And if you think downplaying what "doesn't taste as good" matters, well, there's your problem in the first place.
Wait, who said it was my problem?
And also, there's substantial reason to believe that a flavor-calorie connection is vitally important to models of weight gain, namely that they change the setpoint.
You can fill yourself on something healthier and that gets rid of the whole "Well, they'll be painfully starving" argument.
Except that this is speculative Merely because they get full off of one meal, doesn't mean that other biochemical mechanisms wouldn't make them hungry AGAIN sooner. There's a reason that something like 30% of Gastric bypass surgeries fail despite satiation off of tiny amounts of food.
Is there any reason to believe that you've actually, you know, gone out and looked at evidence before you reasoned like an armchair philosopher?
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.
IF WILLPOWER KEEPS F***ING FAILING AS A SOLUTION YOU F***ING FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T RELY ON IT OR YOU FIND A WAY TO MAKE WILLPOWER WORK.
If the problem is obesity and one of the obstacles to removing it is lack of willpower, then it's completely idiotic to not only repeatedly invoke willpower as a solution instead of routing around it, but also moronic to use actions which have had no effect on actually improving willpower for a substantial proportion of the population.
And it's not about merely "liking" the foods, it's about the cravings you get for it, for the satiation, for the complex evolutionary machinery which has had no time to realize that Big Macs and sugary sodas are in extreme abundance.
Meis have you entertained the possiblity that 'willpower' is simply too abstract a concept for a shaky science like psychology to accurately measure?
Seginus, have you entertained the possibility that cognitive neuroscience might have naked photos of willpower streaking in public?
Sarcasm aside, psychology does have ways to measure impulsiveness and self control, at least in the short term and at least between people. And even ignoring that, even if psychology was unable to measure it, the fact remains that whatever current methods we are using to enforce diets are mostly ineffective.
You see healthy people every day (if you go outside...)
Yes, but how many people become healthy through willpower instead of 1) an environment that ALREADY promoted health 2) Genetics 3) Dietary methods that don't involve large amounts of willpower and peer pressure...? Do you have any numbers on this?
--
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!
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.
What fattening foods? The percentage of saturated fats in the American diet has halved in the last 50 years.
Edit: whoops! This was a dumb statement and I have no reading comprehension
"Willpower," as the name suggests, implies free will, and science types like newbie reject this concept altogether (as do I, for the record).
Gee someone knows how to actually look at and understand the world! Better assume that he agrees with me!
I don't see how it necessarily follows that willpower doesn't exist merely because "free will" is invalid. Not all "determinists" also subscribe to psychological behaviorism.
Furthermore, I don't see how science types would be able to deny the existence of willpower. I'm hungry and I choose not to eat because this video game is too addicting or this forumite is too stupid to let live for example. It's relatively clear that there's *some* form of General Intelligence governing the body's ingrained urges, although the degree to which it does is up for people to mess up and for science to clean up.
--
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!
For the record, the majority of failure with gastric bypass comes from people eating even when they're not hungry out of habit, because they just want to, etc. People get gastric bypass and suddenly think they don't have to change their lifestyle. That's not how it works.
The rest, well, you're already going into hostile mode like usual, so discussion isn't worth it.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
For the record, I'm not particularly hostile toward you. For two, it's incredibly irritating to me that people would be willing to call me fat without any evidence and without really committing to believing it; it reeks of childish dishonesty.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
meisnewbie posted... I still have a problem with you unironically talking as if you understand nutrition without actually having done any research though!
my scientific rage toward you is unbridled grrr
I talk of what IS known and what is most commonly understood without trying to get too involved and complicated. The fact of the matter is that most of what you or I speak of is still largely unknown. I speak bluntly of what is commonly known/accepted, you speak in hypotheticals of what we MAY discover down the road. We don't have those answers, though, so I'm more likely to just go with what we know as basic fact, because doing further research is just going to create a big question mark that, for all we know, may not even need to be there and really may be so simply explained.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I talk of what IS known and what is most commonly understood without trying to get too involved and complicated.
What do you know and how did you come to know it? You don't actually have to tell me and this really isn't an attack on you, but for *most* people it's just what everyone else or what the medical establishment has said before in the past.
you speak in hypotheticals of what we MAY discover down the road.
I'll point out that when I speak in hypotheticals, it usually has a lot more science and research put into it than what other people speak about with complete and absolute conviction. It's precisely because I know that nutrition, health and medicine as scientific fields are almost a complete mess that I learn to not subscribe to orthodoxy and try to follow the data instead.
We don't have those answers, though, so I'm more likely to just go with what we know as basic fact, because doing further research is just going to create a big question mark that, for all we know, may not even need to be there and really may be so simply explained.
I'm not sure how this constitutes an argument against research, unless you assume beforehand that you lose information by conducting research, which sounds more like a call for eliminating all nutrition research rather than anything else.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
It's not an argument AGAINST research as much as saying that right now, all it leads to is "Well, this MAY be the case, but, uh, we're not sure," so for me, I stick to what is already medically established and accepted, even if it doesn't yet paint a full picture. I prefer complete facts over incomplete, that's basically what it comes down to for my stance. Even if those complete facts aren't fully up to date... I want to wait it out until the next incomplete thought becomes fact, because for all we know it could very well be wrong.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I'm not entirely sure what medical fact you're referring to. The benefits of a calorie restricted diet? I've already pointed out that even if it's beneficial, it's typically ineffective over the long term. "Willpower" isn't anywhere near a complete or even satisfactory solution/explanation as to why this is so.
I've seen very few people talk about high protein diets, metabolic typing or recommending the Mediterranean diets for example. With the first and third having high adherence rates, the first proven to be very effective for at least a subset of the population and the latter the one of the more studied diets for life extension. I rarely see people talk about the epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency, the dangers of Omega 6 or the laundry list of harmful effects fructose causes to the human body.
All of these are fairly well established in the medical community, if comparatively recent in the literature, so why is it that I don't actually see these health topics discussed instead of the same 1-2 tired old arguments about fast food, exercise and grit?
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
--
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
I will note that the Seven Countries Study (the most detailed one supporting the diet) suffers from several methodological problems, like nonrandom sampling and that studies frequently only test for men or only for women, so closer looks at the methodology is advised.
Of course, in terms of diets that I personally believe that everyone should at least try, I think that the Shangri-La Diet is worth looking into, as everyone probably has the ingredients necessary to use it, it doesn't have many of the problems calorie restriction has in terms of adherence and you get immediate feedback on whether it works or not (Do I feel less hungry on days where I do it?). Pretty much has all the elements anyone would want to look for in self improvement: low cost, ease of implementation nd quick, understandable results.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
Because you're confused by the sentence eat healthy and exercise. Just because it's a simple sentence to verbalize doesn't mean that the performing the actions are equally simple.
For example, what is meant by "eating healthy"...? Low Fat? Low Carb? Gluten and casein free? Are Red Meats acceptable? What types of vegetable oils are harmful? Are supplements needed? What's a good way to keep track of my progress?
On exercise: What type of exercise is acceptable? Do different types of exercises have different rates at which they assist in weight gain? Does this type of exercise require a different diet in order to help speed recovery time? Should I be worried about pulling muscles?
And for both of them: How the heck do I plan to stick to an exercise/diet plan? is there any way for me to do both by default instead of using cognitive energy each time? How am I going to balance the costs of each against my limited time and money?
Of course, and then the masses assume that merely because it's easy to chant a four word slogan like they're supporting a political party that the mechanisms involved to succeed are similarly simple. Except that when their model clearly deviates from reality they postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence instead of thinking that just maybe, since they've never studied or read or researched anything about how and why such failures happen, they might be wrong.
Also, what I find hilarious is that Jaffar commits the error twice by referring to the Shangri-la diet as complex, then, because he sees a dark, murky, shapeless void where the definition of the diet should be, assumes that the diet is similarly confounding in its complexity.
The diet is just taking a tablespoon of olive oil 1 hour apart from all flavors. Once every day.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
Because you're confused by the sentence eat healthy and exercise. Just because it's a simple sentence to verbalize doesn't mean that the performing the actions are equally simple.
it is relatively simple, time has shown again and again that dedicated people on bad programs get better results than unmotivated people on good ones, you don't need to get everything perfect you just need to realize a few good guidelines and actually adhere to them
For example, what is meant by "eating healthy"
don't eat a lot of processed foods, generally you can't go wrong with fruits and vegetables....raw preferably, cooking them destroys many of their nutrients. if possible eat 5-8 small meals a day instead of 3 large ones, but it's not the end of the world if you can't
What type of exercise is acceptable?
for cardio biking and swimming are the best IMO, very low impact on your joints compared to running and low chance of injury/pulling muscles. if you live in a hilly area like I do biking is nice because you naturally wind up with alternating intense/easy periods for HIIT(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training), don't even have to think about it
UltimaterializerX posted... meisnewbie posted... For the record, I'm not particularly hostile toward you. For two, it's incredibly irritating to me that people would be willing to call me fat without any evidence and without really committing to believing it; it reeks of childish dishonesty.
You like anime. You're probably either really really fat or really really skinny.
Do you think I'm white too?
It's hard not to like anime when the only decent things on TV were anime, the Simpsons and live action kungfu/sitcom/historic drama.
Anyway, I'll take 1:2 sig bet odds that you can't predict my BMI (I'm 5 foot 8 by the way) conditional upon you defining what you think really really fat or really really skinny are and I'm offering 1:3 sig bet odds to anyone else who thinks that Ulti would use the accepted definition of 18-25 being normal and that he would actually take that bet because he's found an incredibly accurate model of predicting weight over the internet.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
I rarely see people talk about the epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency, the dangers of Omega 6 or the laundry list of harmful effects fructose causes to the human body.
I'd like to think word about fructose has gotten around, regardless of how many folks actually adhere to minimizing consumption. The stuff about polyunsaturated fatty acids, 6:3 ratio for Omega 6's and 3's, and excess linoleic acid from the transition to vegetable and seed oils is definitely rare, despite its adverse effects on insulin sensitivity and leptin signaling.
--
"Getting lucky 100% of the time... it's called PRO SKILL." -BlAcK TuRtLe
Because you're confused by the sentence eat healthy and exercise. Just because it's a simple sentence to verbalize doesn't mean that the performing the actions are equally simple.
Completely true; it's possible that the sentiment "eat healthy and exercise" is very complicated, and it's also possible that it's very simple. Let's explore, shall we?
For example, what is meant by "eating healthy"...? Low Fat? Low Carb? Gluten and casein free? Are Red Meats acceptable? What types of vegetable oils are harmful? Are supplements needed? What's a good way to keep track of my progress?
On exercise: What type of exercise is acceptable? Do different types of exercises have different rates at which they assist in weight gain? Does this type of exercise require a different diet in order to help speed recovery time? Should I be worried about pulling muscles?
Speaking generally, we all know what constitutes a healthy diet: about five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, lean meats, low quantities of fats and sugars, and a total caloric intake no greater than 2000-2500. When it comes to exercise, most people can maintain a healthy weight with an hour or so a day, focusing on low-risk exercise that won't likely pull any muscles; for those who want to lose weight, an hour might be on the low side.
Now, I will grant that there is a difference between a healthy diet and an optimal diet, the latter presumably requiring a lot of work and nutritive understanding. But just keeping the weight off, looking good, and feeling good? Simple.
And for both of them: How the heck do I plan to stick to an exercise/diet plan? is there any way for me to do both by default instead of using cognitive energy each time? How am I going to balance the costs of each against my limited time and money?
"Using cognitive energy" each time? If a person considers the choice between an apple and an apple pie to be one that requires too much energy for them to bother, then something's wrong with that person. As for the choice between health and convenience? This might have been a legitimate complaint a couple decades ago, but now most fast food joints serve healthier options. Plus, there's always a Subway close by.
Of course, and then the masses assume that merely because it's easy to chant a four word slogan like they're supporting a political party that the mechanisms involved to succeed are similarly simple. Except that when their model clearly deviates from reality they postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence instead of thinking that just maybe, since they've never studied or read or researched anything about how and why such failures happen, they might be wrong.
They "postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence"? I'm glad you're a science type, because you would make an awful writer. Few people are impressed by overwriting.
Also, what I find hilarious is that Jaffar commits the error twice by referring to the Shangri-la diet as complex, then, because he sees a dark, murky, shapeless void where the definition of the diet should be, assumes that the diet is similarly confounding in its complexity.
I actually know nothing about that particular diet, nor did I pretend to. It's besides my point, which, as a reminder, is that maintaining a reasonably healthy weight involves the simple and winning combination of healthy diet and exercise. Now, if you want to be a body builder? Different story.
It's hard not to like anime when the only decent things on TV were anime, the Simpsons and live action kungfu/sitcom/historic drama.
Completely unrelated, but get cable. You're missing out on too many amazing programs!
most of the anime on TV is either bad, has a bad dub, or has been on since the early 2000s and isn't worth continuing to rewatch. I like anime too but if cable TV is your argument then you really don't have one
Would Subway/Quiznos be considered eating healthy? Assuming you choose whole wheat bread, and dont add extra bacon/cheese to everything. Say a typical BMT with lots of veggies?
I like anime too but if cable TV is your argument then you really don't have one
Maybe I'm misreading you here, but I'm saying that there are tons of great non-anime shows on cable. I personally hate anime (except for Death Note, which is good, and Gurren Lagann, which is so-bad-it's-good).
Would Subway/Quiznos be considered eating healthy? Assuming you choose whole wheat bread, and dont add extra bacon/cheese to everything. Say a typical BMT with lots of veggies?
I doubt Subway alone would be able to get you all the nutrients you need, but it's certainly a healthy choice for a snack, lunch, or dinner. Just make sure to complement it with other healthy options.
Maybe I'm misreading you here, but I'm saying that there are tons of great non-anime shows on cable. I personally hate anime (except for Death Note, which is good, and Gurren Lagann, which is so-bad-it's-good).
nah that was at newbie, there really isn't any anime on TV that I would bother watching. ^5 for death note though, favorite anime and also introduced me to maximum the hormone who are amazing!
In all seriousness though, not all exercises are the same. My understanding is very spotty on it, so anything Liquid calls me out on is correct, but my belief is that anything on a treadmill is so grossly inefficient that you might as well spend that time playing video games and getting a nicotine patch. Whereas you can get more weightless in a third of the time with LW's aforementioned HIIT
you can run on a treadmill which is good activity, just takes more of a toll on your body than something like biking or swimming. and yeah, high intensity...at least some of the time, for short term periods has shown to be more effective than doing an hour of light exercise for serious fat loss. I'm not super well researched on this so idk why this is but I think it has to do with the effects of intense exercise being lingering, it continues to affect you for hours after having done it. it helps to be active in general though, not just for fat loss but also heart health, there are all sorts of studies showing that people with desk jobs are much more likely to have heart failure and strokes and such, the human body wasn't designed to sit in one place all day
Speaking generally, we all know what constitutes a healthy diet: about five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, lean meats, low quantities of fats and sugars, and a total caloric intake no greater than 2000-2500.
...Except that this is the precise diet with low adherence and much less effective weight loss. Even if we do take you at your word that it's a healthy diet, did you have any evidence of 1) adherence 2) weight loss for the majority, or large minority of people going on that type of diet without also restricting calories?
Completely unrelated, but get cable. You're missing out on too many amazing programs!
note the past tense. It meant I grew up in china you eurocentric imperialistic chauvinist pig.
In all seriousness though, there are a bunch of live action series I want to get into and I appreciate the advice, but my viewing habits and the boobtube's absence in my apartment present a slight obstacle to taking it..
When it comes to exercise, most people can maintain a healthy weight with an hour or so a day, focusing on low-risk exercise that won't likely pull any muscles; for those who want to lose weight, an hour might be on the low side.
An hour per day? That sounds like a ridiculous time commitment. I could probably learn a foreign language off of that amount of extra time in the day!
Not all exercises are the same. My understanding is very spotty on it, so if LW calls me out on something I'm wrong and he's correct, but my belief is that anything on a treadmill is so grossly inefficient that you might as well spend that time playing video games and getting a nicotine patch. Whereas you can get more weightloss in a third of the time with LW's aforementioned HIIT
"Using cognitive energy" each time? If a person considers the choice between an apple and an apple pie to be one that requires too much energy for them to bother, then something's wrong with that person
...Did you not pay attention or what? It's not "energy" so much as "willpower exerted". Since it's been experimentally verified that willpower is used up for certain tasks and that one of the tasks where willpower is used on is making dietary choices.
Also, do you seriously believe that it's more likely that 20%~ of total Americans (that's the % obese) have "something wrong with them" than you just being bad at predicting how normal people behave, considering you haven't tried looking?
Few people are impressed by overwriting.
Many people are impressed by your sharp and detailed prose, inability to acknowledge valid points and willingness to speak assertively and confidently on a topic you know nothing about.
It shows principle and character.
Once again do you admit the world's normality and your insanity is likelier than the world's insanity and your normality?
Now, if you want to be a body builder? Different story.
This is a diet for weight loss and not muscle gain. You'd think that after the second minute you'd actually try and google it instead of assuming it's for body builders.
Oh wait I guess it's an ability that only mutant "science types" such as myself possess. You're excused.
(ps terrible writing is the #1 reason not to get into a technical field)
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
...Except that this is the precise diet with low adherence
"Low adherence" has nothing to do with the quality of the diet.
and much less effective weight loss.
Haha, what's that now? Eating right and exercising isn't "effective" at weight loss?
Even if we do take you at your word that it's a healthy diet, did you have any evidence of 1) adherence 2) weight loss for the majority, or large minority of people going on that type of diet without also restricting calories?
Tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're joking.
An hour per day? That sounds like a ridiculous time commitment. I could probably learn a foreign language off of that amount of extra time in the day!
How many hours a day do you spend trolling GameFAQs?
Not all exercises are the same. My understanding is very spotty on it, so if LW calls me out on something I'm wrong and he's correct, but my belief is that anything on a treadmill is so grossly inefficient that you might as well spend that time playing video games and getting a nicotine patch. Whereas you can get more weightloss in a third of the time with LW's aforementioned HIIT
The rationalization of a fat man: playing video games is just as good for my health as running on the treadmill.
...Did you not pay attention or what? It's not "energy" so much as "willpower exerted". Since it's been experimentally verified that willpower is used up for certain tasks and that one of the tasks where willpower is used on is making dietary choices.
You have this incredible ability to use so many words when saying nothing at all. There's a distinction between "What kind of diet works?" and "What kind of diet are people more likely to adhere to?" I'm not bothering with the second one.
My bottom line here: what it takes to be healthy is a very simple thing to understand. The reason diets fail is because the great majority of people are weak-willed, and a choice as simple as apple vs. apple pie requires commitment and practice. Not really my concern.
Also, do you seriously believe that it's more likely that 20%~ of total Americans (that's the % obese) have "something wrong with them" than you just being bad at predicting how normal people behave, considering you haven't tried looking?
Oh dear, just 20%? I'd put it at a much higher number than that, factoring in all those who are overweight.
Many people are impressed by your sharp and detailed prose,
Thanks!
Once again do you admit the world's normality and your insanity is likelier than the world's insanity and your normality?
...No?
This is a diet for weight loss and not muscle gain. You'd think that after the second minute you'd actually try and google it instead of assuming it's for body builders.
Reading comprehension, brah. No one's talking about the diet you mentioned earlier.
(ps terrible writing is the #1 reason not to get into a technical field)
meisnewbie posted... 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.
Now, maybe he's a special case or whatever, but I seem to recall tales of Michael Phelps eating whole pizzas after swimming practice.
Not for nothing, and it's not a completely fast food diet, I suppose, but that's still a ton of grease this man is not only living fine with, but winning record amounts of gold medals with.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) http://www.sporcle.com/games/Kazbar/gfaqscontest
...What? Even if you're using some different definition of "quality" taking only the health effects into account, it's simply stupid and foolish
Good job maintaining that respectful discourse, newbie.
to not include adherence into how often the diet would work. It'd be like talking about the lottery without considering the chances of actually winning. It's plain and simple fact that a diet which doesn't work... doesn't work, and it should be entirely immaterial whether it fails because of adherence, unhealthiness or divine intervention.
Nope. The distinction between effectiveness in diet and adherence to diet is a clear one. Saying a diet doesn't work if you don't follow it is much different than saying a diet doesn't work even if you follow it.
...Yes! It doesn't necessarily lead to weightloss! Do you have any evidence otherwise? I've told you that your diet simply doesn't *work* in the long term! Do you need me to start linking you to studies before you believe?
Yes, please. Link me to studies that suggest that eating healthy and exercising does not lead to weight loss for any significant percentage of people.
Again, I'm not making universal claims here. Certain people have genuine health conditions that prevent traditional diets from working properly. They constitute the smallest of minorities, however.
Whenever the Gym is closed obv.
You've missed my point. An hour a day is an incredibly modest investment, especially considering the average amount of time Americans spend, say, watching television.
Also the bet is equally open to you as to ulti. Willing to take it coward?
What, you mean the bet about betting your BMI? I really don't care. From what I've gleaned from this topic, you're a short asian man who's likely rather portly and almost certainly socially awkward. A lack of financial success seems likely as well. But feel free to keep calling people "cowards" on the internet. That's the beauty of anonymity, after all!
The rationalization of a fat man: playing video games is just as good for my health as running on the treadmill.
The bleating of a dumb sheep: what my mom told me is true.
Congratulations on responding to an actual point with an ad hominem. Your original point- that running on the treadmill and playing video games are the same in terms of health benefits- is just the most hilariously stupid thing I've ever read from you. Calling me a "dumb sheep" shouldn't satisfy you as a rejoinder.
Again, do you have any actual evidence that running on a treadmill is an effective long term intervention, especially at the rate of once per day? I'm not confident enough to claim this, unequivocally (because I admit my ignorance on this field) but doesn't cardio also damage your muscles similarly to lifting free weights when you do it?
The most obvious benefits to running on the treadmill are a) it keeps your body active, and b) it burns calories, which is the most immediate way to lose weight. Is it the optimal way to exercise? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a lot better than sitting on your behind playing video games? No ****.
Yeah, I overstated there, although I will qualify that I meant "processed foods high in transfat and high fructose corn syrup", which means that, while you're off mark on the pizza, you're dead on when it comes to the the 10 energy drinks he chugs everyday.
And yeah, Phelps is pretty much the textbook case of why the calorie model is way too oversimplified: It breaks down and cries when confronted with numbers like 12k calories. How are you supposed to explain that by only looking at a table?
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
No. YOUR bottom line here is that you don't actually care about what makes people healthy. You care about moralizing, about lecturing to the world how corrupt and defiled it is, about giving up on everyone else because you refuse to see you might, even in theory be wrong.
I'm sorry, when did I talk about "moralizing"? Just as a matter of fact, proper dieting involves simple steps:
1) Don't take in more calories than you burn off. 2) Make healthy dietary choices, minimizing sugar and fat intake. 3) Try and keep your body active by exercising a little a day.
I can guarantee that if every American did this, the obesity rate would be a good deal under 5%.
It's not a matter of willpower whether YOU choose between dietary dogma and nutritional research; it's a matter of pride and signaling.
Nah, I don't claim to be an expert. What we're discussing, however, is more an issue of common sense than of nutritional erudition, so all the studies and alternatives you're trying to throw out are besides the point.
And while you may enjoy the junk information spewing uninhibited from mouths of housewives into your ears,
"Eat healthy and exercise" is apparently housewife junk now, eh? You're a funny dude.
please acknowledge that some of us pride ourselves on an all natural, high signal to noise, diet of research and fact.
burn
...sorry, what was this tirade supposed to accomplish, again? For someone who likes to graze on a "diet of research and fact," you sure do insult people and go off topic a lot.
Are you seriously talking about dietary issues when you don't even know that "obese" and "overweight" refers to different categories of fat people?
Again, reading comprehension seems to be a weakness of yours, so let me help you out. You said:
do you seriously believe that it's more likely that 20%~ of total Americans (that's the % obese) have "something wrong with them"...?
To which I responded: yes, but I'd go further than this, including those who are overweight into the something-wrong-with-them group. You'll probably call me out for "moralizing" or whatnot, so let me preempt you here by reminding you that losing weight is an incredibly simple-to-understand affair for the vast majority of people (those without legitimate physiological impediments).
Make sure you eat less calories than you burn off. Don't eat fast food all the time. Exercise once in a while. This stuff isn't complicated, and the (very real, I admit) fact that people struggle so seriously with this stuff tells me that either our society is full of shameless hedonists, or we're so collectively weak-willed that the choice between an apple and an apple pie really has become somehow a difficult one.
And you still haven't googled here!
Do you want me to Google your diet? Even though it's unrelated? Say please first!
...Yeah you're stupid.
An appropriate bookend to your diatribe.
I hesitate to ask this, given how predictable you are, but what kind of credentials do you have that make you an expert on nutrition? And what about you entitles you to your hilariously entertaining arrogance?
And yeah, Phelps is pretty much the textbook case of why the calorie model is way too oversimplified: It breaks down and cries when confronted with numbers like 12k calories. How are you supposed to explain that by only looking at a table?
It "breaks down" only at the extremes. Same with the BMI chart: though top-tier athletes may get false readings as "overweight," it's accurate for the vast majority of people.
You'd benefit if you'd stop making everything a universal. What's true of Michael Phelps isn't true for you, newbie boy. Sorry to say it.
Nope. The distinction between effectiveness in diet and adherence to diet is a clear one. Saying a diet doesn't work if you don't follow it is much different than saying a diet doesn't work even if you follow it.
...A diet that doesn't work, for any reason is a diet you should shut up about unless you figure out an actionable solution for it. Sure there's a difference, but when you care about losing weight it's not a goddamn meaningful difference. A starvation diet, or a diet of sawdust are both VERY EFFECTIVE means of losing weight, even better than 15% caloric restriction diets, why don't I hear about them then?
Yes, please. Link me to studies that suggest that eating healthy and exercising does not lead to weight loss for any significant percentage of people.
Before i do it, I want to confirm that 1) You mean to say any low fat and high carb diet is "healthy" and that 2) ANY type of exercise does not lead to weight loss and 3) This all applies in the long term, as in 1+ years, correct?
I will also say that I will not offer studies with under 50~ people, but I will include rodent studies as weak examples of evidence. Is that good enough?
Also, I want you to state how confident you are that 1) You are completely right, 2) You are right in part and 3) That I'll post studies 4) That those studies will validate your point.
What, you mean the bet about betting your BMI? I really don't care. From what I've gleaned from this topic, you're a short asian man who's likely rather portly and almost certainly socially awkward. A lack of financial success seems likely as well. But feel free to keep calling people "cowards" on the internet. That's the beauty of anonymity, after all!
I like how you confidently assert that I'm portly and then completely not take the bet. I'm calling you an intellectual coward, who wouldn't put yourself out there for fear of looking dumb, which has nothing to do with what you look like and everything to do with what you think and type.
Congratulations on responding to an actual point with an ad hominem.
Congratulations on not only trying to call me fat but also not trying to show that you don't really believe that. If you truly didn't care about how fat I was, why would you bother assuming it was a rationalization? Hell, we can bet on how much time I spend on video games versus when I spend it relative to gym opening times too, if you're confident enough of yourself.
The most obvious benefits to running on the treadmill are a) it keeps your body active, and b) it burns calories, which is the most immediate way to lose weight. Is it the optimal way to exercise? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a lot better than sitting on your behind playing video games? No ****.
On b) is there any reason to believe that the caloric burning wouldn't be balanced out by a slower metabolism elsewhere in the day? (Sidenote: LW yes I know about the changes in BSM) Or by someone rewarding themselves with food that exactly canceled out their exercise effort afterward? Remember, we're talking about real people here, not fictional, simplified constructs created specifically to bolster your argument. How does A) help, especially in light of the negative effects of "keeping your body active"...?
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
1) Don't take in more calories than you burn off. 2) Make healthy dietary choices, minimizing sugar and fat intake. 3) Try and keep your body active by exercising a little a day.
I can guarantee that if every American did this, the obesity rate would be a good deal under 5%.
1 is a tautology, how the hell does it actually serve as advice? Where do you go to find out how many calories you burn? It doesn't even mandate that you need to exercise or eat less (which seems to be your position)! Why not do things which speed up your metabolism without exercise or eat less without making a conscious choice? I'm not saying that's untrue, but how is that useful advice at all?
2) is half false and contradictory with what you've said in this topic. You claimed that more servings of fruits would improve your health, when a good portion of fruits have sugars rivaling sodas. And are you claiming that high fat diets cannot cause you to lose weight? I'll throw that on top of the study pile and would like a confidence interval there too.
3) includes such a wide range of actions that it's nearly impossible to falsify too. Are you talking about walking more? Yoga? Kettleballs? Pushups? Free weights? What? Once again, I'm not going to disagree that this is technically true, but with no specific points on what types of exercises are needed, it just doesn't mean anything to anyone. Also I highly disagree with "a day" and I think results can be achieved off of less frequent intervals. Three times a week or less even.\
BoshStrikesBack posted... And yeah, Phelps is pretty much the textbook case of why the calorie model is way too oversimplified: It breaks down and cries when confronted with numbers like 12k calories. How are you supposed to explain that by only looking at a table?
It "breaks down" only at the extremes. Same with the BMI chart: though top-tier athletes may get false readings as "overweight," it's accurate for the vast majority of people.
You'd benefit if you'd stop making everything a universal. What's true of Michael Phelps isn't true for you, newbie boy. Sorry to say it.
Except you can't tell me what the extremes are beforehand, which is the mark of a bad model.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting! Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.
...A diet that doesn't work, for any reason is a diet you should shut up about unless you figure out an actionable solution for it. Sure there's a difference, but when you care about losing weight it's not a goddamn meaningful difference.
I'm sorry, who is this "you" we're talking about? You seem insistent on referring to specific people or groups, but I'm merely referring to the simplicity of the steps of the diet. "Making healthy choices and exercising" is a) very simple to understand, b) cost-efficient, and c) does not require a heavy investment in time or research, unlike most other elaborate dieting plans.
To say that a diet "doesn't work" because people don't follow the diet is highly misleading. If you want to argue that "making healthy choices and exercising" is some hugely difficult thing to adhere to, that's an entirely different discussion (although you'll have a hard time convincing people that "choosing an apple over an apple pie" is some stupendous sign of strength).
A starvation diet, or a diet of sawdust are both VERY EFFECTIVE means of losing weight, even better than 15% caloric restriction diets, why don't I hear about them then?
Actually, no, these are not healthy alternatives to lose weight. But you know this already.
Before i do it, I want to confirm that 1) You mean to say any low fat and high carb diet is "healthy" and that 2) ANY type of exercise does not lead to weight loss and 3) This all applies in the long term, as in 1+ years, correct?
1) No, what I mean to say is the following: take the typical American diet, remove the majority of high-fat/high-sugar options and replace it with healthier (yet still convenient) options, and I guarantee that obesity will drop dramatically. "High carb and low fat" isn't what I'm getting at; rather, it's approaching the right amount of carbs and the right amount of fats (and, needless to say, a healthier diet typically includes more complex carbs and fewer saturated fats).
2) Did you mean to say that "ANY type of exercise leads to weight loss"? If so, then I can't agree with this either. Exercise does burn off calories, however, and is safer (and easier!) than merely starving your body. Speaking generally, an hour or so of exercise a day helps keep the body active, healthy, and contributes to maintaining a good weight.
3) Of course.
I will also say that I will not offer studies with under 50~ people, but I will include rodent studies as weak examples of evidence. Is that good enough?
Sounds fine to me.
Also, I want you to state how confident you are that 1) You are completely right, 2) You are right in part and 3) That I'll post studies 4) That those studies will validate your point.
My position is extremely conservative and simple to understand, so yes, I'm confident I'm correct. And again, I'm always up for being proven wrong, so if you've got in your possession some miracle studies that prove "eat healthy and exercise" is some grand lie, then by all means, show me the way. But please, don't misrepresent my position or twist my words!
2) is half false and contradictory with what you've said in this topic. You claimed that more servings of fruits would improve your health, when a good portion of fruits have sugars rivaling sodas.
Healthy sugars vs. unhealthy sugars (but you know this already). I'm simply saying that, in making dietary choices, consistently making such choices as eating an apple (which has natural sugars) over apple pie (which has artificial sugars) will greatly enhance one's health. If you'd like to argue that, feel free.
And are you claiming that high fat diets cannot cause you to lose weight? I'll throw that on top of the study pile and would like a confidence interval there too.
They probably could, but would require a) an unusually high metabolism, and b) a good deal more exercise.
3) includes such a wide range of actions that it's nearly impossible to falsify too. Are you talking about walking more? Yoga? Kettleballs? Pushups? Free weights? What? Once again, I'm not going to disagree that this is technically true, but with no specific points on what types of exercises are needed, it just doesn't mean anything to anyone. Also I highly disagree with "a day" and I think results can be achieved off of less frequent intervals. Three times a week or less even.
Anything works, really. Again, I'm sure this will frustrate you, but I'm not making claims about the best possible diet. These are just small, simple steps that would make a huge impact in the overall health of our society. Just an hour a day is a good first start; certain people will learn they can do less, while others may have to do more. Either way, it can only help in the vast, vast majority of cases.
Except you can't tell me what the extremes are beforehand, which is the mark of a bad model.
I'm going to go ahead and define "extreme" on that end as "a Gold Medal athlete who burns literally tens of thousands of calories a day." Once the average American starts rivaling Michael Phelps in terms of exercise, then we can begin to rethink things.
I like how you confidently assert that I'm portly and then completely not take the bet. I'm calling you an intellectual coward, who wouldn't put yourself out there for fear of looking dumb, which has nothing to do with what you look like and everything to do with what you think and type.
I'm employing a tit-for-tat strategy when it comes to the insults, newbie. Don't call me "stupid" (which you have no evidence for), and I won't call you "a fat asian man" (which I have no evidence for). All you could potentially argue based on the words I'm typing is that a) you disagree with my position, or b) you disagree with the form of my arguments. "Stupidity" doesn't enter the equation, and this discussion will go more smoothly if you'll lay off the insults.
On b) is there any reason to believe that the caloric burning wouldn't be balanced out by a slower metabolism elsewhere in the day?
It very well might be. Again, ceteris paribus, exercise would help the average American diet far more than no exercise.
As a quick aside, there very possibly could be an "optimal diet"- which I mentioned earlier- that casts aside entirely the folk wisdom I'm employing here. But I'm not concerned with the "optimal diet" (although I would encourage you to explain what, exactly, that would look like).
How does A) help, especially in light of the negative effects of "keeping your body active"...?
Too many studies to count have shown that a sedative lifestyle leads to greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and the like. Being moderately active is a good way to keep your body working properly in general. No universal axioms here; just good, clean, common sense that can help the struggling average man reach a healthier position.
1 is a tautology, how the hell does it actually serve as advice?
I'm not sure you know what a "tautology" is, then. "Taking in fewer calories than you consume" isn't some self-defining repetition; it's a simple recommendation that you... uh... take in fewer calories than you burn.
Where do you go to find out how many calories you burn?
Google. Seriously though, it's not difficult to find out a) how many calories are burned in a typical, non-intensive day, b) how many calories you burn during exercise, and c) how many calories are in the food you eat. Just chalk up a quick balance sheet.
It doesn't even mandate that you need to exercise or eat less (which seems to be your position)!
...which is why it's only one of the three points I made, yeah?
Why not do things which speed up your metabolism without exercise or eat less without making a conscious choice?
This is potentially good advice as well.
I'm not saying that's untrue, but how is that useful advice at all?
Because it gives us a starting point: when planning out your diet, make sure that your planned routine will burn off enough calories compared to what foods you plan to eat, and if things don't balance out (or, if you're trying to lose weight, tip towards the lower end), then make an adjustment on one side of the scale or the other.
Healthy sugars vs. unhealthy sugars (but you know this already). I'm simply saying that, in making dietary choices, consistently making such choices as eating an apple (which has natural sugars) over apple pie (which has artificial sugars) will greatly enhance one's health. If you'd like to argue that, feel free.
Sugar in fruit is fructose. Sugar in HFCS is the same fructose, at whatever percent, with the rest being glucose. It's the same unhealthy fructose; the difference is that fruit is largely comprised of dietary fiber, which binds to some of the fructose and deters absorption by your body. So replacing "artificial" sugars with "natural" ones is not a method of turning them from good to bad.
Also, regarding exercise. Try not to look at it in terms of a black and white "I ate X calories I burned X calories exercising" mentality because exercise has two benefits that assist metabolism. One, it improves insulin sensitivity, and two it makes the Krebs Cycle run a lil bit faster so your body metabolizes more of what you eat before it can even become stored energy. I am not making any specific claims as to how much and what type of exercise will cause how much weight loss for what people, but this is the general reasoning.
And are you claiming that high fat diets cannot cause you to lose weight? I'll throw that on top of the study pile and would like a confidence interval there too.
They probably could, but would require a) an unusually high metabolism, and b) a good deal more exercise.
It's really time for folks to stop being afraid of fat. You do not need more exercise and/or a higher metabolism to make a higher fat diet "work" properly. Just as your body addresses different carbohydrates in different ways, the same is true for different kinds of fats. The dilemma is oversimplification: X macronutrient bad, Y macronutrient good. It just doesn't work that way.
--
"Getting lucky 100% of the time... it's called PRO SKILL." -BlAcK TuRtLe
Saw this topic was still around and thought "oh there must be a pissing match going on." Looks like I was right.
We're literally having a civil discussion about nutrition. Any kind of personal attack is just the occasional spill-over from newbie and I being passionate people.
Christ, it's almost like it's impossible for people to talk about things here! No one's forcing you to read this topic, and there are plenty of non-confrontational topics around if those suit your fancy.