As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A GDST for discussing obesity

OrcaOrca Also known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered User regular
Rather than cluttering up airline talk with arguing about discussing obesity, our experiences with it, studies, and solutions, let's discuss it here.

Please don't be dicks to each other.

Since CICO (Calories In-Calories Out) has been contentious for 55 pages, if you are going to talk about it, or other models of weight loss, please specify which of the categories you are talking about:

* Weight loss? And if so, how much weight loss? With or without medical intervention of any kind? I am going to make the statement that the larger the weight loss target desired, the harder it is to achieve. Beyond some threshold, medical intervention is going to be required for most individuals.
* Specific advice for an individual?
* Talking to a specific person in this thread, especially one who has tried calorie restriction, possibly without success?
* Understanding obesity at a population level within the US or a different country?


(Inspiration from Gnizmo)

Orca on
«13456763

Posts

  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    (From the air travel thread)
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    At this point I kind of feel like some people are used to dealing with hostility about weight and are superimposing those dealings onto me. I've never once argued that there's a magic solution to losing weight or it's just about wanting it, just that all those studies people have posted claiming it's essentially impossible are almost certainly flawed. And when I post a study showing very good evidence that they're flawed in response to requests I get met with "but that's not enough."

    I think that doing research is a good step. People do have misconceptions about the possibility of weight loss and may be undereducated about the resources that exist to help them. A small critique about the Penn study: if you get a 1/6 weight loss success rate by including people who were not intending to lose weight, that number is being boosted due to special circumstances like cancer and morbidity leading to hospitalization.

    And studies can at most give you statistics which work at a population level as opposed to an individual level. There will be people who just need to hear the magic words and people who can't lose weight despite every intervention on the planet mixed in.

    People are piling on because your thesis is unclear. The difficulty of losing weight is often overestimated. I can buy that given the proper context. Is there a follow up to that, or do you want to get off at that station?

    I guess my position would be that the difficulty (and more particularly, the unpleasantness) of losing weight is often overestimated, just as I'll freely admit it's often underestimated, but also that a culture that overestimates the difficulty is itself harmful because it discourages both trying and makes it much easier to give up if you do try.

    When I decided to start losing weight I went to the Somethingawful weight loss thread for advice and info, and the first post was basically exactly the kind of thing people in the previous thread hated on - "what matters is calories in, calories out. It doesn't matter what your innate factors are, if you commit to a good plan and stick with it, you will lose weight and keep it off." And while I realize now that kind of sentiment isn't popular here, it was amazingly inspirational for me and was probably the single biggest factor in my attempt to lose weight actually being successful, unlike all those other half hearted attempts I'd made in the past.

    Bremen on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    (From the air travel thread)
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    At this point I kind of feel like some people are used to dealing with hostility about weight and are superimposing those dealings onto me. I've never once argued that there's a magic solution to losing weight or it's just about wanting it, just that all those studies people have posted claiming it's essentially impossible are almost certainly flawed. And when I post a study showing very good evidence that they're flawed in response to requests I get met with "but that's not enough."

    I think that doing research is a good step. People do have misconceptions about the possibility of weight loss and may be undereducated about the resources that exist to help them. A small critique about the Penn study: if you get a 1/6 weight loss success rate by including people who were not intending to lose weight, that number is being boosted due to special circumstances like cancer and morbidity leading to hospitalization.

    And studies can at most give you statistics which work at a population level as opposed to an individual level. There will be people who just need to hear the magic words and people who can't lose weight despite every intervention on the planet mixed in.

    People are piling on because your thesis is unclear. The difficulty of losing weight is often overestimated. I can buy that given the proper context. Is there a follow up to that, or do you want to get off at that station?

    I guess my position would be that the difficulty (and more particularly, the unpleasantness) of losing weight is often overestimated, just as I'll freely admit it's often underestimated, but also that a culture that overestimates the difficulty is itself harmful because it discourages both trying and makes it much easier to give up if you do try.

    When I decided to start losing weight I went to the Somethingawful weight loss thread for advice and info, and the first post was basically exactly the kind of thing people in the previous thread hated on - "what matters is calories in, calories out. It doesn't matter what your innate factors are, if you commit to a good plan and stick with it, you will lose weight and keep it off." And while I realize now that kind of sentiment isn't popular here, it was amazingly inspirational for me and was probably the single biggest factor in my attempt to lose weight actually being successful, unlike all those other half hearted attempts I'd made in the past.

    Then you are a very lucky statistical outlier. Congrats on winning the lottery! You aren't scientific proof that this method must work for everyone or they "aren't trying hard enough."

    This is, again, the exact same kind of arguments that came out against a lot of hormone based illnesses, like ADHD and Depression. "It's easy for me, so why isn't it easy for everyone despite the myriad of different brain chemistries that exist in the world?" I dunno man, get a PHD in biology and maybe you can be the one who discovers a new factor that no one knew about before.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    I would say that by virtue of the fact that we have no population level solutions to obesity that "difficulty losing weight" can by definition not be overestimated

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    Bremen on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    I want to say, I am not trying to discourage anyone from changing their diet and exercise. If you want to do that then you do that, be inspired by whatever inspires you and ignore all the science you want. It's your body.

    But also, imagine how much more successful teaching long term exercise and a healthy diet would be if we didn't always tie it to "being skinny." That you should do these things as maintenance for your body and having a happy healthy life, and not because you're chasing some dream of skinny that you may not genetically be capable of reaching without a real cure for your disease (like Ozempic).

    The worst thing is how fat people exercising so often gets ugly behavior from the same people who claim that fat people are "doing it to themselves." You get people yelling at you on the street, or you get people in the gym refusing to share the equipment. I remember reading an article that pissed me off a few years back saying that it was "mean" of Nike to sell plus-size exercise clothes, because fat people will "never use them." That a fat person will never go on a run or hit the gym. Except of fucking course we do, Christ.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    (From the air travel thread)
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    At this point I kind of feel like some people are used to dealing with hostility about weight and are superimposing those dealings onto me. I've never once argued that there's a magic solution to losing weight or it's just about wanting it, just that all those studies people have posted claiming it's essentially impossible are almost certainly flawed. And when I post a study showing very good evidence that they're flawed in response to requests I get met with "but that's not enough."

    I think that doing research is a good step. People do have misconceptions about the possibility of weight loss and may be undereducated about the resources that exist to help them. A small critique about the Penn study: if you get a 1/6 weight loss success rate by including people who were not intending to lose weight, that number is being boosted due to special circumstances like cancer and morbidity leading to hospitalization.

    And studies can at most give you statistics which work at a population level as opposed to an individual level. There will be people who just need to hear the magic words and people who can't lose weight despite every intervention on the planet mixed in.

    People are piling on because your thesis is unclear. The difficulty of losing weight is often overestimated. I can buy that given the proper context. Is there a follow up to that, or do you want to get off at that station?

    I guess my position would be that the difficulty (and more particularly, the unpleasantness) of losing weight is often overestimated, just as I'll freely admit it's often underestimated, but also that a culture that overestimates the difficulty is itself harmful because it discourages both trying and makes it much easier to give up if you do try.

    When I decided to start losing weight I went to the Somethingawful weight loss thread for advice and info, and the first post was basically exactly the kind of thing people in the previous thread hated on - "what matters is calories in, calories out. It doesn't matter what your innate factors are, if you commit to a good plan and stick with it, you will lose weight and keep it off." And while I realize now that kind of sentiment isn't popular here, it was amazingly inspirational for me and was probably the single biggest factor in my attempt to lose weight actually being successful, unlike all those other half hearted attempts I'd made in the past.

    That's why it's useful to maintain a track record, seeing what you've tried and what the failure points were. That way, you get a better sense of what advice will work and what's redundant.

    It's also useful to match the message to the audience. There, the advice was solicited. Here, people have arguments to defend in a related debate. In the Transtheoretical model, a key concept is the difference between being contemplative and precontemplative. People who are precontemplative are not looking to change and will respond differently towards advice meant to help a specific problem (if they even have a problem, which if not puts them further outside the Stages of Change dynamic). You must judge where a person's at before giving advice, or responses will vary, even in similar cultures.

    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.
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    And again, the one study you provided talked about 5% weight loss "maintenance." The studies I posted support that as well, they aren't in conflict. 5% weight loss can be maintained, we can agree with that. But 5% won't take you from obesity to a healthy weight, can you agree with that? Best case scenario if you start obese, 5% will take you to the "overweight" category.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as obesity. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    Bremen on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

    You talking about Wegovy? That shit has done wonders for a lot of our friends. My wife keeps trying to get it, but her insurance decided it was too expensive and she should try amphetamines instead.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

    You talking about Wegovy? That shit has done wonders for a lot of our friends. My wife keeps trying to get it, but her insurance decided it was too expensive and she should try amphetamines instead.

    I assumed that's what "the meme drug" is. Wegovy/Ozempic, basically the same underlying drug.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

    You talking about Wegovy? That shit has done wonders for a lot of our friends. My wife keeps trying to get it, but her insurance decided it was too expensive and she should try amphetamines instead.

    I assumed that's what "the meme drug" is. Wegovy/Ozempic, basically the same underlying drug.

    Yep, that’s what I meant.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as being fat. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    One way is to drop your metabolic rate through the floor so that calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus again and you need to cut even more calories. That's where a lot of people get off because they still have to work and stuff

    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.
  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as being fat. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    One way is to drop your metabolic rate through the floor so that calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus again and you need to cut even more calories. That's where a lot of people get off because they still have to work and stuff

    Yeah, that's a major problem with weight loss through eating less, and one I was made well aware of by the advice I went looking for before trying to lose weight and took steps to avoid. At that point it's no longer a calorie deficit, though, so I was curious about the physics of how weight gain despite a continuing calorie deficit would even work.

  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    Aside from biological factors, I think we also need to remove the shame from the psychological component to weight gain. Like yeah, life is fucking hard, and food is probably the most common coping mechanism for stress, anxiety or depression. Adding body shame on top of that just exacerbates the root problem.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as being fat. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    One way is to drop your metabolic rate through the floor so that calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus again and you need to cut even more calories. That's where a lot of people get off because they still have to work and stuff

    Yeah, that's a major problem with weight loss through eating less, and one I was made well aware of by the advice I went looking for before trying to lose weight and took steps to avoid. At that point it's no longer a calorie deficit, though, so I was curious about the physics of how weight gain despite a continuing calorie deficit would even work.

    It's not physics! That's the entire point! It's biology, and biology is complicated.. It's not a battery where we can measure current and voltage, every measure of calories in and calories out are estimates, and the system actively changes in response to changes in input. See also someone I know who managed to gain weight despite eating so little she was suffering health damage from nutritional deficiency.

    "Calories in calories out" is useless because it's an oversimplification to the point of absurdity. It's also the single most prevalent narrative on fat people so I dunno why you're treating it like it's some sort of revelation.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as being fat. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    I mean yes, you've made it clear that you don't understand biology. A lot of people don't. Even the people who dedicate their lives to studying it don't fully understand it.

    Since you bring up yourself as an anecdote, I'll share my personal experience as well. The way weight loss goes for me is that the first week to a month of calorie deficient, you lose weight, no problem. It disappears like nothing, what a success! Then you reach a point where your body doesn't want to move past. Last time I dieted, it was about the 210 pound mark. At 5'6" that put me soundly in the obese range of the BMI chart, with 34 BMI. So I'd use calculators like this one to see how many calories I could have. 2,039 was the kind of results I would get, just as the calculator shows. Except if I ate that much I would gain weight, not maintain it. That calculator says I could have mild weight loss at 1,789 calories, but I was gaining at those calories, too. 1,539 was the amount I'd have to eat just to maintain 210lbs. And yes, I measured and weighed everything. If I wanted to continue losing weight at that point, I would have to eat what that calculator considers "extreme" weight loss - 1,039 calories a day. My sister, a nurse, told me at the time that isn't a healthy amount of calories. I did try it, though! But it was far too much deprivation.

    This is what a 1,000 calorie diet looks like:

    Breakfast:
    Cup of oatmeal with half an apple, and a cup of black coffee

    Lunch:
    One scrambled egg, slice of cheddar cheese on whole wheat toast

    Dinner:
    Cup of chicken and rice stir fry, half cup of peas and a cup of unsweetened herbal tea

    Maintaining that is no longer about willpower. It's about every cell of your body screaming at you that you're starving to death. That's being hungry before, during, and after every meal, and going to bed with a gnawing stomach. That's what it took for me to lose weight at 210 pounds.

    I will note that I entered the above calculation with "sedentary lifestyle" as the activity, but I was exercising then, too. Maybe not 3 times a week, but at least twice a week. But even with that, the calorie numbers remained the same (I still remember them). Exercise is actually a problem if I want to lose weight rather than maintain it - because exercise makes me far more hungry than the amount of calories I burn. While you could potentially call this a side effect of my ADHD, there is science to back up that experience, too - that exercising while trying to lose weight makes it harder, not easier.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Calories in, calories out equation is much more complicated for people with hormonal imbalances. As I said in the other thread, hyperthyroidism and autoimmune diseases associated with it absolutely can lead to weight gain despite eating at a calorie deficit. Thyroid conditions are extremely common, especially among women, and it fucks your base metabolism so hard that what used to maintain equilibrium ends up leading to weight gain. The solution to that often can't just be to "diet and exercise harder" either because that dip in your metabolism means a big dip in energy. If you just cut calories further you likely won't even have the energy to exercise.

    The solution to some is medication and/or hormone therapy coupled with a change in lifestyle that goes way beyond what I suspect was in a Something awful thread.

    The only way I can think of that it's even physically possible to gain weight long term when eating at a calorie deficit is water retention, which isn't the same thing as being fat. But yes, if you have a hormonal condition that causes weight gain regardless of what you eat then obviously diet and exercise isn't the solution (other than diet or exercise that deals with the hormonal condition).

    One way is to drop your metabolic rate through the floor so that calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus again and you need to cut even more calories. That's where a lot of people get off because they still have to work and stuff

    Yeah, that's a major problem with weight loss through eating less, and one I was made well aware of by the advice I went looking for before trying to lose weight and took steps to avoid. At that point it's no longer a calorie deficit, though, so I was curious about the physics of how weight gain despite a continuing calorie deficit would even work.

    Mainly through differences in calorie and calorie deficit measurement compared to what is actually going on in your body. It's not that easy to calculate a calorie deficit if you demand accuracy

    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.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    But also, for an example of a disease that makes you gain weight even if you are eating the same or less then before, Cushing's disease is an example.

    Because see, the body isn't just a fire you can add or remove fuel to. The metabolism determines how fast fuel is burned, unlike a fire. If something causes your metabolism to go down, you burn less fuel and gain weight. If something causes your metabolism to go up, you burn more fuel and lose weight. It's not calories in calories out because the body decides things independently of what you want.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • ZavianZavian universal peace sounds better than forever war Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    there are a lot of causes/reasons for obesity, I personally think it's always okay to seek out professional advice from a doctor/nutritionist/physical trainer though of course just like with prescription drugs there's a cost barrier there. I think even with 'meme drugs', or any other type of 'solution', in the end one of the many things thats what's really needed is making daily exercise a routine. Not in terms of 'olympic training' exercise every day, but just setting aside some time every day to just do some basic non-weight calisthenics.

    there are other 'small' modifications to habit that can also be made, such as switching to water as a beverage, that can have a massive impact, especially if you usually drink soda/sugary drinks.

    mental health also is just as important as physical health as well I believe, and I also think there's definitely a balance between the two, and it's always okay to also seek out professional advice for mental health as well as physical (although unfortunately I do also understand there's a cost barrier there for that)

    Zavian on
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    All that said, a calorie deficit of 500 will work for the vast majority of people that meet the assumptions of the validated calculators out there. Those assumptions aren't trivial but they can be practically met.

    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.
  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Bremen on
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

    You talking about Wegovy? That shit has done wonders for a lot of our friends. My wife keeps trying to get it, but her insurance decided it was too expensive and she should try amphetamines instead.

    I assumed that's what "the meme drug" is. Wegovy/Ozempic, basically the same underlying drug.

    As an obese Type 2 diabetic currently on Ozempic, I'm really really really irritated by the memeing of the drug I use to avoid getting to the stage where I'll need insulin.

    Like, I get people wanting to drop a bit of weight (in a kinda shit way that usually winds up with the taker getting all that weight back once they stop their regimen), but also I had to go without my meds for two months earlier this year because non-diabetics were causing a shortage of my diabetes drug (Trulicity at the time).

    It's this same meme bullshit that is causing my insurance provider to gatekeep me away from Mounjaro.

    So the collateral damage is real and it sucks.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    If someone is gaining weight they are by definition consuming a caloric surplus. Diseases affecting the metabolism can make it extremely difficult to change body composition because of how thin they make the margin.

    I would download a car.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    I absolutely have nothing against fat people, am one myself (even post weightloss I'm on the line between obese and overweight), don't intend to mock them, and have tried to repeatedly say that even some weightloss is hard rather than dismissing anything as easy. I'm sorry you've gone through such bad experiences and I'd happily tell those people off if I could. I've done 1500 calories a day diets as part of my own weight loss and certainly wouldn't call it easy.

    At the same time... I found the whole negativity of the "it's impossible to lose weight, it's society's fault so there's no point in trying to diet and exercise" in the previous thread as harmful as you found those comments. Because if that thread had been my response when I was looking into losing weight I would have given up and be facing significant health issues. So yeah, I spoke up, I said it was hard but not hopeless, and I tried to encourage people that it was possible to achieve healthy weight loss.

    Bremen on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I've seen some kinds of radical surgery work. But there's risk, and it impacts quality of life. Is it worth it? Perhaps, but it's not something minor.

    The meme drug seems to work.

    Beyond that...good luck?

    You talking about Wegovy? That shit has done wonders for a lot of our friends. My wife keeps trying to get it, but her insurance decided it was too expensive and she should try amphetamines instead.

    I assumed that's what "the meme drug" is. Wegovy/Ozempic, basically the same underlying drug.

    As an obese Type 2 diabetic currently on Ozempic, I'm really really really irritated by the memeing of the drug I use to avoid getting to the stage where I'll need insulin.

    Like, I get people wanting to drop a bit of weight (in a kinda shit way that usually winds up with the taker getting all that weight back once they stop their regimen), but also I had to go without my meds for two months earlier this year because non-diabetics were causing a shortage of my diabetes drug (Trulicity at the time).

    It's this same meme bullshit that is causing my insurance provider to gatekeep me away from Mounjaro.

    So the collateral damage is real and it sucks.

    The collateral damage is real and I blame the drug manufacturers and their patents more than the doctors prescribing medicine that helps people lose weight and thus get out of the danger zone for conditions exacerbated by being overweight. My wife should be a perfect use case for Wegovy. She was diagnosed with Hashimoto's after 8 months of a strict diet and exercise that did not produce results. Her weight gain put her in the pre-diabetic zone on top of the thyroid condition and she really needed to lose just a little bit to offset some of what was gained before she got her diagnosis. That diagnosis also took months to achieve in the first place. Her endocrinologist tried to prescribe it, but her insurance said no it's too expensive and you have to either try this cheaper option (an actual amphetamine) or get sick enough that we can finally give you the good shit.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    I absolutely have nothing against fat people, am one myself (even post weightloss I'm on the line between obese and overweight), don't intend to mock them, and have tried to repeatedly say that even some weightloss is hard rather than dismissing anything as easy. I'm sorry you've gone through such bad experiences and I'd happily tell those people off if I could. I've done 1500 calories a day diets as part of my own weight loss and certainly wouldn't call it easy.

    At the same time... I found the whole negativity of the "it's impossible to lose weight, it's society's fault so there's no point in trying to diet and exercise" in the previous thread as harmful as you found those comments. Because if that thread had been my response when I was looking into losing weight I would have given up and be facing significant health issues. So yeah, I spoke up, I said it was hard but not hopeless, and I tried to encourage people that it was possible to achieve healthy weight loss.

    That's not really a fair assessment of what was going on in the thread. People in the thread's answer to what obese people should do about being to big for seats was "just go to the gym fattie", and then when called on that, ratcheted down on "calories in, calories it, thermodynamics bro, do you even physics?" So like, while I can appreciate what you are trying to say, you jumped in on the side of those guys at the end of their vitriol.

  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    I absolutely have nothing against fat people, am one myself (even post weightloss I'm on the line between obese and overweight), don't intend to mock them, and have tried to repeatedly say that even some weightloss is hard rather than dismissing anything as easy. I'm sorry you've gone through such bad experiences and I'd happily tell those people off if I could. I've done 1500 calories a day diets as part of my own weight loss and certainly wouldn't call it easy.

    At the same time... I found the whole negativity of the "it's impossible to lose weight, it's society's fault so there's no point in trying to diet and exercise" in the previous thread as harmful as you found those comments. Because if that thread had been my response when I was looking into losing weight I would have given up and be facing significant health issues. So yeah, I spoke up, I said it was hard but not hopeless, and I tried to encourage people that it was possible to achieve healthy weight loss.

    That's not really a fair assessment of what was going on in the thread. People in the thread's answer to what obese people should do about being to big for seats was "just go to the gym fattie", and then when called on that, ratcheted down on "calories in, calories it, thermodynamics bro, do you even physics?" So like, while I can appreciate what you are trying to say, you jumped in on the side of those guys at the end of their vitriol.

    I would completely dispute that interpretation of the thread. People discussed whether being overweight should be treated as a disability, since choice did factor into it. No one said anything remotely like "go to the gym fattie" and I think it's spurious to even suggest they did. Then people started talking about how due to obesogenic factors some people couldn't lose weight by eating less. Maybe they didn't mean it to imply you could gain fat while at a caloric deficit, but it certainly sounded that way to some, so some people did indeed point out that that wasn't how physics worked. No one turned it into an insult like you claim.

    As far as I can tell no one on the "it's possible to lose weight" side was being insulting, and only one person on the "it's not" was and they got promptly called on it by a mod. The discussion may have gotten heated because it reminded people of insults by others, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone in the actual discussion was trying to be straightforward and polite. The closest I can think of was someone using, I think it was battered, to refer to having their space infringed on by a neighbor on a long flight, and they got jumped on, but I didn't get the impression it was intended as an attack on fat people.

    Bremen on
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Telling ppl that obesity is something that you do to yourself isn't insulting?

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    "Diet and exercise do not work" did/does keep coming up in this kind of discussion, though. And that's as inaccurate a statement as "diet and exercise always work".

  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Telling ppl that obesity is something that you do to yourself isn't insulting?

    I'd say it depends on how you do it. Telling people that obesity is a result of lifestyle and can be dealt with by changes is not, IMHO, insulting. There are certainly ways to say it that are, though.

    Bremen on
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    I absolutely have nothing against fat people, am one myself (even post weightloss I'm on the line between obese and overweight), don't intend to mock them, and have tried to repeatedly say that even some weightloss is hard rather than dismissing anything as easy. I'm sorry you've gone through such bad experiences and I'd happily tell those people off if I could. I've done 1500 calories a day diets as part of my own weight loss and certainly wouldn't call it easy.

    At the same time... I found the whole negativity of the "it's impossible to lose weight, it's society's fault so there's no point in trying to diet and exercise" in the previous thread as harmful as you found those comments. Because if that thread had been my response when I was looking into losing weight I would have given up and be facing significant health issues. So yeah, I spoke up, I said it was hard but not hopeless, and I tried to encourage people that it was possible to achieve healthy weight loss.

    That's not really a fair assessment of what was going on in the thread. People in the thread's answer to what obese people should do about being to big for seats was "just go to the gym fattie", and then when called on that, ratcheted down on "calories in, calories it, thermodynamics bro, do you even physics?" So like, while I can appreciate what you are trying to say, you jumped in on the side of those guys at the end of their vitriol.

    I would completely dispute that interpretation of the thread. People discussed whether being overweight should be treated as a disability, since choice did factor into it. No one said anything remotely like "go to the gym fattie" and I think it's spurious to even suggest they did. Then people started talking about how due to obesogenic factors some people couldn't lose weight by eating less. Maybe they didn't mean it to imply you could gain fat while at a caloric deficit, but it certainly sounded that way to some, so some people did indeed point out that that wasn't how physics worked. No one turned it into an insult like you claim.

    As far as I can tell no one on the "it's possible to lose weight" side was being insulting, and only one person on the "it's not" was and they got promptly called on it by a mod. The discussion may have gotten heated because it reminded people of insults by others, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone in the actual discussion was trying to be straightforward and polite. The closest I can think of was someone using, I think it was battered, to refer to having their space infringed on by a neighbor on a long flight, and they got jumped on, but I didn't get the impression it was intended as an attack on fat people.

    "Upgrade your seat, pay for a second seat, or hit the gym."

    ""Eat less and exercise more" doesn't just make sense on paper, it works in reality and the only way it "doesn't work as a long term solution" is if people stop doing it and return to bad habits, you might as well be saying that "quitting smoking just doesn't work".

    I've lost a lot of weight, too, I know it's not fun but it is absolutely within every individual's control, this is not a disability."

    This is, as I've said, on top of people calling it violence and assault and battery and the like that fat people are impinging on their space by... existing. Trust me, obese people suffer a ton of micro aggressions all the time, very few of us aren't aware of our situation.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Bremen wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Telling ppl that obesity is something that you do to yourself isn't insulting?

    I'd say it depends on how you do it. Telling people that obesity is a result of lifestyle and can be dealt with by changes is not, IMHO, insulting. There are certainly ways to say it that are, though.


    This?
    "You are not entitled to space that someone else paid for in the seat next to yours. If you think you are, you are a selfish and inconsiderate person. If you don't like that, tough shit. Upgrade your seat, pay for a second seat, or hit the gym."

    Telling obese people they're committing assault by using a seat and shouldn't fly is what, then? Telling people they're fat because it's "more fun" is what?


    "While one can square the blame on airlines, it's hardly surprising that someone would feel fairly annoyed by a person forcing their way into the very limited amount of space they get for air-travel simply because they can "

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And for the vast majority of people that advice doesn't work. It's not like there's been a shortage of that kind of talk culturally. Hell for me calories in calories out trigger a heart problem that put me in the ER. I can recognize I'm an outlier there, try it yourself.

    I provided studies in the previous thread showing that, for at an absolute minimum, it does work for a large minority, and most likely at least a slim majority. Maybe not for a third of their body weight or more, but at least for significant amounts.

    There are admittedly studies (though, in my opinion and in the reference to articles I also posted, likely deeply flawed due to selection bias) studies that claim it doesn't work, though often the articles about them are selectively worded to make it seem like they're claiming more than they do "IE 80% of those studied didn't keep the weight off" when the data actually shows "80% of those studied regained some weight, though the majority still maintained major weight loss." If your study of weight loss program participants shows that most people regain the weight, and your statistical studies of all obese people shows that a significant number lose weight and keep it off, you haven't shown that weight loss is unrealistic - you've shown that those weight loss programs don't work.

    Even if I gave both studies equal value, though, I would take the fact that both I and most people following the same advice I did were successful as additional evidence that it's not just simply me being part of a lucky minority, and therefor think the studies that showed that were more likely valid than those that didn't.

    The study you provided suggested that for a decent number of people, it was possible to lose ~5% of their body weight long term. That is relatively damning for the idea that it is possible to lose a significant amount of weight long-term, because a 5% weight loss is not enough to meaningfully change somebody's risk profile or, as is the real core of many of these conversations, whether they appear visibly overweight to others.

    I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but you're presenting a pretty extreme motte and bailey here; in the other thread you jumped in to defend a guy basically saying "shut the fuck up, weight loss is all willpower" and continuously post at others like they're too stupid to understand calories in, calories out (which is a useless phrase beyond very basic nutritional education, and one you don't seem to understand yourself), which gives the impression of somebody who believes massive weight loss on the scale of "no longer takes up extra space on a plane" is plausible for most people, but then when pressed your position is basically that a 5% weight loss long-term is possible for a <50% fraction of the population and that obviously different people have different levels of difficulty losing weight. Those are two vastly, vastly different positions and using the rhetoric of the former moralizing position to claim you're arguing for the latter is very difficult to engage with in a useful way.

    Well, more specifically that study said 36% of all overweight and obese people end up losing "at least" 5% of their body weight and keeping it off (and only 33% even stated they were trying to lose weight, so I think the implication would be that the majority could lose at least that much if they tried). I think even just 5% is pretty significant myself, and some of this disagreement may be related to that - people were claiming it was impossible for most people to lose weight and keep it off, I consider 5% of body weight to be losing weight, so I felt posting it to refute them was perfectly reasonable. From my point of view, it was the people responding with "but 5% isn't much" who were moving the goalposts. Similarly, people were and are claiming you could gain fat despite being at a calorie deficit, which I view as physically impossible, so I don't think speaking up about the physics of it was unwarranted or excessively simplistic.

    As for the plane seats, by that point the discussion had progressed dramatically to the point where it was no longer about air travel, so no, that study wasn't intended to be specific to be in reference to fitting in an airplane seat.

    Here's the thing. When a skinny person looks at aa fat person and says, "you just need to eat less.", They aren't actually talking about the person's bodily health, medical history, nir do thry have any idea what health regimen that person might be currently on. What they mean is, "you need to look different."

    And as an obese oerson who has, in the past, lost and maintained 5 % weight loss, I can assure you that skinny person would not be able to tell the difference between before and after 5% weight loss.

    The me I mentioned above, who was struggling on 1500 calories to maintain 210 pounds? I was subjected to just as much "eat less, bro" and, "stop eating cheeseburgers, lol" as people my weight who were performing zero diet and exercise regimens. People who were skinnier than me who are fried food all the time (I mostly hate fried food) weren't told to eat less. Because they "looked right", so who cares about their health?

    Telling someone on 1500 calories a day how "easy" it would be for them to get down to a healthy weight is straight up bullshit. And when you spread that around, you aren't just talking to the sedentary 210 lb people, you're talking to the people killing themselves to get skinny, and failing, and assuming (because of what you and others like you have said) that they only fail because they're a bad person.

    If you can't acknowledge the harm of that, I don't know what to say to you.

    I absolutely have nothing against fat people, am one myself (even post weightloss I'm on the line between obese and overweight), don't intend to mock them, and have tried to repeatedly say that even some weightloss is hard rather than dismissing anything as easy. I'm sorry you've gone through such bad experiences and I'd happily tell those people off if I could. I've done 1500 calories a day diets as part of my own weight loss and certainly wouldn't call it easy.

    At the same time... I found the whole negativity of the "it's impossible to lose weight, it's society's fault so there's no point in trying to diet and exercise" in the previous thread as harmful as you found those comments. Because if that thread had been my response when I was looking into losing weight I would have given up and be facing significant health issues. So yeah, I spoke up, I said it was hard but not hopeless, and I tried to encourage people that it was possible to achieve healthy weight loss.

    That's not really a fair assessment of what was going on in the thread. People in the thread's answer to what obese people should do about being to big for seats was "just go to the gym fattie", and then when called on that, ratcheted down on "calories in, calories it, thermodynamics bro, do you even physics?" So like, while I can appreciate what you are trying to say, you jumped in on the side of those guys at the end of their vitriol.

    I would completely dispute that interpretation of the thread. People discussed whether being overweight should be treated as a disability, since choice did factor into it. No one said anything remotely like "go to the gym fattie" and I think it's spurious to even suggest they did. Then people started talking about how due to obesogenic factors some people couldn't lose weight by eating less. Maybe they didn't mean it to imply you could gain fat while at a caloric deficit, but it certainly sounded that way to some, so some people did indeed point out that that wasn't how physics worked. No one turned it into an insult like you claim.

    As far as I can tell no one on the "it's possible to lose weight" side was being insulting, and only one person on the "it's not" was and they got promptly called on it by a mod. The discussion may have gotten heated because it reminded people of insults by others, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone in the actual discussion was trying to be straightforward and polite. The closest I can think of was someone using, I think it was battered, to refer to having their space infringed on by a neighbor on a long flight, and they got jumped on, but I didn't get the impression it was intended as an attack on fat people.

    "Upgrade your seat, pay for a second seat, or hit the gym."

    ""Eat less and exercise more" doesn't just make sense on paper, it works in reality and the only way it "doesn't work as a long term solution" is if people stop doing it and return to bad habits, you might as well be saying that "quitting smoking just doesn't work".

    I've lost a lot of weight, too, I know it's not fun but it is absolutely within every individual's control, this is not a disability."

    This is, as I've said, on top of people calling it violence and assault and battery and the like that fat people are impinging on their space by... existing. Trust me, obese people suffer a ton of micro aggressions all the time, very few of us aren't aware of our situation.

    Saying "dieting and exercise will fix the underlying condition" is actually, factually incorrect. We have the data to show it's incorrect, with changes in muscle fiber, in hormone levels, and in metabolism. "Dieting and exercise can sometimes hide the physical symptoms temporarily" would be the accurate statement.

    And people disagreeing with "diet and exercise can fix it" aren't like people disagreeing with the statement "quitting smoking is possible." They are, rather, like people disagreeing with the statement, "I quit smoking, therefore cigarettes aren't addictive."

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • BremenBremen Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Bremen wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Telling ppl that obesity is something that you do to yourself isn't insulting?

    I'd say it depends on how you do it. Telling people that obesity is a result of lifestyle and can be dealt with by changes is not, IMHO, insulting. There are certainly ways to say it that are, though.


    This?
    "You are not entitled to space that someone else paid for in the seat next to yours. If you think you are, you are a selfish and inconsiderate person. If you don't like that, tough shit. Upgrade your seat, pay for a second seat, or hit the gym."

    Telling obese people they're committing assault by using a seat and shouldn't fly is what, then? Telling people they're fat because it's "more fun" is what?


    "While one can square the blame on airlines, it's hardly surprising that someone would feel fairly annoyed by a person forcing their way into the very limited amount of space they get for air-travel simply because they can "

    Alright, looking at it now I see some posters were overly confrontational about it. I regret that and tried to avoid it myself. That said, the second one isn't even specific to fat people - it and many other comments about people having a right to not have their neighbors intrude into their seat were phrased in a way they could include very tall or muscular people, which I feel was a reasonable way to make the point not about fat people.

    People do have a right to their own seat. That doesn't give them the right to insult or blame fat people, though.

    Bremen on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited July 2023
    I spent the last five years with an active, untreated auto-immune condition because hey, why test the fat lady's joint pain right? obviously she's just a lazy fucker that doesn't exercise or eat right. Can't be any underlying problems there, no sir. I say 5 years but that's just when this specific flare started. Based on my joint pain I could have had this fucker for closer to thirty five years.

    Mom spent several years with a brain tumor that wasn't diagnosed for the same reasons. By the time it was found and removed, the hole it left was large enough the surgeon could stick his entire fist in her head.

    This sort of thing is quite common, and contributes to a bunch of the "health issues" you'll see mentioned from obesity. So you'll excuse people if we hear simplistic, obvious shit we've all heard for literal decades and don't give it a good reception.

    "Telling people that obesity is a result of lifestyle and can be dealt with by changes" is all culture has done by entire life.

    Phoenix-D on
Sign In or Register to comment.