If the latter case doesn't happen, why not? Does your body have a bias towards being overweight for some reason, such that you can trend fatter but not thinner? If ten years of a crappy lifestyle can make you fat forever, why can't ten years of a good lifestyle make you thin forever? Is there an age past which your body just says, "Fuck it, I'mma be this way forever because inertia," and then your body style is kinda set?
I don't know why not.
I don't know if there is a good explanation out there why not and I'm just ignorant of it, or if it's an unanswered question at this time.
But regardless of the why, it is the (apparent) case that being fat for a long time makes you more likely to remain fat, but being skinny for a long time doesn't make you more likely (or as more likely) to remain skinny? Is that the correct reading?
That is the case in rats and appears to also be the case in humans, yes.
It could be because we live in an obesogenic environment, so there is constant pull towards weight gain.
Or it could be because rats and humans have evolved to more easily store energy than to burn it. After all, as long as we can waddle up close enough to squirt our gametes at each other, evolution gives no shits what happens to us past our reproductive primes.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If the latter case doesn't happen, why not? Does your body have a bias towards being overweight for some reason, such that you can trend fatter but not thinner? If ten years of a crappy lifestyle can make you fat forever, why can't ten years of a good lifestyle make you thin forever? Is there an age past which your body just says, "Fuck it, I'mma be this way forever because inertia," and then your body style is kinda set?
I don't know why not.
I don't know if there is a good explanation out there why not and I'm just ignorant of it, or if it's an unanswered question at this time.
But regardless of the why, it is the (apparent) case that being fat for a long time makes you more likely to remain fat, but being skinny for a long time doesn't make you more likely (or as more likely) to remain skinny? Is that the correct reading?
That is the case in rats and appears to also be the case in humans, yes.
It could be because we live in an obesogenic environment, so there is constant pull towards weight gain.
Or it could be because rats and humans have evolved to more easily store energy than to burn it. After all, as long as we can waddle up close enough to squirt our gametes at each other, evolution gives no shits what happens to us past our reproductive primes.
I do have to say though in all seriousness, there is nothing more satisfying to me as an exercise goal to be able to lift weights with ease I used to struggle with. Its the real life version of moving an RPG bar.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Plus with weight lifting you get to ask people if they EVEN FUCKING LIFT BRO? DO YOU?
WELL DO U
(i stahpped 4 summer bacause cardio. watever u guys *double bird*)
Weightlifting is also an easier introduction to exercising if you've never done it before. Start at manageable weight. Pick up thing. Put thing back down. Spend 45 minutes in gym with manageable reps and sets. Go home. Try higher weights next time. Whereas with cardio, even one solid minute as a beginner is agony ().
However, the need for equipment makes it difficult to get accustomed to it at a young age--in gym classes at school we rarely used the weight room, and if we did no one who wasn't already playing a sport used it right. Unless you were playing sports because you were already talented, those machines and weights remained foreign. And as an adult, you need to have a gym membership, which can be costly in places (fucking NYC...liek $99 baseline for a year-long contract at a standard gym, not including taxes and fees).
But I digress. Unless they're making bench presses for babies now, the real standard for how prevalent diabetes is and will be in the population is in reducing infant and childhood obesity (as mentioned), where exercise is simply not as great a factor
Once weight loss hits a plateau, maintaining the same caloric deficit will not only fail to induce further weight loss, but is extremely likely to result in partially or totally regaining some of the lost weight.
Also, I picked those two specifically because they involved controlled, non-self-reported diets. There is an abundance of studies and metareviews (including both self-reported and non-self-reported diets) that show that most people regain part or all of the weight they lose from behavioral changes. Some of those studies are cited in the University of Colorado paper if you want to drill down.
Again, that was not your claim. This new claim, that once your caloric deficit is no longer a deficit and is now in fact equivalent to your maintenance calories you will no longer lose weight is one that I think is well supported by literature.
Most studies that track adults on weight loss plans for long periods of time (over a year) show that most peoples' body mass return to a baseline range even when they successfully adhere to the program. They might maintain modest amounts of weight loss - 10% or less in most cases - but the vast majority of people cannot maintain dramatic shifts in weight loss even if they adhere to a diet and exercise plan.
I fail to see how you could have possibly misinterpreted the two quoted passages, particularly the bolded sections of those passages, as being incompatible.
The first (although now second due to the joys of my quote snipping) read to me that a person who maintained a lower caloric load (successful adherence to the program) would then gain weight back to their original weight without any change to their diet.
The second, I read as they will no longer continue to lose weight as they reach a new plateau.
A little from column A, a little from column B, honestly.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
maybe i am a lucky obese person? idk. but like kamar my weight trends exactly with my diet and exercise levels. i am totally willing to accept that my long time period as a morbidly obese person makes it harder for me to stay thin- the fact that i am obese right now makes it even easier to consider. i am especially inclined to agree that there is a major effect on adherence.
but given consistent adherence, my weight is directly mapped to my behavior. every time i've slipped back to morbidly obese from a lower weight it's because i've stopped effecting healthy processes.
+2
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The amount of added sugar in basic stuff is incredible, and incredibly bad. I picked up a package of hot dogs the other day that had corn syrup in them.
wtf?!
The government really needs to step in and tell companies to knock it off if they don't want more overweight children and diabetic adults. Corn syrup is worse for you than regular sugar, and it's in everything, from canned fruit to yogurt to macaroni and cheese.
The evidence that corn syrup is any worse for you than other sugars on a calorie-per-calorie basis is pretty weak.
I used to ascribe to the "HCFS is extra bad sugar" hypothesis, too. It just hasn't been borne out.
What makes HCFS bad isn't that it's any worse than cane sugar; it's that it's cheaper and therefore gets packed into more things in higher quantities.
I thought that this argument was based on sweetness?
So 1cal of sugar is the same sweetness as 2cals of HFCS, thereby people using more HFCS than they would if they just used sugar. (numbers made up for simplicity)
But I don't actually recall where I got that impression, I'm assuming it's incorrect?
I doubt that, given that the calories in a sugar soda are about the same as a corn syrup soda, and they taste equally sweet.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Calories in soda are actually mega devil calories, they infect your system with "Fattyness" drink too much Soda and you wake up in the american south married to a lady named Lurleen.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So here is something that's confusing me, based on the literature Feral is referencing. (About which I'm not skeptical so much as just still trying to understand it.)
Say you start out thin. Through ten years of a consistently sedentary lifestyle and massive overconsumption of crappy food, you become obese. At this point, your body says, "Oh, I am overweight now, I will stay overweight forever, even if you start eating well and exercising, mwahaha!" It is then somewhere between super-hard and nigh-impossible to get back down to being thin. That is the gist of what I am getting from the lit.
So can we flip all that? Say you start out overweight. Then, after ten years of consistent healthy eating and copious exercise, you become thin. At this point, your body says, "Oh, I am thin now. I will stay thin forever, even if you start eating shitty and never exercise again. Yay, homeostasis!" It is then very difficult to become overweight.
If the latter case doesn't happen, why not? Does your body have a bias towards being overweight for some reason, such that you can trend fatter but not thinner? If ten years of a crappy lifestyle can make you fat forever, why can't ten years of a good lifestyle make you thin forever? Is there an age past which your body just says, "Fuck it, I'mma be this way forever because inertia," and then your body style is kinda set?
I remember a quote from ages ago, from a TED talk iirc?
Anyway, it went, and I'm paraphrasing: "Our bodies are extremely well adapted to starving, but terribly adapted to over eating".
My take away from that is that we are predesposed to becoming overweight, i.e. our bodies like to store calories, and are loathe to give them up.
I doubt that, given that the calories in a sugar soda are about the same as a corn syrup soda, and they taste equally sweet.
Using SCIENCE!™ I looked at some random website for the US nutrient facts and compared it to my can in the fridge, and it looks like that calories are similar.
The biggest difference to me between sugar and HFCS sodas are that the latter leaves a gummy residue in my mouth, like I just gargled a can of snot. There's a small taste difference, but I find it mostly a tactile issue.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Glucose (what comes from sugarcane) is definitely better than the broken down sugars of sucrose and fructose (what comes from HFCS), mainly because glucose cannot be directly absorbed by your body. Instead, your body actually breaks down glucose into its component parts of sucrose and fructose, which are then absorbed by your body. Just this little bit of extra energy required to break down glucose means that you will gain less weight on a real sugar diet than you will on an HFCS diet, given all other factors remain equal.
That said, in nature, nearly all forms of sugar comes in fiber form (think apples, bananas, etc), which naturally limits your sugar intake. Meaning, if you need a sugar fix, grab a fruit.
I've never heard of a residue being left in someones mouth when they drink soda. What the fuck are you drinking?
Ehhh... It is totally a thing. Sugar has a crisper cleaner mouth feel than HFCS. HFCS more sort of coats the mouth and lingers more.
This actually makes a sip of HFCS syrup seem sweeter and more attractive and likely to do better in a taste test. Drinking a few fl oz it can be a bit much.
I've never heard of a residue being left in someones mouth when they drink soda. What the fuck are you drinking?
Ehhh... It is totally a thing. Sugar has a crisper cleaner mouth feel than HFCS. HFCS more sort of coats the mouth and lingers more.
This actually makes a sip of HFCS syrup seem sweeter and more attractive and likely to do better in a taste test. Drinking a few fl oz it can be a bit much.
The whole baseline weight problem is one reason why weightlifting trumps cardio for losing weight. Not only does muscle burn more calories than fat while resting, the process of building muscle also burns calories. This goes a long way towards negating the problem of your body becoming more efficient at burning calories. Plus, as you gain muscle, you will look better, even when the results don't show up on a scale.
Well, the real secret is do both, and only eat healthy calories normally (as opposed to drinking protein shakes and the like). I was down to my freshman in high school weight in Afghanistan, but was 5x5 repping almost twice my one rep maximum from high school. Unfortunately, that was 10 hours / week of working out, in addition to any actual missions, so a substantial time commitment that can be very hard to keep up when busy and / or feeling lazy.
And really, that accounts for pretty much all long term issues with keeping weight off. That was extreme, but even more moderate plans still run into, "Well, I want to get drunk, so here's 1200 calories of alcoholic drinks" or "Well, it's raining outside, so I'll run tomorrow," and before you know it, +10 pounds. For long term solutions to this, helping encourage long term habits on a personal and social level helps. One thing that consistently helps me is that unlike 6 years ago, I genuinely hate the taste of sugared drinks. In terms of society wide changes, skewing existing subsidies against HFCS and towards, say, salads as a fast food option (like http://sweetgreen.com/ ) would help.
As Feral mentioned, portion control is a part of it, but on the flip side, I think it's reasonable to make person by person tradeoffs. If your meal is substantially vegetables and grilled, skinless chicken, you can eat until it physically hurts (not that I'd recommend that, because, you know, it hurts) and still come below what a lot of fast food meals will be calorie wise.
I had to give up sugary soda for my teeth (my weight's not great either, but holes in my teeth bother me more), but before I did I used to drink Jones real-sugar soda. And man, their green apple flavor was like drinking liquid jolly ranchers. Definitely a very noticeable difference from HFCS sodas.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If the latter case doesn't happen, why not? Does your body have a bias towards being overweight for some reason, such that you can trend fatter but not thinner? If ten years of a crappy lifestyle can make you fat forever, why can't ten years of a good lifestyle make you thin forever? Is there an age past which your body just says, "Fuck it, I'mma be this way forever because inertia," and then your body style is kinda set?
I don't know why not.
I don't know if there is a good explanation out there why not and I'm just ignorant of it, or if it's an unanswered question at this time.
But regardless of the why, it is the (apparent) case that being fat for a long time makes you more likely to remain fat, but being skinny for a long time doesn't make you more likely (or as more likely) to remain skinny? Is that the correct reading?
One explanation I've heard (and I don't know how much this is backed up by science) is that once you've accumulated fat cells, those cells never really go away. Even if you burn off the calories, the fat cells are still there, just deflated until they're needed again. So it's much easier to gain weight the second time, after those cells are already built up. The end result is that obesity is pretty much incurable, in all but the most rare cases.
As far as general solutions - The tobacco comparison seems about right to me. We substantially reduced the impact of smoking with substantive meaningful regulation, as well as a cultural shift brought on by strong campaign of negative advertising (from "smoking is cool" to "smoking is gross".) At this point, doing something similar to the food industry is certainly warranted.
And really, I suspect we'll see it happen sooner than one might expect. Obesity is costing the health care industry billions every year. It kills more people than germs at this point. And the health care industry certainly isn't lacking in lobbying power.
If the latter case doesn't happen, why not? Does your body have a bias towards being overweight for some reason, such that you can trend fatter but not thinner? If ten years of a crappy lifestyle can make you fat forever, why can't ten years of a good lifestyle make you thin forever? Is there an age past which your body just says, "Fuck it, I'mma be this way forever because inertia," and then your body style is kinda set?
I don't know why not.
I don't know if there is a good explanation out there why not and I'm just ignorant of it, or if it's an unanswered question at this time.
But regardless of the why, it is the (apparent) case that being fat for a long time makes you more likely to remain fat, but being skinny for a long time doesn't make you more likely (or as more likely) to remain skinny? Is that the correct reading?
One explanation I've heard (and I don't know how much this is backed up by science) is that once you've accumulated fat cells, those cells never really go away. Even if you burn off the calories, the fat cells are still there, just deflated until they're needed again. So it's much easier to gain weight the second time, after those cells are already built up. The end result is that obesity is pretty much incurable, in all but the most rare cases.
As far as general solutions - The tobacco comparison seems about right to me. We substantially reduced the impact of smoking with substantive meaningful regulation, as well as a cultural shift brought on by strong campaign of negative advertising (from "smoking is cool" to "smoking is gross".) At this point, doing something similar to the food industry is certainly warranted.
And really, I suspect we'll see it happen sooner than one might expect. Obesity is costing the health care industry billions every year. It kills more people than germs at this point. And the health care industry certainly isn't lacking in lobbying power.
I'm, like, 90% sure that is almost entirely something just made up by people who perform liposuctions made up.
I mean, fat cells are a teeny bit of protein, salt, and fat wrapping the whole thing, fat surrounded by fat, and fat. And water. It takes a bit of energy to organize all that, but... like... it's not exactly a hard thing for the body to produce.
annnd cells die. It takes a bit longer for some types of neurons and cancer cells, but cells pretty much all die pretty regularly.
I mean, I could be wrong. And it is probably something like, fat cells don't die right away but they die and aren't replaced if there isn't fat to go in them,
but the whole, it is easier to gain back weight because all you have to do is fill up the fat cells again? ehhh... ehhh... I'm guessing this is a fact that should probably be taken with the amount of salt McDonalds adds to their food every year.
So, am I wrong or did this whole thread take a turn for the incredibly depressing? How are we supposed to keep weight off if our body is just naturally returning to its heavier weight?
Is weight lifting a good solution to this problem? I mean, from just skimming the last few pages, weight lifting seems to be better than cardio and cutting caloric intake, but I didn't get a read on if it'd make it easier to keep the weight off (or significantly easier)?
So, am I wrong or did this whole thread take a turn for the incredibly depressing? How are we supposed to keep weight off if our body is just naturally returning to its heavier weight?
There is no hope. We're all doomed.
Please enjoy this commiserative cheeseburger.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Weight lifting keeps the weight off because of three primary reasons.
First, muscles burn more calories than fat, even while resting. The more muscle you have compared to fat, the more calories you burn off, no matter what you do. The studies I've seen suggest that 1 lb of muscle burns about 3 times more calories than 1 lb of fat.
Second, it takes calories to create muscles in the first place. Lifting actually stresses both your muscles and your bones, and the act of creating muscle is the body healing those microscopic stress fractures in your muscles and bones, making them both bigger and denser.
Third, it takes 2 days to fully repair your muscles, so just a single workout has a lingering effect for the next couple days.
So using the other study, where your body gets about 25% more efficient as you lose weight, it means that you need to replace 2.5 lbs of fat with 1 lb of muscle, in order to stay calorie neutral in your diet.
So, am I wrong or did this whole thread take a turn for the incredibly depressing? How are we supposed to keep weight off if our body is just naturally returning to its heavier weight?
Is weight lifting a good solution to this problem? I mean, from just skimming the last few pages, weight lifting seems to be better than cardio and cutting caloric intake, but I didn't get a read on if it'd make it easier to keep the weight off (or significantly easier)?
While there's significant individual difficulties in reaching a particular weight, its not like there's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics going on. The takeaway from what Feral is saying is just that it's a lot harder than you'd think.
It's also worth noting that those 5-10% reduction in weight are basically going to reduce the risk of diabetes and stroke and other cardiovascular diseases by somewhere in the double-digits, and while I can't remember the exact number, I'm pretty sure its well above a third.
So yes, looking like Brad Pitt? Gon' be hell.
Significantly reducing the risk of having parts of your brain die due to oxygen starvation, turning your body toxic against your own nerves, reducing its capacity to heal wounds, amputation as a result of the previous, lose your eyesight to uncontrollable blood vessel growth in the eye, or any other of the myriad little ways in which disease will fuck you over.
Weight lifting keeps the weight off because of three primary reasons.
First, muscles burn more calories than fat, even while resting. The more muscle you have compared to fat, the more calories you burn off, no matter what you do. The studies I've seen suggest that 1 lb of muscle burns about 3 times more calories than 1 lb of fat.
Second, it takes calories to create muscles in the first place. Lifting actually stresses both your muscles and your bones, and the act of creating muscle is the body healing those microscopic stress fractures in your muscles and bones, making them both bigger and denser.
Third, it takes 2 days to fully repair your muscles, so just a single workout has a lingering effect for the next couple days.
So using the other study, where your body gets about 25% more efficient as you lose weight, it means that you need to replace 2.5 lbs of fat with 1 lb of muscle, in order to stay calorie neutral in your diet.
Thank you, this is comforting. I already lift weights and try to run once a week. Just going to make damn sure I never get big, since it sounds like a colossal pain to get rid of it. Might have to see if I can convince the wife to do some weight training.
Okay, so taking into account what Feral is saying the problem looks like this:
- Excess body fat raises risk of disease, and after a certain point body fat levels become much more difficult to reduce.
- These risks can be reduced by improved diet and physical activity, even if the person is past the point where excess body fat has become much more difficult to shed.
- Because of the weight homeostasis effect, it becomes far more difficult to tell which overweight and obese people are still engaging in unhealthful habits and which have made positive improvements for their health.
- Fat shaming, which ostensibly is intended to motivate an overweight or obese person to drop unhealthful behaviors, therefore becomes counterproductive as overweight and obese people who have made positive lifestyle improvements are indiscriminately targeted. This discrimination can cause a person to lose the motivation to adhere to their new, healthier lifestyle.
- Because fat shaming also does not target MONW (metabolically obese, normal weight) individuals, many get the impression that superficially thin people are healthy and don't "need" to exercise.
If I'm on target here, how do we teach the "irreversibly" overweight and obese that they aren't doomed and can still practice a healthy lifestyle without also causing the general public to think that the dangers of being overweight are overblown?
If I'm on target here, how do we teach the "irreversibly" overweight and obese that they aren't doomed and can still practice a healthy lifestyle without also causing the general public to think that the dangers of being overweight are overblown?
The "simple" answer is that we need to decouple the notions of health and body image. Right now, there is a perceived "spectrum" of health, with supermodels and Batman-era Christian Bale on one end and Chris Christie on the other end, and you can allegedly tell how healthy someone is by how good they look in a swimsuit. That needs to end.
How do we do that? Fuck if I know. A long, protracted campaign that aims to alter deeply ingrained societal views, even as a lot of "experts" are conflicted about how true this really is, while other people make a shit-ton of money on maintaining the status quo.
So... good luck with that.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The "simple" answer is that we need to decouple the notions of health and body image. Right now, there is a perceived "spectrum" of health, with supermodels and Batman-era Christian Bale on one end and Chris Christie on the other end, and you can allegedly tell how healthy someone is by how good they look in a swimsuit. That needs to end.
How do we do that? Fuck if I know. A long, protracted campaign that aims to alter deeply ingrained societal views, even as a lot of "experts" are conflicted about how true this really is, while other people make a shit-ton of money on maintaining the status quo.
So... good luck with that.
This reminds me; back in 2008 I made a topic about the controversy surrounding Chloe Marshall, a then size-16 model who made it to the finals of the Miss England pageant. Even on here we had some posters saying that it was socially irresponsible for her to have made it as far as she did and that her success was helping to normalize obesity.
There are always exceptions to the "you think this person is unhealthy????" And people really outraged about that, but general rule for most people overweight is they are taking years off their life and their joints/bones/cardiovascular system is taking a pounding.
Like I work with an office full of obese older women, and the majority of them are in such awful shape simply walking a block is impossible. This it not a future I would wish on anyone.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I hesitate to agree with this statement because it implies a simple unidirectional causal relationship when the reality is murkier.
For instance, this thread is specifically about diabetes. There are some hypotheses that fat itself causes diabetes, for instance, but the evidence for that is weak and contradictory. It's possible that some other processes cause both fatness and diabetes. Or that fatness triggers a genetic predisposition to diabetes.
For some diseases, there's a direct causal relationship, for others, not so much.
It would be more accurate to say that excess body fat is associated with increased risk of certain diseases.
I totally agree with the rest of your post, though. Everything else is more or less what I've been saying.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Just as another example of how murky the cause/effect relationship for diabetes is, when I was in High School, I had a friend with two younger brothers that happened to be fraternal twins. One day, the brothers were walking home from school with their bikes when they got jumped. I don't know all of the details of what happened exactly, but in the resulting scrum, one of the brothers was knocked unconscious and slipped into a comma. Thankfully, he woke up about two weeks later, almost entirely un-fazed, except he now has diabetes. So, there's that
Truly commas are the most dangerous of all punctuation.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
That is the case in rats and appears to also be the case in humans, yes.
It could be because we live in an obesogenic environment, so there is constant pull towards weight gain.
Or it could be because rats and humans have evolved to more easily store energy than to burn it. After all, as long as we can waddle up close enough to squirt our gametes at each other, evolution gives no shits what happens to us past our reproductive primes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
oh
oh my
NNID: Hakkekage
pleasepaypreacher.net
WELL DO U
(i stahpped 4 summer bacause cardio. watever u guys *double bird*)
Weightlifting is also an easier introduction to exercising if you've never done it before. Start at manageable weight. Pick up thing. Put thing back down. Spend 45 minutes in gym with manageable reps and sets. Go home. Try higher weights next time. Whereas with cardio, even one solid minute as a beginner is agony (
However, the need for equipment makes it difficult to get accustomed to it at a young age--in gym classes at school we rarely used the weight room, and if we did no one who wasn't already playing a sport used it right. Unless you were playing sports because you were already talented, those machines and weights remained foreign. And as an adult, you need to have a gym membership, which can be costly in places (fucking NYC...liek $99 baseline for a year-long contract at a standard gym, not including taxes and fees).
But I digress. Unless they're making bench presses for babies now, the real standard for how prevalent diabetes is and will be in the population is in reducing infant and childhood obesity (as mentioned), where exercise is simply not as great a factor
For growned ups lift weights get swole, etc
NNID: Hakkekage
A little from column A, a little from column B, honestly.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
but given consistent adherence, my weight is directly mapped to my behavior. every time i've slipped back to morbidly obese from a lower weight it's because i've stopped effecting healthy processes.
I thought that this argument was based on sweetness?
So 1cal of sugar is the same sweetness as 2cals of HFCS, thereby people using more HFCS than they would if they just used sugar. (numbers made up for simplicity)
But I don't actually recall where I got that impression, I'm assuming it's incorrect?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
pleasepaypreacher.net
I remember a quote from ages ago, from a TED talk iirc?
Anyway, it went, and I'm paraphrasing: "Our bodies are extremely well adapted to starving, but terribly adapted to over eating".
My take away from that is that we are predesposed to becoming overweight, i.e. our bodies like to store calories, and are loathe to give them up.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Using SCIENCE!™ I looked at some random website for the US nutrient facts and compared it to my can in the fridge, and it looks like that calories are similar.
Can't compare the taste though.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
pleasepaypreacher.net
That said, in nature, nearly all forms of sugar comes in fiber form (think apples, bananas, etc), which naturally limits your sugar intake. Meaning, if you need a sugar fix, grab a fruit.
Ehhh... It is totally a thing. Sugar has a crisper cleaner mouth feel than HFCS. HFCS more sort of coats the mouth and lingers more.
This actually makes a sip of HFCS syrup seem sweeter and more attractive and likely to do better in a taste test. Drinking a few fl oz it can be a bit much.
I mean. It is actual science
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00174.x/abstract
You need 5% (per volume of solution, 50% more compared to volume of sugar) more sucrose for people to detect it being syrupy feeling.
Uh I think you may have gotten your information wrong there.
Edit: You're mixing up glucose and sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose.
Anyway it's doubtful that it makes much of a difference. The amount of energy involved is fairly minimal.
Brominated vegetable oil might also be a culprit for syrupy mouth feel, and until recently was ubiquitous in US soft drinks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/coke-pepsi-dropping-bvo-from-all-drinks/8736657/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, the real secret is do both, and only eat healthy calories normally (as opposed to drinking protein shakes and the like). I was down to my freshman in high school weight in Afghanistan, but was 5x5 repping almost twice my one rep maximum from high school. Unfortunately, that was 10 hours / week of working out, in addition to any actual missions, so a substantial time commitment that can be very hard to keep up when busy and / or feeling lazy.
And really, that accounts for pretty much all long term issues with keeping weight off. That was extreme, but even more moderate plans still run into, "Well, I want to get drunk, so here's 1200 calories of alcoholic drinks" or "Well, it's raining outside, so I'll run tomorrow," and before you know it, +10 pounds. For long term solutions to this, helping encourage long term habits on a personal and social level helps. One thing that consistently helps me is that unlike 6 years ago, I genuinely hate the taste of sugared drinks. In terms of society wide changes, skewing existing subsidies against HFCS and towards, say, salads as a fast food option (like http://sweetgreen.com/ ) would help.
As Feral mentioned, portion control is a part of it, but on the flip side, I think it's reasonable to make person by person tradeoffs. If your meal is substantially vegetables and grilled, skinless chicken, you can eat until it physically hurts (not that I'd recommend that, because, you know, it hurts) and still come below what a lot of fast food meals will be calorie wise.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
One explanation I've heard (and I don't know how much this is backed up by science) is that once you've accumulated fat cells, those cells never really go away. Even if you burn off the calories, the fat cells are still there, just deflated until they're needed again. So it's much easier to gain weight the second time, after those cells are already built up. The end result is that obesity is pretty much incurable, in all but the most rare cases.
As far as general solutions - The tobacco comparison seems about right to me. We substantially reduced the impact of smoking with substantive meaningful regulation, as well as a cultural shift brought on by strong campaign of negative advertising (from "smoking is cool" to "smoking is gross".) At this point, doing something similar to the food industry is certainly warranted.
And really, I suspect we'll see it happen sooner than one might expect. Obesity is costing the health care industry billions every year. It kills more people than germs at this point. And the health care industry certainly isn't lacking in lobbying power.
I'm, like, 90% sure that is almost entirely something just made up by people who perform liposuctions made up.
I mean, fat cells are a teeny bit of protein, salt, and fat wrapping the whole thing, fat surrounded by fat, and fat. And water. It takes a bit of energy to organize all that, but... like... it's not exactly a hard thing for the body to produce.
annnd cells die. It takes a bit longer for some types of neurons and cancer cells, but cells pretty much all die pretty regularly.
I mean, I could be wrong. And it is probably something like, fat cells don't die right away but they die and aren't replaced if there isn't fat to go in them,
but the whole, it is easier to gain back weight because all you have to do is fill up the fat cells again? ehhh... ehhh... I'm guessing this is a fact that should probably be taken with the amount of salt McDonalds adds to their food every year.
Is weight lifting a good solution to this problem? I mean, from just skimming the last few pages, weight lifting seems to be better than cardio and cutting caloric intake, but I didn't get a read on if it'd make it easier to keep the weight off (or significantly easier)?
There is no hope. We're all doomed.
Please enjoy this commiserative cheeseburger.
First, muscles burn more calories than fat, even while resting. The more muscle you have compared to fat, the more calories you burn off, no matter what you do. The studies I've seen suggest that 1 lb of muscle burns about 3 times more calories than 1 lb of fat.
Second, it takes calories to create muscles in the first place. Lifting actually stresses both your muscles and your bones, and the act of creating muscle is the body healing those microscopic stress fractures in your muscles and bones, making them both bigger and denser.
Third, it takes 2 days to fully repair your muscles, so just a single workout has a lingering effect for the next couple days.
So using the other study, where your body gets about 25% more efficient as you lose weight, it means that you need to replace 2.5 lbs of fat with 1 lb of muscle, in order to stay calorie neutral in your diet.
It's also worth noting that those 5-10% reduction in weight are basically going to reduce the risk of diabetes and stroke and other cardiovascular diseases by somewhere in the double-digits, and while I can't remember the exact number, I'm pretty sure its well above a third.
So yes, looking like Brad Pitt? Gon' be hell.
Significantly reducing the risk of having parts of your brain die due to oxygen starvation, turning your body toxic against your own nerves, reducing its capacity to heal wounds, amputation as a result of the previous, lose your eyesight to uncontrollable blood vessel growth in the eye, or any other of the myriad little ways in which disease will fuck you over.
Thank you, this is comforting. I already lift weights and try to run once a week. Just going to make damn sure I never get big, since it sounds like a colossal pain to get rid of it. Might have to see if I can convince the wife to do some weight training.
- Excess body fat raises risk of disease, and after a certain point body fat levels become much more difficult to reduce.
- These risks can be reduced by improved diet and physical activity, even if the person is past the point where excess body fat has become much more difficult to shed.
- Because of the weight homeostasis effect, it becomes far more difficult to tell which overweight and obese people are still engaging in unhealthful habits and which have made positive improvements for their health.
- Fat shaming, which ostensibly is intended to motivate an overweight or obese person to drop unhealthful behaviors, therefore becomes counterproductive as overweight and obese people who have made positive lifestyle improvements are indiscriminately targeted. This discrimination can cause a person to lose the motivation to adhere to their new, healthier lifestyle.
- Because fat shaming also does not target MONW (metabolically obese, normal weight) individuals, many get the impression that superficially thin people are healthy and don't "need" to exercise.
If I'm on target here, how do we teach the "irreversibly" overweight and obese that they aren't doomed and can still practice a healthy lifestyle without also causing the general public to think that the dangers of being overweight are overblown?
The "simple" answer is that we need to decouple the notions of health and body image. Right now, there is a perceived "spectrum" of health, with supermodels and Batman-era Christian Bale on one end and Chris Christie on the other end, and you can allegedly tell how healthy someone is by how good they look in a swimsuit. That needs to end.
How do we do that? Fuck if I know. A long, protracted campaign that aims to alter deeply ingrained societal views, even as a lot of "experts" are conflicted about how true this really is, while other people make a shit-ton of money on maintaining the status quo.
So... good luck with that.
Also its better to want to be fit like Jackman and fail, than to settle for Devito and succeed.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To be fair Danny DeVito is 70 years old and still looks to be getting along just fine.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This reminds me; back in 2008 I made a topic about the controversy surrounding Chloe Marshall, a then size-16 model who made it to the finals of the Miss England pageant. Even on here we had some posters saying that it was socially irresponsible for her to have made it as far as she did and that her success was helping to normalize obesity.
Miss Marshall is the one in the center:
Like I work with an office full of obese older women, and the majority of them are in such awful shape simply walking a block is impossible. This it not a future I would wish on anyone.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I hesitate to agree with this statement because it implies a simple unidirectional causal relationship when the reality is murkier.
For instance, this thread is specifically about diabetes. There are some hypotheses that fat itself causes diabetes, for instance, but the evidence for that is weak and contradictory. It's possible that some other processes cause both fatness and diabetes. Or that fatness triggers a genetic predisposition to diabetes.
For some diseases, there's a direct causal relationship, for others, not so much.
It would be more accurate to say that excess body fat is associated with increased risk of certain diseases.
I totally agree with the rest of your post, though. Everything else is more or less what I've been saying.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.