Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'm 6'1, which makes me even more awesome.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Girlfriend has tried everything to lose weight but to no avail
- Thread starter DragonKnight
- Start date
- Status
I'm 6'1, which makes me even more awesome.
Etrian Oddity
Member
There are so many clowns in this thread it isn't even funny.
Statistically speaking for all of the following, portion sizes are also larger in America. Processed foods are also far less expensive in America, enabling them to be eaten more. Americans eat a lot more junk food. Americans exercise less. Americans for some reason have a much higher obesity rate.
That's quite the false equivalency you're drawing.
Americans are fat because they eat more is circular logic with 0 causation. What makes someone eat, because it's there? Why now and not before or in most 1st world countries. Countries that have higher per capita GDP...they can afford all of the food they want, but they don't.
Exercise less? There was no fitness industry before the 1960s. Dr Kenneth Cooper coined the term Aerobics in 1968 because running the lose weight did not exist yet. People drove cars, worked, had TVs, and they were thin. Both food intake AND physical activity is up in the United States.
How can physical activity be down when Aerobics didn't exist before the 1960s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobics#History
I've already linked to this post that demonstrates making lean animals obese using junk food, and conversely makes obese thin with bland. This has infinite food available, and these animals don't consciously count calories nor are they restricted by cost.
Cheaper food? France has a school lunch program that serves multiple course meals to kids. Heavily subsidized. They aren't fat.
Your tag is certainly fitting to your post. I agree the effects of saturated fats are poorly understood and that they are far too demonized. I haven't really kept up with current research on the issue, so thank you for the extra information, I hate being misinformed.
For the record, I should have been more specific and I shouldn't have been so irresponsible in placing saturated and trans fat in the same sentence (as I fully understand that saturated fats are essential to the body's health, whereas trans fats shouldn't be consumed at all - simply a lapse in judgment on my part).
I never meant to imply that saturated fats should be completely reduced or entirely replaced with unsaturated fats, but merely, in the most general sense depending on context, balanced with unsaturated fats, protein, and ideally linear-glucose-based polysaccharides for caloric needs (sucrose intake from whole fruits is fine due to the fibrous contents of fruits).
Many overweight/obese people have high bf% because the majority of the excessive caloric intake is composed of carbs rather than fats (specifically highly-branched and fructose based carbs rather than linear, glucose based carbs) and no exercise to facilitate increased glycogen stores or a higher metabolic requirement, meaning a reduction in carbs is more ideal for fat loss in many cases. Some people find this counter-intuitive, but it is more complicated than just "higher fat intake = higher body fat composition" - it isn't that simple without context of lifestyle/type of exercise and where all the other calories are coming from.
Although the science behind a "healthy" diet may not be simple, one thing is obvious and clearly understandable - you will get fat and eventually obese if your caloric intake far exceeds your caloric requirements (which includes calories burned during exercise/work + the calories necessary for cell regeneration and repair).
Of course, just maintaining a "normal" body-weight with low bf% doesn't necessarily correlate to good health either because not all 'calories' are the same, each macronutrient has a different processing route and effect on the body.
No, circular logic would be be something like saying Dr. Phil is right because Dr. Phil says he is right.
Increasing caloric intake, or having higher fat meals causes weight gain. According to science.
When someone then fails to exercise to keep that weight off, they then don't burn off that fat. Nobody I know that eats more fat, protein, and sits around watching Netflix all day keeps weight off easier than people that eat more salad and less steak and exercise more.
If you eat more (increasing caloric intake) and exercise less (decreasing burning of said calories) then according to something called math you are at a disadvantage for weighing less.
It is circular logic.
It's like saying a murder victim died because a knife caused them to bleed out. No causation unless we are to argue the basic anatomy of the body, and why blood just can't pour out while not dying.
Likewise hunger doesn't just happen. It's controlled by the brain, according to Science. This is a scientific fact. You can argue about calories in and calories out, but it doesn't explain why this process was self regulated healthily by the majority of people until very recently in very few countries.
Science doesn't work with selection of anecdotal evidence. I've already given you controlled trials and observational evidence that conflicts with what you're saying. In Science, this must be explained for even a hypothesis to survive.
CreativeWriter
Member
Lost 70 lbs last year (250 -> 180) counting calories. Weight loss is a calorie game. You burn more than you take in, and you will lose weight. Not talking about heart health or health in general. I'm talking about weight loss. The consensus here is true: keep counting calories and don't worry about the daily weigh-in. I weighed myself every single day and saw the daily swings--up to five pounds a day either way. It caused me all kinds of distress until I learned to let it go and trust the math. The math wins every time. Your girl, OP, will lose weight. Give it time.
Totally agree. Calories are only one part of the equation. The bigger part of the equation are the metabolic signals and when a person feels satiated.
Case in point: a person can eat an equivalent caloric amount of sucrose/fructose and never feel full compared to a person eating the equivalent in pure sugar. Actually, I don't think a person can actually eat that much sugar in one sitting because your body will stop you pretty quickly.
Yeah.
I don't know why it's so hard to communicate what I'm saying. It's like people in countries like the United States have never known natural satiety. Feeling full and not eating more after reaching a caloric intake needed to maintain a healthy weight. I guess our food industry is so bad that this idea seems unnatural and that a constant battle with calorie counting and spreadsheets are required to compensate for some innate biological flaw to overeat.
I'm not arguing that caloric intake has nothing to do with obesity. I'm saying that if the brain was healthy there wouldn't be excessive food intake in the first place. Regardless of the level of physical activity. (Is Qatar obese because their Middle Eastern tradition of jogging in scorching deserts vanished a couple of decades ago?)
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
The reason is because of how much money there is in having people think this is the only way. You're a terrible person, but don't fret! A big corporation is her to lend you a hand with some fat-free yogurt and a monthly gym pass. You can't make money off weight watchers and "diet", "low-fat", "lite", "healthy choice" foods; off cardio training sessions, gym memberships, zumba dancing; off "statins" and other obesity or diabetes related drugs, unless you have a fat-ass population.
Corporations want to propagate that kind of nonsense so people will buy their extremely profitable product or service that they market as specific tailored to lean-challenged individuals.
It may not even be a conspiracy like that. As demonstrated in this thread, people just really like simple solutions, and "calories in/calories out" is as simple as it gets.
Energy wise yeah. Vitamin and mineral wise no. Though 2300 calories of broccoli is a hell of a lot of broccoli, good luck eating that much.
EDIT: 100g of raw broccoli is 34 calories. You'd have to eat nearly 6KG of broccoli to get your caloric requirements if you were aiming for 2300 calories.
in terms of weight loss and energy yes although you will make a new friend named diabetes pretty fast and feel like shit eating chocolate all day. every now and then you hear about stupid diets like the ice cream diet or whatever. the chocolate diet is the same idea and believe it or not there are chocolate diets out there.
tracking calories works best since you can eat whatever you want but need to watch portion sizes. doing so makes junk food become treats again and not meal replacements.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
They mostly say that because people with weight problems don't have good portion control.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I like the cut of your jib.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
This! She probably gained some muscle as well.
Also, she's a woman, therefore probably snacking and thinking 'it doesn't count' because again, a woman.
id probably delete the last bit of that i i were you. Imagine that is bannable
Etrian Oddity
Member
To the OP
you need to keep it up for life... my fiance's sister was chubby and her dad is chubby but she's a stick figure now - she hardly eats though.... its not very healthy but that's how you do it
but honestly your energy (calories/kj) out has to be more than your energy in. as a rough guide at least 1.5x more
plus you have to think about your metabolism and activity intensity as well, but sometimes that's hard to keep up in the long run.
ur GF just has very very low metabolism and isn't burning it off.
you need to keep it up for life... my fiance's sister was chubby and her dad is chubby but she's a stick figure now - she hardly eats though.... its not very healthy but that's how you do it
but honestly your energy (calories/kj) out has to be more than your energy in. as a rough guide at least 1.5x more
plus you have to think about your metabolism and activity intensity as well, but sometimes that's hard to keep up in the long run.
ur GF just has very very low metabolism and isn't burning it off.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
FTFY
I don't think exercise makes you lose weight, per se, but going long periods of time with little exercise is devastating to your body in all kinds of ways. She also needs to be eating way more fruit and veggies. Lots of great fiber and nutrients to be had.
Protip:
The whole "muscle weighs more" is crap!
You might have to explain this one to me... your body burns calories/energy due to increased activity, energy burned means weight lost.
Unless you mean the buildup of muscle counters the loss of weight but that is why "scales" are broken. You should be more worried about your physique than some damn number
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The people that are out of shape typically aren't capable of the type of workouts that would make you lose weight quickly. For example, if you ran a 30 mile marathon you would only lose about a pound.
Exercise certainly helps in the long term though. But it's not the silver bullet that most dieters are looking for.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Tell her to eat less, drink more water.
Not every person works to the so called ideal calories in through BMR
I know I personally need to eat much less than recommended before I even start to lose weight
Not every person works to the so called ideal calories in through BMR
I know I personally need to eat much less than recommended before I even start to lose weight
Not that I don't think measuring food is a good idea for those reasons you mentioned, but you're calling the guy ignorant while defending a process that works best for people ignorant about serving sizes. It is a remedy for people who can't measure a cup. I can't say the blame falls on their shoulders, but somewhere along the way they missed out on an important part of food education.
Losing fat (instead of weight - because weight is sometimes deceptive especially if you have muscles) takes a long time if you already have a good amount of fat deposits in your body. You can't expect things to turn around in 2 weeks period. You may notice improvement in your ability to carry physical exercise but the actual improvement on your body is likely minimal.
This is why so many people just give up immediately. They expect quick result for their workout, which unfortunately does not always show up as quickly as we'd like to see them. I'd imagine this is even harder for gamers, who are used to instant gratification when playing video games (you shoot something, you get points/your enemy dies immediately).
Also, from my experience so far, while workout is important part of losing weight, the part where you get slim tummy usually comes from diet. Cutting down sugars and carbs is hard but it's worth doing it.
/obvious points are obvious
This is why so many people just give up immediately. They expect quick result for their workout, which unfortunately does not always show up as quickly as we'd like to see them. I'd imagine this is even harder for gamers, who are used to instant gratification when playing video games (you shoot something, you get points/your enemy dies immediately).
Also, from my experience so far, while workout is important part of losing weight, the part where you get slim tummy usually comes from diet. Cutting down sugars and carbs is hard but it's worth doing it.
/obvious points are obvious
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked