Board 8 > Really Dr. Pepper? Really?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I see. But still: given how chock-full of sugars and calories regular soda is, how many diet drinks would you need to consume before they evened out? Three? Five? Twenty?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Well, you also have those people who, for some reason, think they can order extra large stuff at fast food restaurants as long as the extra large drink is diet.

--
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7760/222bj.jpg

BoshStrikesBack posted...
I see. But still: given how chock-full of sugars and calories regular soda is, how many diet drinks would you need to consume before they evened out? Three? Five? Twenty?


Probably a few, to be fair. The thing is... A can of soda isn't good for you, regardless. So even if you're only drinking enough diet to equal one can, you're still defeating the purpose, since soda's basically empty calories because it doesn't fill you, so you're probably still eating normally on top of that. If you're trying to lose weight, the point of diet soda is that one can is a good bit less than a can of regular. If you're drinking a regular can's worth, anyway...

A lot of people don't seem to realize that's possible, because they get stuck on "Look how few calories!"

Just because it may take 50 cans of diet to = the calories in one regular can doesn't mean 50 cans of diet = 1 regular. At all.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

From: meisnewbie | #038
1) Diet soda contains s***, whether this s*** refers to the dietary drink as a whole or certain harmful subcomponents has yet to be determined by the author of this post
2) The s*** has been causally linked with obesity, acting upon heretofore unknown mechanisms upon the persons involved.

Is this correct?

Nope, particularly this part:

2) The s*** has been causally linked with obesity

What? As if obesity is some sort of disease?

Fatties see "0 calories" and thing it's equivalent to water, and start downing it. I don't think I need to tell you that 0 dietary calories does not necessarily mean 0 energy. And the amount of energy you spend processing the diet soda is not greater than the energy gained. Thus you get ever so fatter.

When they treat it like a replacement to water, it gets even worse, with things like a negatively-affected metabolism and less resources for cells to grow and operate at optimum efficiency (due to extra **** aka "subcomponents" stealing water)

--
_foolmo_
'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1 (Mod)

Soda doesn't fill you? News to me...There is no arguing that it is a ton of calories with almost no nutritional benefit, but in my experience it is always quite filling. I used to be quite homeless, and at times my food intake consisted of a piece of sandwich bread from Jimmy John's, water from a fountain whenever I got thirsty and soda stolen from McDonald's. That all being stretched over a few days.

There were plenty of times where my only food for a day was literally a handful of bread + however much soda I drank... And I wasn't walking around constantly starving, I'd usually fill myself up pretty well. Feel like crap, yes... but still full!

What? As if obesity is some sort of disease?

I do know that studies show how crazy addictive high-fat foods are. Calling obesity a disease isn't too much of a stretch.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

From: BoshStrikesBack | #056
I do know that studies show how crazy addictive high-fat foods are

Of course, but telling all the people who simply lack self-control that it's not their fault, they have a disease, is kind of counter-productive, don't you think?

--
_foolmo_
'so I can potentially win the guru without getting the final right?' - BlAcK TuRtLe

Of course, but telling all the people who simply lack self-control that it's not their fault, they have a disease, is kind of counter-productive, don't you think?

Probably, though I could say this about a lot of things (making attention-troubled kids dependent upon medication, etc.).

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Chuckles posted...
Soda doesn't fill you? News to me...There is no arguing that it is a ton of calories with almost no nutritional benefit, but in my experience it is always quite filling. I used to be quite homeless, and at times my food intake consisted of a piece of sandwich bread from Jimmy John's, water from a fountain whenever I got thirsty and soda stolen from McDonald's. That all being stretched over a few days.

There were plenty of times where my only food for a day was literally a handful of bread + however much soda I drank... And I wasn't walking around constantly starving, I'd usually fill myself up pretty well. Feel like crap, yes... but still full!


Well, when you eat less, it naturally takes less to feel full. Beyond that, you might've psyched yourself out in a "This is all I'm going to get, so it better fill me" way or something. Other than the carbonation making you momentarily feel "full" if you drink it really fast, soda doesn't normally fill you.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

Except that that still is an incomplete picture of the situation. Even if we adopt the Calories in - calories out = weight gain model, then we literally have an error margin of +/- one bite of food per day, when caloric restriction diets are effective only when the calorie restriction reaches around 10-15% of total consumption. It's simply inconceivable the body or the brain could achieve that level of precision in consumption, especially considering that satiation isn't correlated with caloric content and calorie counting certainly didn't exist in the paleolithic era and people still managed to stay thin then.

Furthermore, Diets typically are very effective for the first couple of months or so, and then the people involved gain all the weight back after a year. Even if caloric restriction works on the short term, dietary adherence has been dismal when prescribed.


"Haven't you been paying attention you simpleton? This is where willpower comes in. If only there were more social pressure, there would be more people adhering to their diets and less fat people."

And this is where I take issue with most people. First off social pressure just isn't effective and there's little reason to believe one more person yelling at an already obese individual would have any actual effect. Second off, most people making this claim don't even KNOW if willpower is effective. Has anyone actually looked at studies involving people with different levels of short term willpower and compared their adherence to diets? Third of all, if willpower is needed, and it consistently failed to demonstrate results (as most long term dietary studies have shown) it's sheer insanity to keep insisting that it'll work. Don't ask the superhuman of mere humans. Fourth off, fat people don't eat because they choose to, but they eat because they feel hungry. (and well, sometimes they eat even when they don't but this discussion is really complex and I don't want to make this much longer!) Even if caloric restriction would cause them to lose weight, if they keep feeling constant hunger and the desire for food, do you really think they can adhere to it? Imagine if you felt hungry every waking moment of your life, do YOU personally think that you wouldn't do everything in your power to stop that slow gnawing pain? For short terms sure, but imagine if it consistently recurred over the better part of a year.

Willpower simply doesn't work and it's crazy to say that it does or should.

"Well if diets don't work, why can't exercise? Once you've established a routine of going to the gym, it's not like there'll be a "oh god don't go to the gym" feeling that'll stop you from going there."

But exercise doesn't even help you lose weight, even if you DO do it on a regular basis. Even using the calorie model, the entire "gains" made in an hour, including the increase in your base metabolic rate would all be erased by a single blueberry muffin. And before you say "willpower" again, might I point out that exercise ALSO makes you hungry?

And this brings me to my final point: Couldn't it be that we're confusing cause and effect? Couldn't people eat more because their bodies tell them to be fat instead of the other way around? Couldn't people exercise because their bodies have enough energy to do so?

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

What? As if obesity is some sort of disease?

...You mean to say it's not? High association with diabetes, vitamin D deficiencies, coronary heart disease and certain types of cancer (At the very least colon cancer IIRC).

Also haven't you heard of Metabolic syndrome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome

Feel free to enlighten me about other models of weight gain, newbie.

Well first of all, to overly simplify the model, why don't you see people eating wax, drinking gasoline and snorting C4? All of those things have high calories! Surely, if the first law of thermodynamics is all there is to it those things should serve just as well as energy sources!

Of course, that's a cheeky response, but the standard rebuttal to that would be "well those aren't things you can't digest" and that's correct! In other words, biochemistry is an important consideration as to what your body can and can't use.

"A ha! So you admit that I'm a strawman, but in your attempt to appear reasonable, you have refuted your own argument! Hoist by your own petard! Ho ho ho ho ho ho"

Not exactly.

The main crux of the caloric argument is essentially: More food bad, less exercise bad. Willpower > both, so suck it fatties! Or, to put it less pithily: If you carefully count your calories so that it's below what this conveniently simple chart says your metabolism is at, you will lose weight! Adding exercise makes the amount of calories expended per day greater, ergo this one two punch of terror will CURE EVERYTHING.

...Except that this model is drastically oversimplified to the point where it hurts more people than it helps.

First off your metabolism isn't some sort of constant thing, it's frequently adjusting to external stimuli, hence why the standard operation of your body is in dynamic equilibrium. The simplest example would be how anorexics can gain weight even off of daily diets of one thousand calories, or how some people seem to gorge on foods and still remain thin.

"A ha! Even though you pretend to know so much about nutrition, it doesn't necessarily mean that people outside of those special cases would have drastically different daily caloric expenditure!"

Sure you can say that those are drastically different from most people's experience, after all the average person isn't anorexic nor a never ending food vortex. But might i point out that athletes would never be able to maintain their performance with a fast food diet, and that people appear to have vastly different conceptions of how many calories should be present in a meal.

"But doesn't that just mean caloric variance between different people, and not between the SAME person at DIFFERENT points in time? So couldn't anyone just cut their calories from whatever their current intake is now and then lose weight like that? Surely you're overcomplicating things, after all, there's nothing simpler than just getting smaller plates and shoving less stuff into your piehole."

From: meisnewbie | #061
And before you say "willpower" again, might I point out that exercise ALSO makes you hungry?

wow

WOW

the mind of a fat person is incredible

keep it coming meis

--
_foolmo_
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

So are you denying that

1) People don't get hungrier if they exercised than if they didn't
2) That willpower isn't effective for everyone

Note that I'm not denying that other beneficial effects of exercise don't come into play, such as increased muscle mass, improved blood pressure, better sleeping patterns and increased energy throughout the day.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Even if caloric restriction would cause them to lose weight, if they keep feeling constant hunger and the desire for food, do you really think they can adhere to it?

For one, caloric restriction doesn't have to mean eating less, it just means eating smarter. Second, your body adapts. The less you eat, the less it takes to get full. That's why it's stupid to fast before a big feast, because you'll actually get full more quickly. So to suggest that they'd somehow be in some constant, painful hunger is ridiculous. So yes, if they HAVE to have fast food over something healthier, then that is a problem with willpower.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

From: BoshStrikesBack | #056
Calling obesity a disease isn't too much of a stretch.

lmbo

Seriously, I bet you think alcoholism is also a disease. Both are products of zero willpower or being too deep in s*** you can't pull yourself back out without help. Calling obesity a disease just gives every fat f*** who's content with stuffing his gullet an excuse for when someone calls him out on his self destructive tendencies, and it's frankly insulting to people who actually have genetic weight issues.

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

StealThisSheen posted...
For one, caloric restriction doesn't have to mean eating less, it just means eating smarter. Second, your body adapts. The less you eat, the less it takes to get full. That's why it's stupid to fast before a big feast, because you'll actually get full more quickly. So to suggest that they'd somehow be in some constant, painful hunger is ridiculous. So yes, if they HAVE to have fast food over something healthier, then that is a problem with willpower.

There's also this, though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=1

Notably:

1. In order to not eat, a dieter needs willpower.

2. In order to have willpower, a dieter needs to eat.

There's a reason that "eat less food" diets are almost never successful, whereas you get these "protein plan" diets that tend to have moderate success.

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

um diet soda doesn't make you fat but it's still soda so it had stuff that's bad for your teeth or whatever but still it won't make you fat

Also basically all diet sodas have close enough to 0 calories that they're effectively 0 calories. If a wayward grain of sugar lands in the soda it's still not gonna make a difference

--
senorhousemouse

also juice is a lie, sorry

--
senorhousemouse

metroid composite posted...
There's also this, though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=1

Notably:

1. In order to not eat, a dieter needs willpower.

2. In order to have willpower, a dieter needs to eat.

There's a reason that "eat less food" diets are almost never successful, whereas you get these "protein plan" diets that tend to have moderate success.


Well, right. That's why the first thing I said was basically "don't eat less, eat smarter." It's not having the willpower to NOT eat that works, because that is extremely difficult and probably going to fail. It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

From: StealThisSheen | #069
It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good.

Or the willpower to learn how to cook so that you can make things that are healthier and more delicious than a Big Mac

--
_foolmo_
'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me

That's the actual wrapper, not just an ad campaign. They've been using misogynistic marketing for over a decade.

--
"I'm Commander Shepard, and you're standing in the biggest library in Citadel Space. Look me up."

Commercials are for the weak

--
http://www.wellhappypeaceful.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nuclear_disaster.jpg

this ad campaign is pretty dumb, I'm all for over the top manliness advertising(old spice) but you have to apply it to the right product. a diet soda? a MAN should be eating 3,000-6,000 calories a day, if eating that much makes you fat it means you're living a sedentary beta life. that being said soda is still disgusting and you should be drinking more milk and juice instead, milk is probably the only beverage that should be using a manly ad campaign.

Meis have you entertained the possiblity that 'willpower' is simply too abstract a concept for a shaky science like psychology to accurately measure? I mean, you're undermining the power of willpower to the point where you make it sound like nobody has ever succeeded in losing weight by way of diet and exercise so it's not even worth it to try, when this clearly isn't true. You see healthy people every day (if you go outside...)

--
http://www.wellhappypeaceful.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nuclear_disaster.jpg

Liquid Wind posted...
this ad campaign is pretty dumb, I'm all for over the top manliness advertising(old spice) but you have to apply it to the right product. a diet soda? a MAN should be eating 3,000-6,000 calories a day, if eating that much makes you fat it means you're living a sedentary beta life. that being said soda is still disgusting and you should be drinking more milk and juice instead, milk is probably the only beverage that should be using a manly ad campaign.


Yeah, this is just flat out not true.

Are you 600 pounds.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

Man, that "manly man" is such a poor excuse for a manly man. The whole thing just lacks the machismo they're going for.

They can scream that Dr. Pepper is a man's drink as much as they want, but it's not convincing everyone when the voice they're screaming it in is a shrill girl's voice.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE] Ace Detective in Sir Charles's Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkOj5DAJu2A

Oh wait, people are upset because this is sexist?

Yeah man, it's awful that this commercial doesn't star a smart woman and her idiot husband like all the other commercials and sitcoms on TV.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE] Ace Detective in Sir Charles's Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkOj5DAJu2A

Meis have you entertained the possiblity that 'willpower' is simply too abstract a concept for a shaky science like psychology to accurately measure? I mean, you're undermining the power of willpower to the point where you make it sound like nobody has ever succeeded in losing weight by way of diet and exercise so it's not even worth it to try, when this clearly isn't true. You see healthy people every day (if you go outside...)

"Willpower," as the name suggests, implies free will, and science types like newbie reject this concept altogether (as do I, for the record). It's simply a combination of nature and nurture, and nothing can change that. Some people can, in the blink of an eye, radically alter their eating habits. Some people, like newbie, are destined to remain fat the rest of their lives.

Sad, but the universe is indifferent, right newbie?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Well, this topic happened.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Are you 600 pounds.

180-200 actually, don't have a scale but I have very little fat, eating is a good thing if you actually exercise! I shot a little high assuming that most men would want to be stronger but even if you are trying to lose fat, you get more energy turnover by eating a good amount and exercising a lot rather than just starving yourself

2,000-2,500 calorie a day guidelines are based on women and sedentary men that have desk jobs and don't work out, if that's dr peppers target demographic "it's not for women!" isn't a very effective advertising slogan

Liquid Wind posted...
Are you 600 pounds.

180-200 actually, don't have a scale but I have very little fat, eating is a good thing if you actually exercise! I shot a little high assuming that most men would want to be stronger but even if you are trying to lose fat, you get more energy turnover by eating a good amount and exercising a lot rather than just starving yourself


Do you realize how much you would have to exercise to be able to freely eat 3000-6000 calories a day and not gain weight. You could if you were 600 pounds, but, uh...

EDIT: And no, 2000-2500 isn't based on sedentary men, either, unless they're already near 300 pounds.

Where are you getting your info.

Because at this point I have to assume you're just picking numbers.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

Do you realize how much you would have to exercise to be able to freely eat 3000-6000 calories a day and not gain weight. You could if you were 600 pounds, but, uh...

3,000 shouldn't be a problem for most men, 6,000 is definitely more towards the freakishly obsessed range, elite athletes will frequently eat in that range, but for an average man you don't need to do anything too crazy for 3,000-3,500 calories, I eat about that without gaining any fat and all I do is some mild strength training(mostly bodyweight stuff) and I do some mountain biking in fall/spring when the weather is nice

it's also important to consider where those calories are coming from, 3,000 calories of raw fruits and vegetables are not equal to 3,000 calories of mountain dew. generally just avoid excessively sugary stuff, the human body primarily metabolizes fat from simple carbs

Rad Link 5 posted...
Oh wait, people are upset because this is sexist?

Yeah man, it's awful that this commercial doesn't star a smart woman and her idiot husband like all the other commercials and sitcoms on TV.

Two wrongs, etc...




But yeah, social pressure often does more harm than good. Making someone depressed will just make them eat more. What everyone needs are easier access to healthier foods, a better education on calories,etc (I don't remember being taught this in school beyond "don't eat too much".).

Of course for many companies out there, it is more profitable to keep us fat and addicted to fattening foods, so that's also a problem.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

From: Dark Young Link | #083
Two wrongs, etc...

Not the point.

No one ever complains about the converse.

Double standard.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE] Ace Detective in Sir Charles's Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkOj5DAJu2A

A 5'8", 200 pound man, with a heavy activity level (constantly doing physical activity, at work and at home) can consume 3400 calories a day and lose one pound over a YEAR. Needless to say, losing an average of one pound a year isn't going to leave you at the same weight, and that's with HEAVY activity.

Athletes can eat 3000-3500 calories a day and not gain weight.

Obviously, we're not all athletes.

I don't know where you even get the 4000+ numbers.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

A 5'8", 200 pound man, with a heavy activity level (constantly doing physical activity, at work and at home) can consume 3400 calories a day and lose one pound over a YEAR. Needless to say, losing an average of one pound a year isn't going to leave you at the same weight, and that's with HEAVY activity.

fat is primarily tied to carbohydrate intake more so than your total calorie count. again, the problem people have isn't just that they eat a lot of food, it's that they eat a lot of JUNK. particularly in america anything you buy is probably loaded with HFCS, and we're a culture of lazy people that don't want to prepare our own food.

I used a wide range because there are a wide range of goals that require a different approach, it should have been wider because yes if you're trying to lose weight going to 2,500 calories is a good idea. caloric excess on the other hand is good for building muscle. constantly trying to lose weight is a more feminine ideal of fitness, dr peppers ad campaign is confusing at best

If you're trying to lose weight, 2500 isn't even low enough unless you're near 300 pounds or really, really tall.

You brought up calories, and from looking strictly at calories, eating over 3000 isn't good for you unless you're an athlete, and over 4000 isn't good unless you're trying to produce a lot of muscle mass. It doesn't matter what the calories are from. I think you're making a miscalculation in what you eat or something, otherwise you have freakishly good metabolism.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

If you're trying to lose weight, 2500 isn't even low enough unless you're near 300 pounds or really, really tall.

you'll have to exercise a lot but you're better off doing this anyway, if you don't eat very much your body actually becomes more resistant to dropping fat

I think you're making a miscalculation in what you eat or something, otherwise you have freakishly good metabolism.

I'm pitching a rough estimate more so than anything, it'd be a pain to figure it out exactly with a lot of things not being labelled(for instance today I threw some apple juice, a banana, some blueberries, strawberries, and spinach in a blender, it'd only be easy to figure out how much the apple juice was), but I think it's fairly accurate to say I eat 2,800-3,500 calories a day and I don't think my metabolism is freakish...I probably use more energy than most people though I guess, I think other people tend to walk very slowly and I have a habit of running up and down stairs

See, I can at least buy 2,800-3,500, since it'd just mean you're at least commonly active and have a really good metabolism.

The majority of people can't eat that much and not gain weight, though, unless they have a high activity level. 4,000+, though, is just... lol no unless you're a bodybuilder and want to gain muscle mass.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

I'd never buy a diet soda.

--
90s games > 00s games

StealThisSheen posted...
4,000+, though, is just... lol no unless you're a bodybuilder and want to gain muscle mass.

Or unless you're a Sumo Wrestler.

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

yeah 4000+ is extreme but I used that figure because I think people would consider body building more manly than trying to become a really skinny guy, hence why I think "it's not for women" is a silly slogan for a diet soda. women are generally more conscious of their fat as well and are more likely to buy a diet soda, so this advertisement is also alienating a potentially large market for them

though really if you're interested in any form of fitness you should just avoid soda altogether, but I think this is incoherent marketing

that commercial was a mess. like it's trying to sit somewhere between parody and playing it straight and that didn't go so well at all. "10 manly calories." "CATCHPHRASE!" "It's not for women!"

what a disaster

Well, right. That's why the first thing I said was basically "don't eat less, eat smarter." It's not having the willpower to NOT eat that works, because that is extremely difficult and probably going to fail. It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good

Except that IS eating less, in caloric terms and it downplays what "doesn't taste nearly as good" actually means to the dieter. And even then your argument is mostly irrelevant to mine: Dietary adherence is low

Or the willpower to learn how to cook so that you can make things that are healthier and more delicious than a Big Mac

and obv the willpower to make it take no time, the willpower to create stores which would sell the healthy ingredients necessary for Big Mac levels of deliciousness and the willpower and to make it automatically cheaper than a big mac.

You're systematically underrating the amount of effort both in mental and physical "labor" that learning how to cook takes. There's a reason why "Dieting/Health" tops the list when it comes to goals people procrastinate on.

And, as an aside, that sure explains why the social pressure crowd regularly posts healthy recipes and willingly offers lists of cheap, affordable ingredients to people they perceive as fat rather than just yell at them to eat some magical health food which is delicious, satiating and easy to prepare as a TV dinner or fast food.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Oh my.

That's terrible.

And hilarious and genius.

--
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r218/Tony366/GIFS/haters.gif
Mer

metroid composite posted...

And if you answered yes to that question, are you the kind of person who would buy a diet soft drink?


HEY I buy diet soda because I'm a diabetic!

But this ad in no way appeals to me,

--
beeeeeeeeessssssss :D

ToukaOone posted...
Well, right. That's why the first thing I said was basically "don't eat less, eat smarter." It's not having the willpower to NOT eat that works, because that is extremely difficult and probably going to fail. It's having the willpower to substitute your Big Mac out for something healthier, even if it doesn't taste nearly as good

Except that IS eating less, in caloric terms and it downplays what "doesn't taste nearly as good" actually means to the dieter. And even then your argument is mostly irrelevant to mine: Dietary adherence is low .


In caloric terms, yeah, but that's... Kinda the whole point. Calories aren't what fill you. You can fill yourself on something healthier and that gets rid of the whole "Well, they'll be painfully starving" argument. And if you think downplaying what "doesn't taste as good" matters, well, there's your problem in the first place. That's why it's called willpower. You can make excuses all you want, but if somebody chooses not to follow a diet simply because they like the taste of a Big Mac over the taste of something healthier, that entirely has to do with willpower, not some kind of reasoning that leads to an excuse.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif

I don't understand how people eat mcdonalds, just looking at most of their food makes me feel like my arteries are being assaulted

From: ToukaOone | #095
There's a reason why "Dieting/Health" tops the list when it comes to goals people procrastinate on.

Yeah, it's because most people are both too lazy and too dumb to learn how to cook

And, as an aside, that sure explains why the social pressure crowd regularly posts healthy recipes and willingly offers lists of cheap, affordable ingredients to people they perceive as fat rather than just yell at them to eat some magical health food which is delicious, satiating and easy to prepare as a TV dinner or fast food.

"waaaaah no one taught me step by step how to be healthy this is so unfair I have to actually work to achieve something"

Wow, you're lucky someone taught you how to **** in a toilet or else you would've had even worse problems than this.

You make a good point though, and this is what us healthy people have to live with every day. We see all these fatties, and we want them to lose weight so that our eyes and noses stop being repulsed, but we can't just do all their work for them. They expect us to just give them our "magic formulas" like it's their right to have answers without working for it. But no, I'm a firm supported of the whole "teach a man to fish" thing.

Still, there are some people who would gladly give your precious step-by-step instructions for "magic" recipes and cheap ingredients on the internet on blogs and such, but how can you expect someone so lazy to have the initiative to search for that, let alone actually follow the steps? Ah, what a catch 22...

--
_foolmo_
'so I can potentially win the guru without getting the final right?' - BlAcK TuRtLe