo the Overlord of Fat, Winner of Eating Contests, Devourer of Orphans.

The point stands that it's a lot loving harder to down 1000 calories of grilled steak or chicken than it is to down 1000 calories of Pizza. I think people are underestimating just how many calories are in things like Pizza or Pasta and just how easy it is to overeat them.

But, you know, let's all pretend fat folks are getting fat off of grilled, lean steak and chicken rather than cheetos, mountain dew, tacos and pizza, because one time Fishmech saw someone in his school cafeteria gorging on grilled chicken.

I mean yes, whatever platonic ideal of pizza you have in your head is probably less calorie dense than whatever platonic ideal of chicken you have in your head, actual preparations will vary. The point is if your arguing that it's hard to overeat certain foods while simultaneously claiming to be able to eat a large amount of food while also saying it's hard for you to eat a small amount of food your argument has a problem. If you had something other than your anecdote about how much steak or chicken you personally eat you might be ok, but right now you're claiming to be an authority when you transparently aren't.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 21:02

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

I guess you don't understand what I'm saying and instead, like Fishmech, just want to be pedantic in order to win an argument on the internet, or at least make the other people give up trying to disagree with you.

My assertion is that it is easier to, and more likely that you will, eat 1000 calories of pizza or pasta - let's say from Pizza Hut, for the sake of argument - before you'll ever do the same with spinach, grilled chicken, etc.

If this is your actual assertion why are you replying to me? I understand calorie density is a concept that exists and have directly stated so. My assertion is you don't understand, at a minimum, either how calorie dense specific foods are, or how much people routinely eat. You're also flagrantly ignoring the health halo effect, though that's not directly relevant if you're being honest when you say you aren't trying to assert anything more than that calorie density is a valid concept, and not anything about how people actually eat food.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 21:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

I doubt it since you seem to be trying to disagree with me, for some reason. I guess you have an issue with someone talking about their personal experience and the personal experiences of those they know struggling with weight lost since it seems to conflict with the special knowledge that you are claiming to. I honestly don't know why the gently caress you even replied to me or what you're trying to disagree with but, welcome to my ignore list, friendo.

I have a problem with someone talking about their personal experience when their personal experience is demonstrably wrong. Like I was expecting you to say "Whoops, I wrote 800, but I really meant 2000" or "I live in Europe and that is a lot by my regional standards" or "I was lying for rhetorical effect", because 800 isn't in the ball park. I wasn't expecting you to assert that calorie density exists. Let's take a look at a local steak restaurant I enjoy: John Howie.
http://johnhowiesteak.blob.core.windows.net/menu/Dinner.pdf?635825528961203591
Their ribeye comes aged either 28 days or 42 days, both are a 16 oz portion. Let's note here we're not talking about adding any sauces or sides which would be the normal experience.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+16+oz+of+ribeye 1081 calories average with a range of 930-1202
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/texas-roadhouse-16-oz-ribeye-steak-37650352 1240
http://www.sparkpeople.com/calories-in.asp?food=ribeye 1268
In case you think that's intended to be shared, John Howie also serves a 40oz porterhouse "Tableside for two".

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 22:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mr. Wookums posted:

a loving lb of beef is a lot and far more than a serving is in any other country and almost any restaurant that isn't dedicated to give people cardiac disease so what's your point? Are you aware a burger is over 3k calories see: http://www.heartattackgrill.com/

I understand that a pound of beef is far more than a serving in many other countries (thus my "I live in Europe and that is a lot by my regional standards" comment). Comparing John Howie and Heart Attack Grill is dumb though. 16 oz is their lowest (only) ribeye portion. The smallest burgers at Heart Attack Grill are no worse than burgers elsewhere. Further 16 oz is the normal ribeye portion at high end steak houses locally to me at least.
http://www.themetropolitangrill.com/menus/dinner/
http://www.thecapitalgrille.com/menu-listing/dinner#main-courses (This is actually a bone-in 22 oz)
A pound of beef is a ridiculous amount of food, but if people think eating a pound of beef is a heroic feat they just don't understand how much some people eat. (Note: I was able to find two 14 oz ribeyes both of which are served with either French fries or mashed potato, and several places that didn't list weights)
edit:
Thinking about it, this comparison isn't as dumb as I thought, but I still think it doesn't do you any favors. This sort of steak house is absolutely a sort of place that people go specifically to get large amounts of food that's true. The average steak size might be significantly lower accounting for other sorts of restaurants/home cooking, but that's not relevant to the point. If you say "I can eat a lot of food, but I can barely get through 2/3 of a standard portion from a place that specifically serves people who eat a lot" or "I can eat a lot of food, but the double at Heart Attack Grill is plenty for me!" you have the same problem. The main difference (aside from quality) is that at certain point the Heart Attack Grill's menu becomes a joke, but John Howie offering a $94 40oz Porterhouse isn't a joke (though it does appear to be an upsell tactic).

twodot fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 22, 2016

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 23:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

LOL! So, you have a problem with me getting the calories wrong?! Holy poo poo. So, the steak I get is usually about 1000 calories. So, what? gently caress off, man.

I'm surprised your surprised that my issue is you getting the calories wrong:

twodot posted:

I don't want this to be a dick measuring contest, but you should just understand that people who actually eat a lot of food would consider 800 calories of ribeye steak to be a small portion (in fact I'm curious how your favorite place is cutting/cooking ribeyes to produce a 800 calorie portion). Maybe your math is just off, but people in general seem to be massively underestimating how much food a person can eat if they put their mind to it.

I specifically said your calorie count didn't make any sense for someone who actually eats a lot. Even 1000 is not a lot comparatively (also stop measuring steaks in calories, that just obfuscates what you're actually eating). Being able to get the calorie count correct is critical to understanding whether continuing to eat a lot of less calorie dense food (again assuming you even succeed at this due to ignorance and health halo effect) is effective at losing weight. Underestimating a meal by 200 calories 3 meals a day nets you a pound of fat a week.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 00:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

I still don't know what you're trying to say or what you're disagreeing with.

I said I'm capable of eating a lot and I have eaten a lot in the past and that's one of the reasons I was fat and regained all my weight after I'd lost it. You're not giving me any new information here. I also don't know why you think I guesstimate my calories because I was throwing numbers into one forum post about steak vs. pizza and I couldn't find the exact ounces or calorie count for the example steak I usually get when and if I do, which is not often. You're being overly pedantic and fixating on one number in one post to conclude that I know nothing. Are you a Fishmech alt?

Well now that you've explained the discrepancy between thinking you eat a lot, but failing to eat a lot of steak (you are terrible at estimating calories and also still don't eat all that much), I'm saying you're the poster child for why eating less calorie dense food is not in general an effective strategy, because people are terrible at estimating calories (and for like the third time, are subject to things like the health halo effect which makes it not at all obvious that choosing less calorie dense foods leads to less calorie dense meals (edit: and also explains why your pizza v chicken comparison is worthless and something I already conceded)). People who are good at estimating calories don't need to be told to eat less calorie dense food, because they already know which foods are more or less calorie dense.

I wouldn't need to be pedantic if you would just fix your mistakes instead of redirecting into tautologies. I'm fixating on that one mistake, because successfully avoiding that mistake is critical to this entire strategy. (edit: Unless your actual strategy is "just eat only plain chicken")

twodot fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 22, 2016

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 01:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Asiina posted:

I feel like you two are talking around each other and aren't actually disagreeing.

Eating a whole pizza in one sitting is easier than eating 6lbs of chicken in one sitting. This is true.

I don't think I'm talking around this, I've explicitly conceded it and pointed out why it's not a useful thing to say.

quote:

Just because you eat a lot or have lost a lot or have always been rail thin, doesn't mean that you are a perfect accurate measure of the number of calories in an item. Ballparking calories can be dangerous to weight loss since it's really easy to underestimate what you are consuming. That said, if you have a little more of something that has a lot of calories per weight then you'll be further off from your goal then if you misjudge something that has fewer calories per weight.

This is only important if you're similarly accurate with regards to knowing how much something weighs versus knowing how much something has calories per pound. Given the relative abundance of scales compared to calorimeters, I think people are substantially better at estimating weights, especially with regards to foods they commonly eat. It's essentially impossible to screw up "If you eat a 10 oz bag of chips, eat the 5 oz bag of chips instead". Whereas it's quite easy to see baked chips and both possibly incorrectly think that it has less calories and that it gives you license to eat the baked chips AND something else.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 02:08

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

fishmech posted:

This claim is bogus: what actually makes it harder or easier is a given person's tastes, 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.

vv It's still an incorrect argument.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

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.

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.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 18:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mandator posted:

You can lose weight if you eat 1500 calories a day.

Does anything else have to be said? Can anybody disprove or argue against this?

I know the post above is a joke, but if "you" is intended to include every human who has, will, or could exist this is plainly false (at a minimum consider people who have consumed 1500 calories a day for their whole life). If you're making some sort of statistical argument, you should do that.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 00:16

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