Options

Can [Fat Acceptance] Be Positive?

13468927

Posts

  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    Not everyone finds it easy to just bootstrap their way out of obesity and that's not what the thread is about anyway.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    Sugar doesn't make me fat, and I should know, becase I used to eat a shit load of it.

    It just destroys my liver. So that's fun.

    I would also enjoy reading a sugar thread.

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »

    I don't think it's common, however, for someone to suddenly regain lots of weight if they are not backsliding on their diet-and-exercise regimen — not unheard of, but not common

    Yes, people do regain most or all of the weight they lost even if they maintain the same behavioral regimen.

    Yeah, I know

    But is this common

    Yes. It is common. It is ubiquitous.

    It is so common that there isn't a single peer-reviewed study that shows otherwise given a timeframe of more than a year.

    And I've looked.

    The net weight loss is typically nonzero (maybe 2% or 3% of gross body weight) but behavioral regimens that can reliably maintain 10% or more of body mass loss for a year or a more literally do no exist. And not because of behavioral backsliding, but because of homeostatic acclimation.

    are you saying that it's impossible to permanently lose weight that you've gained?

    Not only that, but overeating doesnt cause people being obese.
    The problem here is that the terms need to be defined. And the fact is, because god hates us all, that the feedback loop that is metabolism is defined in part by your diet so what is "overeating" isn't that easy to define - you drop your caloric intake, your body slows down the energy hungry processes and what corresponds to "overeating" changes as well.

    That said, "body mass loss" also needs to be defined - as I noted above, what people really care about is fat loss, not weight loss. And body builders can most certainly maintain a reduced body fat ratio indefinitely (though, not competition level). So their weight might stay constant but their bodyfat ratio can be maintained.

    THAT SAID

    that all comes back to another of my previous points - that's a solution heavy in time and effort and is likely difficult in the modern world.

  • Options
    Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    It would seem so. It's why urban people are often in better shape than rural folks, because they can walk and go places that people in the country have to drive to, and have meal choices.

    Some of the things in here are highly irresponsible to be putting forth, like watching what's in your meals being virtually useless.

    Nobody in hear said the bolded. What you said was that the solution to being fat was obvious, eat less. Which is just as irresponsible.

    Eat differently, not less.

    If you're eating correctly you're gonna have to jam a lot of food down your gullet for the 2k calorie target (give or take)

    I just think it's presumptuous to think you have all the answers. The science doesn't seem to back up your claims that it is super obvious and not that hard for any overweight people to get down to a normal size. There are lots of factors, which have been pointed out you, but you just ignored.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    It would seem so. It's why urban people are often in better shape than rural folks, because they can walk and go places that people in the country have to drive to, and have meal choices.

    Some of the things in here are highly irresponsible to be putting forth, like watching what's in your meals being virtually useless.

    Nobody in hear said the bolded. What you said was that the solution to being fat was obvious, eat less. Which is just as irresponsible.

    Eat differently, not less.

    If you're eating correctly you're gonna have to jam a lot of food down your gullet for the 2k calorie target (give or take)

    I just think it's presumptuous to think you have all the answers. The science doesn't seem to back up your claims that it is super obvious and not that hard for any overweight people to get down to a normal size. There are lots of factors, which have been pointed out you, but you just ignored.

    Who said it was easy?

    It's the hardest fucking thing I've ever had to do, and that's only because quitting smoking is next on my list. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that's gonna be harder.

    It's hard every. Single. Day.

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Hmm.

    Is there anything bad about not finding fat people attractive? Is it any different from not finding musclebound dudebros attractive or not finding marathon runners attractive or not finding short people or small boobs or hairy backs or short cocks or pasty white skin attractive, in terms of our willingness to judge?

    What does or does not rev your engine is neither a reason for you to be judged, nor you to judge them.

    Acceptance is not about encouraging others to find them attractive, it's about encouraging them to fell less shame and self loathing, and for others not to not bust their balls about it.
    That's true ish from the etymological roots of the term.

    In terms of the truth on the ground the movement contains both that and those who would label not finding fat people attractive as fatphobic et al.


    Of course, as scheck points out this might be inevitable (and, if you are so inclined, appropriate) given how ingrained our reactions to attractiveness are*.

    *but also, possibly a fool's errand by the same logic

    This just feels like kink shaming. Even if true in some cases, expecting people to conciously update their sexual preferences is a bridge too far.

    I am not of the opinion that kink shaming qua kink shaming is a real thing (or, more accurately, a thing of real moral import) but I agree that this is a gambit fraught with issues.

    This is probably off-topic but kink shaming is absolutely a real thing, and a meaningful thing; if you're kinky and you're either forced to hide that due to social attitudes or given shit for it by other people, that can have effects ranging from you being less happy to you being less able to find a fellow compatible kinkster to you developing a complex and getting all fucked up over it (particularly those with less common or less socially acceptable kinks).

    Like, "don't be a dick" is broadly applicable throughout life and also important, because being a dick to people makes them feel bad.

    --
    So, just for my own clarity:

    Once you're fat you just may as well give up on trying not to be, if that's what you're about, because it's practically impossible.

    Don't bother watching what you eat, because counting calories and nutrients is practically impossible.

    You'll never suffer ill effect from being severely obese.

    I mean, that seems to be the general sentiment here

    Real talk, every time I hear "it's scientifically proven that 99% of overweight people never keep the weight off, better to not get fat in the first place" I fucking despair.

    My reaction to "you will never not be fat" is not "oh I guess I'll just start loving myself the way I am then," it's to get upset and go pound some McNuggets because why not. I don't want to universalize so I'll just say that what I personally benefit from hearing is, in a non-shaming way, that it's possible for me to improve my health and level of attractiveness if I work hard at it. You know, a little hope.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    Just a quick one:

    A Snickers bar is 68.

    An apple is 36.

  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Real talk, every time I hear "it's scientifically proven that 99% of overweight people never keep the weight off, better to not get fat in the first place" I fucking despair.

    My reaction to "you will never not be fat" is not "oh I guess I'll just start loving myself the way I am then," it's to get upset and go pound some McNuggets because why not. I don't want to universalize so I'll just say that what I personally benefit from hearing is, in a non-shaming way, that it's possible for me to improve my health and level of attractiveness if I work hard at it. You know, a little hope.

    Like, no joke.

    Not only do I get crazy addicted to sugary crap if I'm not vigilant, I've got a lot of musculoskeletal and nerve damage in my body.

    I can never bench press again, or even lift my right arm over my head, because my labrum is 75% gone and the Army botched my surgery. My right leg goes completely numb sometimes due to damage in my sciatic nerve. Ive got 4 fucked up discs in my lower back. I suffer from severe anxiett disorder to the point my blood pressure gets elevated (at the hospital a few days ago it was 200/105, and they've actually run tests on my heart and it seems to be fine) highly.

    But goddamnit I'm doing it, and reading some of the things here almost infuriates me with the defeatist attitude it's spreading.

  • Options
    Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    It would seem so. It's why urban people are often in better shape than rural folks, because they can walk and go places that people in the country have to drive to, and have meal choices.

    Some of the things in here are highly irresponsible to be putting forth, like watching what's in your meals being virtually useless.

    Nobody in hear said the bolded. What you said was that the solution to being fat was obvious, eat less. Which is just as irresponsible.

    Eat differently, not less.

    If you're eating correctly you're gonna have to jam a lot of food down your gullet for the 2k calorie target (give or take)

    I just think it's presumptuous to think you have all the answers. The science doesn't seem to back up your claims that it is super obvious and not that hard for any overweight people to get down to a normal size. There are lots of factors, which have been pointed out you, but you just ignored.

    Who said it was easy?

    It's the hardest fucking thing I've ever had to do, and that's only because quitting smoking is next on my list. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that's gonna be harder.

    It's hard every. Single. Day.

    Ok maybe not easy but straight forward. Your assertion seems to be that anyone that isn't skinny just isn't trying hard enough because the answer is right there, just eat better and exercise more.

    Right of the bat I have to disagree because there are many factors that may be beyond your control. Like genetics, or motabolism issues, or environmental factors that aren't as obvious as fast food being easy and prevalent. It reinforces the idea that being fat is unhealthy and a choice, neither of which are universally true, and may not even be true for the majority of overweight people.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    When you read things like that, try to take it as it's meant, which is addressing obesity at a societal level. It is possible for individuals to lose weight and to keep it off through self-discipline (it helps if you change your environment to one more conducive if possible). I mean, you can point to tons of examples of people who have done it. So to say it's not possible is false.

    What those statistics you're talking about do suggest is that it may not be possible to solve the obesity problem at a wider level across the entire country by telling people what to do. It may not be an education problem so much as it's an environmental problem.

    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Real talk, every time I hear "it's scientifically proven that 99% of overweight people never keep the weight off, better to not get fat in the first place" I fucking despair.

    My reaction to "you will never not be fat" is not "oh I guess I'll just start loving myself the way I am then," it's to get upset and go pound some McNuggets because why not. I don't want to universalize so I'll just say that what I personally benefit from hearing is, in a non-shaming way, that it's possible for me to improve my health and level of attractiveness if I work hard at it. You know, a little hope.

    Like, no joke.

    Not only do I get crazy addicted to sugary crap if I'm not vigilant, I've got a lot of musculoskeletal and nerve damage in my body.

    I can never bench press again, or even lift my right arm over my head, because my labrum is 75% gone and the Army botched my surgery. My right leg goes completely numb sometimes due to damage in my sciatic nerve. Ive got 4 fucked up discs in my lower back. I suffer from severe anxiett disorder to the point my blood pressure gets elevated (at the hospital a few days ago it was 200/105, and they've actually run tests on my heart and it seems to be fine) highly.

    But goddamnit I'm doing it, and reading some of the things here almost infuriates me with the defeatist attitude it's spreading.

    I don't think anyone is trying to be defeatist. To bring this back round to the OP, there seems to be a general attitude that being fat is equal to being lazy. If the solution is obvious then the only factor that remains is effort. This mind set begets an attitude that fat shaming is ok because fat people are choosing to be unhealthy.

    No matter what I would still believe that attractiveness and body images should be considered completely separate from a persons health. Eating poorly is unhealthy thing to do no matter if you are rail thin or morbidly obese. The fact that we look at the obese person and shame them but give the skinny person a pass is to me inexcusable.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Hmm.

    Is there anything bad about not finding fat people attractive? Is it any different from not finding musclebound dudebros attractive or not finding marathon runners attractive or not finding short people or small boobs or hairy backs or short cocks or pasty white skin attractive, in terms of our willingness to judge?

    What does or does not rev your engine is neither a reason for you to be judged, nor you to judge them.

    Acceptance is not about encouraging others to find them attractive, it's about encouraging them to fell less shame and self loathing, and for others not to not bust their balls about it.
    That's true ish from the etymological roots of the term.

    In terms of the truth on the ground the movement contains both that and those who would label not finding fat people attractive as fatphobic et al.


    Of course, as scheck points out this might be inevitable (and, if you are so inclined, appropriate) given how ingrained our reactions to attractiveness are*.

    *but also, possibly a fool's errand by the same logic

    This just feels like kink shaming. Even if true in some cases, expecting people to conciously update their sexual preferences is a bridge too far.

    I am not of the opinion that kink shaming qua kink shaming is a real thing (or, more accurately, a thing of real moral import) but I agree that this is a gambit fraught with issues.

    This is probably off-topic but kink shaming is absolutely a real thing, and a meaningful thing; if you're kinky and you're either forced to hide that due to social attitudes or given shit for it by other people, that can have effects ranging from you being less happy to you being less able to find a fellow compatible kinkster to you developing a complex and getting all fucked up over it (particularly those with less common or less socially acceptable kinks).

    Like, "don't be a dick" is broadly applicable throughout life and also important, because being a dick to people makes them feel bad.

    That is not, in and of itself, an argument that it is an issue of real moral import. There are many things that people less happy but are nevertheless morally neutral or the product of some greater moral good. Hence, it is not kink shaming qua kink shaming that is an issue - rather the problem is one of individual liberty and there can thus be kinks for which we ought not shame (i.e. those that do not harm others) and those that we can (i.e. those that are unhealthy to others or the self).

    This is useful because it also applies to fat acceptance - it is certainly the case that people are entitled to expect civil treatment regardless of their degree of attractiveness but not to dictate what the thoughts of others with relation to them regardless of whether it makes them happy or no (though, of course, facts are normative but not because of their ability to produce happiness or not).

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    Just a quick one:

    A Snickers bar is 68.

    An apple is 36.

    Meaning eating 2 apples gives you as much sugar as a Snickers bar. Except the apple contains some fiber that curtails your appetite and the Snickers bar does not.

    Also, though your dieting experience is meaningful, it is not generalizable. Some people are prone to developing more fatigue, headaches, mood problems, sleeping disorders, and other symptoms from calorie restriction. Think of it like smoking: some people can drop it cold, some people have more difficulty, and some drop it multiple times a week. We've got evidence that multiple genes are involved in how hard the cravings hit and how fast the weight comes back if you mess up just a little. Medical science is trying to come up with weight control advice tailored to individual DNA.

    Diet and exercise are recommended first not because they're universally the most effective, but because they're cheap and lack side effects.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    When you read things like that, try to take it as it's meant, which is addressing obesity at a societal level. It is possible for individuals to lose weight and to keep it off through self-discipline (it helps if you change your environment to one more conducive if possible). I mean, you can point to tons of examples of people who have done it. So to say it's not possible is false.

    What those statistics you're talking about do suggest is that it may not be possible to solve the obesity problem at a wider level across the entire country by telling people what to do. It may not be an education problem so much as it's an environmental problem.

    The American processed foods situation counts for a lot of it. Also, the income level in this country dropping to the point where people cannot purchase much healthier options, so cheaper shit with even cheaper ingredients gets on to store shelves.

    Because I'm fortunate enough in my monetary situation, I've had the (what I fully recognize as a) privilege of being able to count on my one hand the number of times I've had bread in the past 6 months, and always have a freezer with fresh berries ready for smoothies from an $80 blender.

    I'm not begrudging people who are overweight, I recognize the problems in this country in regards to food production and how we treat things like sodas or fried foods, and I know there are people with metabolic/hormonal issues where my little plan will fail.

    I'm taking issue with certain things being said in regards to fat acceptance. Just a bit earlier we had someone comparing processed sugary foods to fruit, and when the person trying to lose weight hears that delicious fruit is just like stuffing their face with a Snickers bar they lose any real commitment to keep picking the healthier option because, let's face it, candy bars are p fucking delicious.

    Keep telling people there's medical evidence that it's impossible to keep weight off (I'd like to read those studies and find out if they even weigh the sociological aspects at all), then surprise of surprises, they won't even bother.

    For most, weight loss is a mental game. Yes, your metabolism changes when your diet does, but actual shifts in metabolic rate don't usually happen without outside influences. You absolutely *can* measure that.

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?

  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    Just a quick one:

    A Snickers bar is 68.

    An apple is 36.

    Meaning eating 2 apples gives you as much sugar as a Snickers bar. Except the apple contains some fiber that curtails your appetite and the Snickers bar does not.

    Also, though your dieting experience is meaningful, it is not generalizable. Some people are prone to developing more fatigue, headaches, mood problems, sleeping disorders, and other symptoms from calorie restriction. Think of it like smoking: some people can drop it cold, some people have more difficulty, and some drop it multiple times a week. We've got evidence that multiple genes are involved in how hard the cravings hit and how fast the weight comes back if you mess up just a little. Medical science is trying to come up with weight control advice tailored to individual DNA.

    Diet and exercise are recommended first not because they're universally the most effective, but because they're cheap and lack side effects.

    I was having full hypoglycemic attacks during my first 3 weeks of cutting out soda.

    As in, I had to have someone get me a soda because I was too weak to move. I bought a glucose meter and a bottle of glucose tabs, and my blood sugar would drop into the 60's on some days.

    They have since subsided, but I am no stranger to the negative effects. I'm still feeling flu-ish due to reducing my carb intake to about 100-150g per day, and it's been almost 6 weeks.

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?
    Definitely.

    There are a whole bunch of different things that make it hard. My diagnosis is the wage system.

    However, I should also note that there are ALSO physiological factors that are a bitch.

  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?
    Definitely.

    There are a whole bunch of different things that make it hard. My diagnosis is the wage system.

    However, I should also note that there are ALSO physiological factors that are a bitch.

    I would imagine these "You'll always be fat" studies are taking this into account?

  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?
    Definitely.

    There are a whole bunch of different things that make it hard. My diagnosis is the wage system.

    However, I should also note that there are ALSO physiological factors that are a bitch.

    I would imagine these "You'll always be fat" studies are taking this into account?

    They take everything into account.

    But also don't necessarily separate causes - like, if it's the problem of unhealthy food availability being the problem then a study that follows outcomes across a population isn't going to show whether it's unhealthy food or sedentary lifestyles or whatever unless they specifically control for it. Rather, it will just show the strategy doesn't work.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    Just a quick one:

    A Snickers bar is 68.

    An apple is 36.

    Meaning eating 2 apples gives you as much sugar as a Snickers bar. Except the apple contains some fiber that curtails your appetite and the Snickers bar does not.

    Also, though your dieting experience is meaningful, it is not generalizable. Some people are prone to developing more fatigue, headaches, mood problems, sleeping disorders, and other symptoms from calorie restriction. Think of it like smoking: some people can drop it cold, some people have more difficulty, and some drop it multiple times a week. We've got evidence that multiple genes are involved in how hard the cravings hit and how fast the weight comes back if you mess up just a little. Medical science is trying to come up with weight control advice tailored to individual DNA.

    Diet and exercise are recommended first not because they're universally the most effective, but because they're cheap and lack side effects.

    I was having full hypoglycemic attacks during my first 3 weeks of cutting out soda.

    As in, I had to have someone get me a soda because I was too weak to move. I bought a glucose meter and a bottle of glucose tabs, and my blood sugar would drop into the 60's on some days.

    They have since subsided, but I am no stranger to the negative effects. I'm still feeling flu-ish due to reducing my carb intake to about 100-150g per day, and it's been almost 6 weeks.

    Is a doctor helping you with this?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    This starts with the FDA and the absolutely insane amount of sugar we consume in this nation.

    I'd be interested in a sugar thread. One it's hard to find low sugar foods, but two I was listening to a podcast the other day and a doctor was on talking about how obesity and sugar intake do not actually correlate that well at a national level.

    What was used as the definition of sugar? High glycemic index foods, many processed foods, and fruits fit in that category.

    The difference between fruits and processed sugars on the GI is roughly 20-30 points.

    Plus fruits give you nutritional benefits.

    Grouping the two together is like grouping green tea and Mountain Dew.

    I don't recall, but I will try and look it up again if a sugar thread gets made.

    Just a quick one:

    A Snickers bar is 68.

    An apple is 36.

    Meaning eating 2 apples gives you as much sugar as a Snickers bar. Except the apple contains some fiber that curtails your appetite and the Snickers bar does not.

    Also, though your dieting experience is meaningful, it is not generalizable. Some people are prone to developing more fatigue, headaches, mood problems, sleeping disorders, and other symptoms from calorie restriction. Think of it like smoking: some people can drop it cold, some people have more difficulty, and some drop it multiple times a week. We've got evidence that multiple genes are involved in how hard the cravings hit and how fast the weight comes back if you mess up just a little. Medical science is trying to come up with weight control advice tailored to individual DNA.

    Diet and exercise are recommended first not because they're universally the most effective, but because they're cheap and lack side effects.

    I was having full hypoglycemic attacks during my first 3 weeks of cutting out soda.

    As in, I had to have someone get me a soda because I was too weak to move. I bought a glucose meter and a bottle of glucose tabs, and my blood sugar would drop into the 60's on some days.

    They have since subsided, but I am no stranger to the negative effects. I'm still feeling flu-ish due to reducing my carb intake to about 100-150g per day, and it's been almost 6 weeks.

    Is a doctor helping you with this?

    The doc has monitored my levels, but the symptoms are resolving on their own as time passes. They are fully within my sphere of contacts and have kept up with my diet and signed off on all of the changes.

    There is simply nothing to be done but allow my body to re-adjust to the new normal.

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?
    Definitely.

    There are a whole bunch of different things that make it hard. My diagnosis is the wage system.

    However, I should also note that there are ALSO physiological factors that are a bitch.

    I would imagine these "You'll always be fat" studies are taking this into account?

    They take everything into account.

    But also don't necessarily separate causes - like, if it's the problem of unhealthy food availability being the problem then a study that follows outcomes across a population isn't going to show whether it's unhealthy food or sedentary lifestyles or whatever unless they specifically control for it. Rather, it will just show the strategy doesn't work.

    But that almost seems like they're conflating "you'll never lose weight" with "society is set up for you to fail."

    One talks about a purely biological process, the other sociological, and that seems... disingenuous to tell people they have no hope of maintaining weight loss without a definitive reason.

    To take it further, it advocates a "you're fucked" attitude that people who are backing fat acceptance sometimes use as evidence that this is how the people are and nothing can change.

    That seems... gross...

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    Mr FuzzbuttMr Fuzzbutt Registered User regular
    Fat reserves are important for surviving through the summer, when the ice recedes and makes seal hunting next to impossible.

    broken image link
  • Options
    JeixJeix Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Another thing about the findings that feral refers to:

    They aren't necessarily physiological statements. The question is of the effectiveness of treatments over time across a population.

    So, things like "how easy is it for a patient to maintain this regimen over 1, 2, 5 years” years are relevant assessments.

    The better question is why is it so hard?

    I'd imagine the prevalence of shitty food readily available makes things quite a bit more difficult, no?
    Definitely.

    There are a whole bunch of different things that make it hard. My diagnosis is the wage system.

    However, I should also note that there are ALSO physiological factors that are a bitch.

    Poverty is certainly a factor. Here is a related clip from an Emmy award winning documentary called Weight of the Nation. In this video they talk about how poorer areas are typically devoid of healthy options at reasonable prices.

    https://youtu.be/7MJnm5X9NN0

    I think the entire documentary is on YouTube and I highly recommend it if anyone is interested in learning more about the rise of obesity.

  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    When people talk about the negative aspects of any additional weight, they usually jump right to diabetes, heart disease, blood pressure issues, etc etc. No one should be shamed for being any weight, skinny people get a lot of shit too. I think there's a cautious line between accepting others as valuable people whatever their weight and accepting obvious morbid obesity as normal. They're discovering that cardiovascular fitness and risk of disease are related more to whether you're sedentary, or even where you carry fat. Skinny-fat is getting popular to study.

    There's a point where you cross from being attractive at any healthy weight into territory where body parts start to wear out and physical disability sets in. I do really like that being fit is the emphasis lately rather than BMI as a measure of health and beauty. Though I don't think it will ever really be okay to be certain weights, I do like that the window into what actual people look like has become fashionable again.

    As an anecdote, I've known a few people who were very vocal about how their fat is beautiful because in their 20's, it didn't impact their health... because they were fucking in their 20's. Now though they're all 35+ and those habits that made them a little thick in their 20's stuck around and time has done what time does. Activity levels are still low, nutrition stayed about the same and metabolism finally said fuck you. So that extra 15-20lbs became an extra 65-70lbs. Now they're all crash dieting and bouncing all over the place trying to figure out why this happened.

    A little more education on nutrition and what being "in shape" actually means would go a long way. I know in high school right after music programs got cut, the health and nutrition portion of PE was next up. Also, PE needs to not be a place for the varsity athletes to show off how awesome they are. You want people to feel good about doing things that improve their health, don't set them up for social ridicule. Weight lifting and nutrition were the best parts of PE for me because they taught me things, the rest of it was a waste of time dedicated to making me feel awful at sports.

    Edit: So I guess I don't think it's dangerous unless you are excusing a lifestyle of poor nutrition and low activity, at which point being overweight still isn't something that should invite shaming.

    It's good if it advances the interests of treating nutrition and fitness as things that will be different for different people, but valuable no matter what the resulting body type is.

    As with everything, there are people who like being as far to either side of the issue as possible as to feign gross offense. We ignore them about everything else though, so this should be no different.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited June 2017
    re: the possibility of long-term weight loss

    there is an interesting argument to be had here

    it is certainly the case that there are no peer-reviewed conventional interventions that work. the most common reason for this is, straightforwardly, that they are interventions and whatever the causation that led the person to become overweight in the first place reasserts itself.

    ok, we say, what about ones where the regimen is maintained?

    several interesting devils in the details here.

    a) if the regime was based on cardio exercise it automatically moderates itself. the primary adaptation to regular cardiovascular exercise is an increasing efficiency of your muscle and cardiovascular system, resulting in a rapid decrease in the number of calories burned. doing the same thing becomes less effective. there is another troll element here; if you do regular, intense, cardio you will lose muscle mass. this is quite a straightforward adaptation; if your body can perform the task you are asking it to do with the muscle you have, the only way it can improve efficiency is by reducing the absolute volume of muscle so you burn less energy overall. hence marathon runners having very little muscle mass to spare. as we noted earlier, losing bmr is a problem...

    b) adaptive NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). there is vast divergence in the response individuals have to over- and under- feeding. some people regulate their activity incredibly quickly and have to monitor their calorie deficits very carefully, while others can double their daily caloric intake and gain very little weight.

    c) gut bacteria. there is a reasonable amount of evidence (much of it in rats, although anecdotal from humans who have taken broad spectrum antibiotics/had faecal transplants) that your gut flora change your weight gain and loss (as well as your mood... cf psychobiotics). changing your diet can change your gut flora, and it is hard to know if this is an effect

    d) proper adherence in these studies is pretty close to a myth. there a number of reasons for this, but unless you locked the person in a metabolic chamber and fed them and exercised them at gunpoint adherence will not be good enough.

    e) the diets are usually awful. nowhere near enough protein! B R O T E I N

    i sound somewhat sceptical of their conclusions, but i think they are absolutely correct in the following statement;

    none of the standard methods of losing weight are very good, and as implemented by most people completely fail

    HOWEVER

    it is also empirically the case that people can and do lose weight long-term. in fact, there is a group of people who regularly have to hit very specific body fat percentages on the regular; weightlifters. and mysteriously their coaches report that almost everybody given a deficit roughly calculated from their weight, activity level and body fat % loses weight*

    it seems like some of the missing elements are;

    a) sleep. one particular study found that people sleeping 5.5 hours versus 9 had 50% lower fat oxidation even after the same regimen of exercise and using the same diet. given how many people are systematically sleep-deprived...

    b) resistance training versus cardio. already talked about this, it owns, everybody should do it, etc

    c) sarcopenia. as people age they rarely change their dietary habits very much, but most people (especially women) lose muscle mass as they age. the cross-sectional area of a 60 year old womans thigh muscle is roughly 40-50% of an average 20-year olds. this is a massive loss of baseline metabolic activity as well as being a huge injury risk, which compounds the effect by stopping further exercise due to a perception of fragility. what beats this? resistance training.

    d) calorie dense food. this is obvious, but humans partly measure satiety by chewing and stretch receptors. easy-to-chew calorie dense food fools both of those, while also being easy to eat (hormonal mechanisms of satiety have a slight delay to them - hence why waiting for 10 mins before having another helping often stops people having a helping at all).

    e) habits. if we consider feeding habits to be habits of a similar type to drug-taking habits - very low level dopaminergic mechanisms which work at the level of fundamental action selection and incentive salience, then the best evidence is that it is very very difficult to "get rid" of a habit. the best thing you can do is form another habit instead, and avoid backsliding as much as possible. note that if you previously became overweight a chunk of that will be due to both activity and feeding habits. these habits will not vanish; ceteris paribus we would expect the natural variation of life over the next 20-30 years to result in a backsliding sooner or later.

    f) gut bacteria. already mentioned, but this is a big ? factor

    g) there is an intriguing possibility that regular harsh, controlled cold exposure dramatically aids weight loss. jump in snow friends
    Feral wrote:
    The net weight loss is typically nonzero (maybe 2% or 3% of gross body weight) but behavioral regimens that can reliably maintain 10% or more of body mass loss for a year or a more literally do no exist. And not because of behavioral backsliding, but because of homeostatic acclimation.

    the evidence for the latter here is not very strong outside really extremely obese people losing weight absurdly fast btw (check the review i posted earlier). long-term metabolic damage does not seem to be particularly common, even in people who have been starved.

    a personal note here; a couple years back i lost 50lb through diet and exercise and i have kept it off since. i have been tracking my bmr and it has not changed - in fact it has gone up as i have been doing resistance training. i think these studies support a kind of "weight-loss nihilism" which places far too much emphasis on impossible-to-change elements of metabolism rather than focusing on what i suspect is the biggest killer; the difficulty of changing habits. there may well be a lot of individual variation - but the key question of "can it be done" is probably answerable with "yes, even if it takes a few goes to find out the sustainable way you can do it". the fact that many interventions dont work for a particular person does not mean that there are not other, good interventions that would work. you only need to find the right one once!

    * this comes back to the metabolic damage argument. some coaches say they need to do "reverse dieting" to avoid metabolic damage in, eg, very low-calorie bikini competitors, but the evidence for this is really spotty.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Surrealitycheck's post above is interesting and informative. While I agree with the possibility of fat acceptance leading to "weight loss nihilism", I also think we shouldn't be so hard on people when there is so much conflicting information out there on weight and weight loss. It sounds like you damn near need a degree to have an idea of understanding what's going on here.

  • Options
    CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    It would seem so. It's why urban people are often in better shape than rural folks, because they can walk and go places that people in the country have to drive to, and have meal choices.

    Some of the things in here are highly irresponsible to be putting forth, like watching what's in your meals being virtually useless.

    Nobody in hear said the bolded. What you said was that the solution to being fat was obvious, eat less. Which is just as irresponsible.

    Eat differently, not less.

    If you're eating correctly you're gonna have to jam a lot of food down your gullet for the 2k calorie target (give or take)

    I just think it's presumptuous to think you have all the answers. The science doesn't seem to back up your claims that it is super obvious and not that hard for any overweight people to get down to a normal size. There are lots of factors, which have been pointed out you, but you just ignored.

    Who said it was easy?

    It's the hardest fucking thing I've ever had to do, and that's only because quitting smoking is next on my list. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that's gonna be harder.

    It's hard every. Single. Day.

    Here's the thing that you are not facing (and understandably so: I have bern exactly where you are, and the high of having succeeded makes you feel that you have the answers or are an authority): science says that you will not be able to maintain this weight loss. You may be able to maintain it an amout of time you consider very long - 10 years, 15 years, 20 years - but you will gain the weight again.

    And unlike other folks in the thread, I feel it's kind of irrelevant what causes you to gain it back: whether it's because your metabolism slows or you backslide. Because the thing about "backsliding" is this: every day that you are not "backsliding" is a day your body is pressuring you to do exactly that. Your body is using physical pressures and symptoms to get you back where you were. You can ignore those symptoms for a while - like I said, 10, 15, even 20 years is not unheard of. But eventually, science says, you can no longer maintain the fight.

    To think of it another way: whether you are at a healthy weight now or still overweight despite what you lost, your body is reacting to the significant weight loss as if you are starving. As such, it's going to give you the physiological symptoms of starving. The question then becomes how long can you maintain starvation? This is a thing that people who haven't done 20+ years of dieting attempts don't get. The reason people backslide is not because they "just didn't try hard enough" or because they're moral failures or whatever else. It's because no human being (except maybe a percentage of people so small they remain a statistical zero) can continue to maintain what thier body is insisting is starvation, not when food is still available. You might as well blame people for not having the willpower to keep thier nails from growing.

    Cambiata on
    Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
    On my sleeve, let the runway start
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Surrealitycheck's post above is interesting and informative. While I agree with the possibility of fat acceptance leading to "weight loss nihilism", I also think we shouldn't be so hard on people when there is so much conflicting information out there on weight and weight loss. It sounds like you damn near need a degree to have an idea of understanding what's going on here.

    oh yeah its not trivial. it is completely correct to say that "you can stop smoking by just not buying any more cigarettes", and there are people who have done this - and yet this is a profoundly incomplete description of the problems and methods for quitting smoking. in a sense the entire structure of the question is wrong, because "diet and exercise" is several steps higher than the actual question;

    "how does this particular person, with their particular lifestyle, mind and experience best change their long-term habits in the direction of these two things?"

    the two are actually nearly totally separate. the only way to succeed in the long-term is engaging the motivational and habit-forming machinery; this is exactly the same reason that educational interventions basically dont work. if the person does not become the generative system for their new behaviour - they rely on external motivators, strategies or structures - then they are fragile and the equilibrium will virtually always collapse in the end.

    i recall seeing a pyramid of importance in muscle growth that one scientist put up, and the biggest, most fundamental element of it was not diet, not progressive overload, not supplements - but adherence. the mistake that most people make is to reduce the concept of behavioural change to "just making a decision". humans cannot operate themselves by fiat. strategies are required. etc

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck reducing obesity by shaming them OR by putting them on an exercise program OR by handing them a killer diet to try out. It is really, really hard for people to change their lifestyle by making disciplined choices for themselves. You can see this in the statistics where so many people who do lose weight just end up gaining it back within the next couple years. So shaming them or accepting them isn't going to affect the core issue here.

    I feel like the most important thing is the environmental factors at play. You put people in an environment where they have to walk ~30 minutes a day to get around instead of sitting on their asses in cars, you put them in an environment where the typical quick meal is a bowl of soup at a cafe instead of a greasy hamburger at a drive through, and you're going to get thinner, healthier people, and you aren't then having a huge cultural fight about fat shaming/acceptance because it's not such a hot button issue anymore.

    It would seem so. It's why urban people are often in better shape than rural folks, because they can walk and go places that people in the country have to drive to, and have meal choices.

    Some of the things in here are highly irresponsible to be putting forth, like watching what's in your meals being virtually useless.

    Nobody in hear said the bolded. What you said was that the solution to being fat was obvious, eat less. Which is just as irresponsible.

    Eat differently, not less.

    If you're eating correctly you're gonna have to jam a lot of food down your gullet for the 2k calorie target (give or take)

    I just think it's presumptuous to think you have all the answers. The science doesn't seem to back up your claims that it is super obvious and not that hard for any overweight people to get down to a normal size. There are lots of factors, which have been pointed out you, but you just ignored.

    Who said it was easy?

    It's the hardest fucking thing I've ever had to do, and that's only because quitting smoking is next on my list. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that's gonna be harder.

    It's hard every. Single. Day.

    Here's the thing that you are not facing (and understandably so: I have bern exactly where you are, and the high of having succeeded makes you feel that you have the answers or are an authority): science says that you will not be able to maintain this weight loss. You may be able to maintain it an amout of time you consider very long - 10 years, 15 years, 20 years - but you will gain the weight again.

    And unlike other folks in the thread, I feel it's kind of irrelevant what causes you to gain it back: whether it's because your metabolism slows or you backslide. Because the thing about "backsliding" is this: every day that you are not "backsliding" is a day your body is pressuring you to do exactly that. Your body is using physical pressures and symptoms to get you back where you were. You can ignore those symptoms for a while - like I said, 10, 15, even 20 years is not unheard of. But eventually, science says, you can no longer maintain the fight.

    To think of it another way: whether you are at a healthy weight now or still overweight despite what you lost, your body is reacting to the significant weight loss as if you are starving. As such, it's going to give you the physiological symptoms of starving. The question then becomes how long can you maintain starvation? This is a thing that people who haven't done 20+ years of dieting attempts don't get. The reason people backslide is not because they "just didn't try hard enough" or because they're moral failures or whatever else. It's because no human being (except maybe a percentage of people so small they remain a statistical zero) can continue to maintain what thier body is insisting is starvation, not when food is still available. You might as well blame people for not having the willpower to keep thier nails from growing.

    This is an interesting post, and one I was talking about earlier.

    How, exactly, if I theoretically maintained an X level of activity with a Y level of consumption, would I manage to gain weight back and not slip into a coma? My metabolic rate can only "balance" so much down before I start literally breaking down as an organism, and if you're suggesting that it will continue to a level that would cause life-threatening conditions despite having a healthy diet, I'm gonna call [citation required].

    Again, you're talking about "backsliding" as some sort of natural biological thing and not societal pressure. It's not natural to have every corner shop in your town being stuffed to the gills with processed crap food and fancy packaging, loaded with HFCS (or any sugar, for that matter, outside of things that naturally produce it like fruits and berries). That is a huge cause of the problem, and telling people that making lifestyle changes will never help them because the Fat Demon will always be there is not helping anything.

    I am not currently having the physical symptoms of starving, just like I didn't have the symptoms of being a diabetic when my blood sugar was way low due to a change in diet. I had a lot of insulin in my blood, yes, but that has since self-corrected because there was no longer a need. I have no malnutrition, I have no starvation symptoms, I'm going through fucking withdrawal like I just got off heroin.

    Intermittent sugar access also acts by way of opioids in the brain. There are changes in opioid systems such as decreased enkephalin mRNA expression in the accumbens (Spangler et al., 2004). Signs of withdrawal seem to be largely due to the opioid modifications since withdrawal can be obtained with the opioid antagonist naloxone. Food deprivation is also sufficient to precipitate opiate-like withdrawal signs (Avena, Bocarsly, Rada, Kim and Hoebel, unpublished, Colantuoni et al., 2002). This withdrawal state involves at least two neurochemical manifestations. First is a decrease in extracellular DA in the accumbens, and second is the release of acetylcholine (ACh) from accumbens interneurons. These neurochemical adaptations in response to intermittent sugar intake mimic the effects of opiates.

    American processed food might as well be a drug, and we as responsible people should not be encouraging its consumption.

    We should also stop conflating what is a societal ill for a biological process. Diets don't fail because they're inherently bad, they fail because American mass-produced shitfood is designed for addiction.

    The American Obesity Epidemic is a symptom of a larger problem. We should be addressing the larger problem, instead of hanging christmas ornaments on the pox.

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Surrealitycheck's post above is interesting and informative. While I agree with the possibility of fat acceptance leading to "weight loss nihilism", I also think we shouldn't be so hard on people when there is so much conflicting information out there on weight and weight loss. It sounds like you damn near need a degree to have an idea of understanding what's going on here.

    As an aside - I do not think of the positive side of fat acceptance as being associated with the possibility of weight loss or otherwise. the core argument is that;

    a) treating people like shit is bad in and of itself
    b) treating overweight people badly does not encourage them to lose weight
    c) depression and negative affect + social sanctions weaken every single benign psychological system that could help people to change habits
    d) people like having a class of person where it is socially sanctioned to be shitty to them - the defenses of fat shaming as being motivated by concern for the person being shamed are laughable

    the difficulty of losing weight long term is semi-orthogonal in my opinion. we don't need a scientific argument to treat people with respect and kindness. that's the entire point of moral principles!

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Surrealitycheck's post above is interesting and informative. While I agree with the possibility of fat acceptance leading to "weight loss nihilism", I also think we shouldn't be so hard on people when there is so much conflicting information out there on weight and weight loss. It sounds like you damn near need a degree to have an idea of understanding what's going on here.

    As an aside - I do not think of the positive side of fat acceptance as being associated with the possibility of weight loss or otherwise. the core argument is that;

    a) treating people like shit is bad in and of itself
    b) treating overweight people badly does not encourage them to lose weight
    c) depression and negative affect + social sanctions weaken every single benign psychological system that could help people to change habits
    d) people like having a class of person where it is socially sanctioned to be shitty to them - the defenses of fat shaming as being motivated by concern for the person being shamed are laughable

    the difficulty of losing weight long term is semi-orthogonal in my opinion. we don't need a scientific argument to treat people with respect and kindness. that's the entire point of moral principles!

    I never have uttered the words "You know, you should lose a couple lbs!" to anyone, because having been overweight I'm fairly certain that person knows what their body is like and doesn't really need me to reaffirm it.

    It's ultimately a personal choice to try and lose weight. I will support anyone who attempts it, and not even worry about throwing out advice to the person unless they ask "Hey, JRX, so how did you X."

    That being said, it shouldn't even be a thing where society in general is constantly bombarding these people with reasons to quit trying to get into shape, as it currently does... things like, "fruit is as bad as candy", "you'll always fail", "you simply cannot change anything" are motivation destroyers and probably about as bad as everything being loaded with stealth HFCS. We also shouldn't even be in a state where eating healthy simply costs too much, so it's huge bags of frozen fried chicken strips and McDonalds when we're feeling fancy.

    jungleroomx on
  • Options
    BasarBasar IstanbulRegistered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Basar... when Bel and I moved to Ireland we were nearly 200lbs, and within a year had dropped 60lbs of that without changing our eating volume much at all... but access to fast food was almost gone. Within 2 years of returning to the US we'd gained it all back.

    our food culture is absolutely a core part of the problem.

    Yeah, as Basar said, I think it's a combination of American food culture and American city planning, and I also feel that the two are interrelated. Fast food & stocking up on junk food at Walmart is partly a result of driving culture. Notice how in NYC, which IIRC is on average ~9lbs thinner than the US as a whole, there are no Walmarts and far fewer fast food joints per capita.

    @spool32 @OremLK

    Totally agree with you both. My daily caloric intake was pretty much the same but from where those calories came was completely different.

    In the U.S. it was like this:

    Breakfast: Huge bowl of cereal with milk and a toast with jelly
    Lunch: At school, burgeritos or patties with mashed potatoes or fries
    Dinner: Mac n Cheese with meat loaf and some sort of frozen veggies and a piece of pie
    And lots of junk food in between through widely available convenience stores and vending machines

    In my home country (Turkey), more like this:

    Breakfast: Mediterranean salad with tomatoes, cucumbers, olives, cheese and boiled eggs
    Lunch: At school, spinach soup, fresh green beans and grilled chicken, plain yogurt
    Dinner: Some type of grilled or broiled meat, salad, and not much more.

    I think, as creatures of habit, Americans tend to stick to a smaller variety of choices they have: pasta, pizza, casserole, subs, etc.

    Another point to be made is lunch for working adults. I worked in the U.S. only for a year and half after graduating from college but we had very limited time for lunch: usually around 30-40 minutes for the actual ordering and eating. Unless you live in a very urban area, it takes time to get out of the office, drive somewhere you can have lunch, order, eat, and then get back to work within the hour. Not sure about Germanic countries but employers in most Mediterranean countries don't mind you taking an hour and half for lunch. Yes, you end up working until 6pm instead of 5pm to accommodate for those hours but at the end a healthier lunch might also not set you down, hence increase your post-lunch productivity.

    i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Separate conversations:
    • You are entitled to basic respect and human decency, being insulted across the street for being fat is not it.
    • You are not entitled to be found attractive by anybody. People can choose their partners at will by any standard they desire.

    That out of the way, obesity can be treated like any other addiction. Pithy observations are easy, actual effort is hard. Because, and here's the deal, individually, is not about the statistics that say "oh, most people will regain their weight so might as well don't bother"*, is about what is good for you as a person. Because statistics won't protect you from diabetes.

    *Which, BTW, is a line that doesn't include how much weight their regain compared to their pre-diet weight. Would bet that is still a healthier weight that what they would have if they hadn't done anything.

  • Options
    ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    Catching up on the thread, some thoughts:

    I'm obese. I basically have a similar body shape as Donald Trump, being about the same weight and height.

    For me, the primary source of my obesity is that I fucking love sugar. That white powder makes me very happy, for a short period of time, like nothing else. Pop, chocolate bars, ice cream, baked goods, etc, I love it. Sugar substitutes do nothing for me. For me, weight loss is a pretty simple-in-theory thing: go walking daily, track what I eat, and stop eating sugar. I lost about six inches of waistline last year doing that; in the last six months, I've gone back to eating sugar, and I've put three inches back.

    For me, the downside to weighing more hasn't impacted me (yet, so far as I'm aware) with regards to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. It's that the more far I put on, the less comfortable my clothes feel, and the more likely I am to hurt myself doing day to day things. Today, stepping out of a truck, I hurt my foot a bit. In early April, walking up a set of stairs towards Sacre Coeur in Paris on the first day of my vacation, I stepped awkwardly and hurt my knee, impacting my ability to climb steps for the rest of my trip. And lately, my tailbone is hurting after sitting in a chair for a long time. Maybe I would hurt it in the same way if I was 20 or 40 pounds lighter. But force equals mass times acceleration.

    Set aside all of the other potential health impacts from obesity, and the simple fact that being obese generally puts a person at increased risk of doing damage to themselves in a way that impacts quality of life is reason enough in my mind to feel that obesity is a problem. I believe that no one - not even the politician whose body shape I happen to share - should be mocked for their weight. As in all things, don't be a dick. But I believe that it should be recognized that obesity is a disease, that even outside potential medical complications and social stigma that it has direct negative impacts on a person's life, and as a society we need to be able to talk about how to best treat the disease without blaming the victims.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I lost 100 pounds 5 years ago and so far managed to keep about 60% of it off, but that 5 years also was kind rough, dealing with severe depression and my shitty family, having a baby, getting divorced, and undergoing transition. So I don't beat myself up too badly over it, but I still need to keep losing.

  • Options
    KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Catching up on the thread, some thoughts:

    I'm obese. I basically have a similar body shape as Donald Trump, being about the same weight and height.

    For me, the primary source of my obesity is that I fucking love sugar. That white powder makes me very happy, for a short period of time, like nothing else. Pop, chocolate bars, ice cream, baked goods, etc, I love it. Sugar substitutes do nothing for me. For me, weight loss is a pretty simple-in-theory thing: go walking daily, track what I eat, and stop eating sugar. I lost about six inches of waistline last year doing that; in the last six months, I've gone back to eating sugar, and I've put three inches back.

    For me, the downside to weighing more hasn't impacted me (yet, so far as I'm aware) with regards to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. It's that the more far I put on, the less comfortable my clothes feel, and the more likely I am to hurt myself doing day to day things. Today, stepping out of a truck, I hurt my foot a bit. In early April, walking up a set of stairs towards Sacre Coeur in Paris on the first day of my vacation, I stepped awkwardly and hurt my knee, impacting my ability to climb steps for the rest of my trip. And lately, my tailbone is hurting after sitting in a chair for a long time. Maybe I would hurt it in the same way if I was 20 or 40 pounds lighter. But force equals mass times acceleration.

    Set aside all of the other potential health impacts from obesity, and the simple fact that being obese generally puts a person at increased risk of doing damage to themselves in a way that impacts quality of life is reason enough in my mind to feel that obesity is a problem. I believe that no one - not even the politician whose body shape I happen to share - should be mocked for their weight. As in all things, don't be a dick. But I believe that it should be recognized that obesity is a disease, that even outside potential medical complications and social stigma that it has direct negative impacts on a person's life, and as a society we need to be able to talk about how to best treat the disease without blaming the victims.

    I absolutely agree but I feel there is a difference between being obese (which absolutely has negative effects to ones health) and not being the ideal weight/body shape that is nominally associated with being "healthy".

    This thread is great because when I first heard of the "health and any size" movement I honestly disagreed with it. However the information in this thread shows that I should do more research as from a cursory reading there is a wide bracket of sizes/shapes that can be healthy.

This discussion has been closed.