• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Darksol
Member
(10-18-2017, 11:26 AM)
Darksol's Avatar

Originally Posted by CornBurrito

Veganism isn't crazy.

Animal agriculture is destroying the environment, much faster than if most people dropped meat to even just once a week.

Going vegan is the most significant thing an individual human can do to combat climate change.

Actually, not breeding or killing yourself would both render grater change :p
Greenpaint
Member
(10-18-2017, 11:42 AM)
Greenpaint's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darksol

Actually, not breeding or killing yourself would both render grater change :p

There is a reason why we have such a strong instinct for breeding. Because everyone who doesn't is dead and so is their ideology. You can "stop breeding yourself", but others will continue "to breed themselves". And it's those others whose ideology will live on and yours will vanish into nothingness.

Only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to kill everyone else, before killing yourself, which would make you a hypocrite.
Spuck-uk
Member
(10-18-2017, 12:04 PM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar
I'm just saying, the rest of the world doesn't eat ranch dressing*, and is less fat....



*seriously, one of the few truly american inventions.
Spuck-uk
Member
(10-18-2017, 12:08 PM)
Spuck-uk's Avatar
Speaking of first world problems, vegans.
HolySheep
Junior Member
(10-18-2017, 12:32 PM)
Do you separate between obesity and overweight in the US?

If so, god damn. The obesity in kids in Norway is like between 2 and 3% for example. Overweight kids is at 13%, but stabilizing and the trends are looking positive.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 12:52 PM)
LOL. This thread is the other part of the problem and why it doesnt get better.

Fast food is everywhere. Convenience wins over. You get fat.

Shit im fat. I wanna lose weight. Let me look online and find out what im doing wrong.

"DONT EAT CARBS"
"MEAT GIVES YOU RABIES"
"EAT NOTHING BY MEAL WORMS EVERYTHING ELSE IS EVIL"
"JUST BACON. EAT NOTHING BUT BACON"

fuck this, wheres that cheese burger.

The talk on this subject scares everyone away. If you are overweight and want to lose then start a food diary, eat less and move more. You will lose weight.

Later on you can worry more about these other issues if they concern you. But a balenced diet is fine. Stick to the basics
maxcriden
Member
(10-18-2017, 01:05 PM)
maxcriden's Avatar

Originally Posted by HolySheep

Do you separate between obesity and overweight in the US?

If so, god damn. The obesity in kids in Norway is like between 2 and 3% for example. Overweight kids is at 13%, but stabilizing and the trends are looking positive.

Yes, we do. Obese is a BMI of 30 or more. Overweight is 25 or more.
Fritz
Member
(10-18-2017, 01:20 PM)
Fritz's Avatar

Originally Posted by OmegaTreeFish

LOL. This thread is the other part of the problem and why it doesnt get better.

Fast foodis everywhere. Convenience wins over. You get fat.

Shit im fat. I wanna lose weight. Let me look online and find out what im doing wrong.

"DONT EAT CARBS"
"MEAT GIVES YOU RABIES"
"EAT NOTHING BY MEAL WORMS EVERYTHING ELSE IS EVIL"
"JUST BACON. EAT NOTHING BUT BACON"

fuck this, wheres that cheese burger.

The talk on this subject scares everyone away. If you are overweight and want to lose then start a food diary, eat less and move more. You will lose weight.

Later on you can worry more about these other issues if they concern you. But a balenced diet is fine. Stick to the basics


The whole discourse is so fucked up when you look at it from the outside.
empyrean
Member
(10-18-2017, 01:32 PM)
See lots of mentions of a “balanced” diet. Can anyone define what that is? Isn’t part of the issue that we are struggling to define what a “balanced” diet is? Should carbs be 40%? Should fat be higher? Should we eat more protein? It’s ok to say “eat a balanced diet” but if we don’t know what that is then the advice is meaningless.
entremet
Member
(10-18-2017, 01:35 PM)
entremet's Avatar

Originally Posted by empyrean

See lots of mentions of a “balanced” diet. Can anyone define what that is? Isn’t part of the issue that we are struggling to define what a “balanced” diet is? Should carbs be 40%? Should fat be higher? Should we eat more protein? It’s ok to say “eat a balanced diet” but if we don’t know what that is then the advice is meaningless.

Looking at macronutrients is too simplistic, IMHO.

There is a whole world of difference between a Pop Tart and a boiled potato. Or lentils and white sandwich bread. All those foods are primarily made up of carbohydrate.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 01:44 PM)

Originally Posted by empyrean

See lots of mentions of a “balanced” diet. Can anyone define what that is? Isn’t part of the issue that we are struggling to define what a “balanced” diet is? Should carbs be 40%? Should fat be higher? Should we eat more protein? It’s ok to say “eat a balanced diet” but if we don’t know what that is then the advice is meaningless.

In the most basic sense when people like me say balanced we really just mean a bit of everything.

Dont just eat junk food. You can have a bit now and then as long as you account for it but keep your food varied. Meat, vegies, fruit etc.

Eating nothing but processed shit and having zero idea of the calories you are putting into your body is a sure way to put on a ton of weight.

A truly balanced diet will depend on your goals and what you want out of it. But in the general sense people just mean have a varied diet of things. And keep highly processed foods to a minimum.

I cant tell you how much just putting my calorie intake into my fitbit app helps me. I can very easily see how much I have eated or have availble to eay in an day and eat accordingly. Its not hard and it works. You may need to at somepoint look at what exactly you are putting in and change some things here and there at various points, but if you are obese you dont really need to worry about it on to deep a level at that stage. Just get used to eating less and moving more first.
Keyser Soze
Member
(10-18-2017, 01:48 PM)
Keyser Soze's Avatar
Well, if we can't agree on anything can we at least can we agree not to buy something that says "low fat" and think you are been healthy. It might be the most misleading label to put on any food.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 01:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Well, if we can't agree on anything can we at least can we agree not to buy something that says "low fat" and think you are been healthy. It might be the most misleading label to put on any food.

Lol absolutely.

I would say that if you are obese and simply want to lose weight just look at the calories. You should prob also look at the product at decide how healthy or unhealthy it is as well. But again, if you are Obese I would say all you need to worry about is the eat less and move more part.

I cant stress enough how important being away of what you put in your mouth is. If you have a smart phone then download my fitness pal or the fitbit and and log your food. I will be eye opening as long as you are honest and log everything.
PerkeyMan
Member
(10-18-2017, 02:04 PM)
PerkeyMan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Laiza

It really is that simple though.

Robert Lustigs "hypothesis" about fructose has been debunked again, and again and again. Read: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

Originally Posted by HariKari

The purpose of carbohydrates is cheap, easily converted energy for your body. Unless you're extremely active, you don't need a huge intake. Your body doesn't need any carbs, so it's the easiest macro to trim. Protein and fat are far more important while also satiating more.



Sugar isn't addictive? The body is designed to seek out sugar and fat. The obesity problem has nothing to do with most common, cheap foods having extra/artificial sugar added?



There's nothing 'bullshit' about low carb. It has been studied for decades. "Ages" as you say. Teaching people to be mindful of their carb intake tends to eliminate the worst foods that modern society commonly consumes.

1)Your personal opinions are irrelevant to the disussion. I'm interested in objective facts.

2) No, sugar on it's own is not addictive. The study your article refers to has already been discussed in this thread: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...y+to+the+limit

It talks about reward in specfic foods containing sugar (hyperpalatable) and effects on rodents, not sucrose on its own:

Read more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27372453
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25692302

Or are you telling me fat is addictive?

3) Yes, it has been studied. And science tells us that people should ignore junk food high in fat, sugar and salt if they want to improve their health.

Originally Posted by Vuci

This 'bullshit' made me stop slowly killing myself and lose 70 pounds in nine months.

Let me rephrase: Any diet that helps you improve your health is fantastic. And eating low carbs is helping alot of people and thats great: When I say bullshit however, I'm talking about when Gary Taubes and his followers explain why it's helping alot of people. The hypothesis that: eating carbs -> insulin spike -> fat gain has also been debunked over and over again.

I know people who are afraid of eating fruit because of these "truths" that are establishing about carbs, sugar and fructose. And of course fruit is not bad for you:
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactiv...eport.pdf?ua=1


Originally Posted by Zefah

According to some in this thread, you're just buying into some made up marketing and not really improving your health... or something.

No. Read the above: The problem is demonising all carbs with a disproved hypothesis making people afraid of healthy food.

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

There is a big difference between Low Carb High Fat than just simply Low Carb alone. Low Carb alone is miserable, and you are just making it harder to be active let alone lose weight. If you lower your carb intake and raise fat, and control protein levels, you can actively alter the way your body can respond to food. Removing carbs as a fuel source meant reduced hunger cravings for me, and when I was hungry the tiniest amount of a fat food would leave me satiated. It also meant I had less high and low moments during the day. To me, it is a more balanced way of eating and stops the day feeling like a rollercoaster

For me I found it was much easier to eat a LCHF dietary intake and to control calories at the same time. If I went High Carb, or simply Low Carb, or any other combo, there is some point I would get hungry and over consume calories for that day.

I also had a blood test recently to check the effect on my body, and every single thing was down (or up in the cases where it should be), which made me feel even better.

I feel happy about eating this way for the rest of my life, and not just as a diet, as my body responds better to it.

If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. But don't fool yourself that it works for everybody.
PerkeyMan
Member
(10-18-2017, 02:11 PM)
PerkeyMan's Avatar
More read on why education (or lack off) isn't the key factor of obesity:

http://sciencenordic.com/obese-kids-...ampaign=buffer
Bold One
Member
(10-18-2017, 02:27 PM)
Bold One's Avatar
Plant a fuck load of trees.

Because trees are fucking awesome.

They make healthy fruits, clean the air and provide much needed shade.
Elfstar
Member
(10-18-2017, 02:48 PM)
Elfstar's Avatar

Originally Posted by OmegaTreeFish

LOL. This thread is the other part of the problem and why it doesnt get better.

Fast food is everywhere. Convenience wins over. You get fat.

Shit im fat. I wanna lose weight. Let me look online and find out what im doing wrong.

"DONT EAT CARBS"
"MEAT GIVES YOU RABIES"
"EAT NOTHING BY MEAL WORMS EVERYTHING ELSE IS EVIL"
"JUST BACON. EAT NOTHING BUT BACON"

fuck this, wheres that cheese burger.

The talk on this subject scares everyone away. If you are overweight and want to lose then start a food diary, eat less and move more. You will lose weight.

Later on you can worry more about these other issues if they concern you. But a balenced diet is fine. Stick to the basics

Yeah, exactly. This thread is absolutely confirming what i also said, but i had no doubt.
Ernest
Banned
(10-18-2017, 02:59 PM)
Moderation is difficult.

I mean, I'm in decent shape, but I have to work my fucking ass off just to stay in decent shape. It's extremely difficult for the average American family man/woman to sustain the diet/exercise required to maintain a healthy weight. Cooking healthy also takes more time than not. I can only do it because I'm single with no kids. If I had kids, forget about it!
Coinspinner
Member
(10-18-2017, 03:14 PM)
Coinspinner's Avatar
The true solution is nanomachines that devour body fat. At first it will seem awesome. But soon you will thin out... and they will still be hungry. You will try to eat as much as you can, but it will never be enough.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 03:22 PM)

Originally Posted by Ernest

Moderation is difficult.

I mean, I'm in decent shape, but I have to work my fucking ass off just to stay in decent shape. It's extremely difficult for the average American family man/woman to sustain the diet/exercise required to maintain a healthy weight. Cooking healthy also takes more time than not. I can only do it because I'm single with no kids. If I had kids, forget about it!

I'm from the UK so I dont live in the same envoronment so can you give me examples of why its so hard. I will give my run down of a typical day.

I am married with a kid:

wake up and have 40g bowl of cereal. Its about 200 cals with milk inlcuded and mostly just a kick start for me. My wife very kindly makes me a protean shake while I get ready for work. But these dont take long to make. You by pre forzen fruit. Takes a couple of mins to make one. I take that with me to work along with an apple and a lunch I make my self before I leave (a chicken and cheese sandwich and an Actimel). I also take an apple.

I get to work and drink the protean shake and eat the apple (Before the shakes I just took more fruit which takes zero prep time). Then on a non swimming day I dont eat anything else till 12 and eat my lunch. Then in the afternoon I have a handful of peanuts (about 30g). Totals about 1240 cals. On the 2 nights I go swimming for an hour I also eat a 200cal snack (I change what this is from time to time). So on those days its 1440 cals.

Then for dinner my wife makes us a dinner thats between 400-650 cals (healthy meals for the most part). Every day I am under my budget, I feel full and its all food I enjoy eating. Once a month we treat ourselves to a takeaway and I still log it. Friday nights my wife makes home made pizza which is amazing and half is 550 cals. weekends we eat differently but still stick within our budget.

I dont find this a hard system at all to keep to. But as I said I am in the UK and its a different environment. I am curious whats so different about it in the states that makes it harder. I could guess its just the shear amount of fast and junk food available but to be honest there is also tons of that here (not as much but it is everywhere).

I dont really care to much about macronutrients. I just stick within my calorie deficit (and often go under) and use common sense to not have too much of the really bad stuff and eat a decent amount of the healthy stuff.

edit
I want to add that about 7 years ago I was quite overweight. Prob on the border of overweight and obese (5'11" and 220 lb's). Over the years I have changed how I eat and lost more and more as time goes on. I have had times where I have slipped and picked up bad habbits, put on a stone (14 lbs) then got back on the fitbit app and corrected myself. I would then lose more than I did before. I am currently at 176 lb's and in the best shape I have been in since I was about 18 (im 35). What I noticed is that when I stop logging my food, While my day to day meals stay sensible my snaking sometimes sneaks back in. a chocolate bar here or there and if left unchecked it can become a daily thing easily enough. I currently plan to just stick to loggin food to stop that as it really isnt hard. Once you know what you eat you can set a custom meal to be everything you eat that day (so my breakfast > lunch routine) then all i have to add is dinner. If I want a snake I have to activily look at my app to see if I have the calories. That is often enough to stop me even thinking about having one in the first place.
Ripenen
Member
(10-18-2017, 03:46 PM)

Originally Posted by OmegaTreeFish

I'm from the UK so I dont live in the same envoronment so can you give me examples of why its so hard. I will give my run down of a typical day.

I am married with a kid:

wake up and have 40g bowl of cereal. Its about 200 cals with milk inlcuded and mostly just a kick start for me. My wife very kindly makes me a protean shake while I get ready for work. But these dont take long to make. You by pre forzen fruit. Takes a couple of mins to make one. I take that with me to work along with an apple and a lunch I make my self before I leave (a chicken and cheese sandwich and an Actimel). I also take an apple.

I get to work and drink the protean shake and eat the apple (Before the shakes I just took more fruit which takes zero prep time). Then on a non swimming day I dont eat anything else till 12 and eat my lunch. Then in the afternoon I have a handful of peanuts (about 30g). Totals about 1240 cals. On the 2 nights I go swimming for an hour I also eat a 200cal snack (I change what this is from time to time). So on those days its 1440 cals.

Then for dinner my wife makes us a dinner thats between 400-650 cals (healthy meals for the most part). Every day I am under my budget, I feel full and its all food I enjoy eating. Once a month we treat ourselves to a takeaway and I still log it. Friday nights my wife makes home made pizza which is amazing and half is 550 cals. weekends we eat differently but still stick within our budget.

I dont find this a hard system at all to keep to. But as I said I am in the UK and its a different environment. I am curious whats so different about it in the states that makes it harder. I could guess its just the shear amount of fast and junk food available but to be honest there is also tons of that here (not as much but it is everywhere).

I dont really care to much about macronutrients. I just stick within my calorie deficit (and often go under) and use common sense to not have too much of the really bad stuff and eat a decent amount of the healthy stuff.

edit
I want to add that about 7 years ago I was quite overweight. Prob on the border of overweight and obese (5'11" and 220 lb's). Over the years I have changed how I eat and lost more and more as time goes on. I have had times where I have slipped and picked up bad habbits, put on a stone (14 lbs) then got back on the fitbit app and corrected myself. I would then lose more than I did before. I am currently at 176 lb's and in the best shape I have been in since I was about 18 (im 35). What I noticed is that when I stop logging my food, While my day to day meals stay sensible my snaking sometimes sneaks back in. a chocolate bar here or there and if left unchecked it can become a daily thing easily enough. I currently plan to just stick to loggin food to stop that as it really isnt hard. Once you know what you eat you can set a custom meal to be everything you eat that day (so my breakfast > lunch routine) then all i have to add is dinner. If I want a snake I have to activily look at my app to see if I have the calories. That is often enough to stop me even thinking about having one in the first place.

The obesity epidemic is an epidemic, which means it's a problem on a macro scale. Your own personal experiences and routines, while interesting, are irrelevant. It's not just you but everyone.

It's like saying well i'm not addicted to opiates so why can't everyone just not do opiates?

By doing that we put the onus entirely on the individual and in so doing fail to acknowledge and fix the massive social, commercial, governmental failures that make the problem an epidemic.
Evilkazzzz
Junior Member
(10-18-2017, 03:49 PM)
Evilkazzzz's Avatar
Damn 40% of adults is a LOT.

I'm not surprised but I would have hoped some legislation or something would have helped curb this. Maybe I've been lucky with genes. I eat like shit but I dont ever eat that much. Usually I just eat when I'm hungry, and it doesnt take all that much fast food to satisfy me.

Honestly though, I think a big contributor might be soda. Seems like we Americans drink a hell of a lot of Soda. I've worked in grocery stores (unfortunately) for a while and I see people buying those huge packages of sodas, pretty much JUST because they're on sale (like three 12 packs for $9). And this isn't even talking about the sizes of drinks in fast food places. I'm always surprised when I order a small drink at how much it contains.

I really hope this is something we can curb in the next few decades.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 03:50 PM)

Originally Posted by Ripenen

The obesity epidemic is an epidemic, which means it's a problem on a macro scale. Your own personal experiences and routines, while interesting, are irrelevant. It's not just you but everyone.

It's like saying well i'm not addicted to opiates so why can't everyone just not do opiates?

By doing that we put the onus entirely on the individual and in so doing fail to acknowledge and fix the massive social, commercial, governmental failures that make the problem an epidemic.

Thats not what my reply was about. you have taken it out of context. It was to the guy who is fit and healthy but says its extreamly hard to stay that way. I am simply curious as to what makes it that way for him.

I know thats not the solution to the epidemic lol.
Griss
Member
(10-18-2017, 04:29 PM)

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

More read on why education (or lack off) isn't the key factor of obesity:

http://sciencenordic.com/obese-kids-...ampaign=buffer

The article refers to 'lifestyle changes', which to me is not the same as a concise education on nutritional realities. I was taught all about 'a healthy lifestyle' at school while I was putting on a bunch of weight, and it didn't help me whatsoever.

Once I learned what a calorie actually was, that I needed to know how much I was eating a day, once I understood how many I had been consuming under my old standard diet, and finally that a 3,500 calorie deficit meant a pound of weight loss, I was off and running. And then once I understood macros, I felt like I gained real, final control over my diet, health and weight. The shame was that I didn't learn any of this until my late 20s, because I was so inundated with false nutritional info and fad diets.

Now maybe the Norweigans are giving people that education but it's also possible they got the basic 'walk more, exercise, eat fruits and veg' generic advise that appears to help no one. I still think nutritional education is a huge key to this whole thing. It's what saved me, and my experience can't be that unique.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
women be talkin'!
vagina lips flappin'!
(10-18-2017, 06:43 PM)
Liu Kang Baking A Pie's Avatar

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

Robert Lustigs "hypothesis" about fructose has been debunked again, and again and again. Read: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/



1)Your personal opinions are irrelevant to the disussion. I'm interested in objective facts.

2) No, sugar on it's own is not addictive. The study your article refers to has already been discussed in this thread: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...y+to+the+limit

It talks about reward in specfic foods containing sugar (hyperpalatable) and effects on rodents, not sucrose on its own:

Read more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27372453
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25692302

Or are you telling me fat is addictive?

3) Yes, it has been studied. And science tells us that people should ignore junk food high in fat, sugar and salt if they want to improve their health.



Let me rephrase: Any diet that helps you improve your health is fantastic. And eating low carbs is helping alot of people and thats great: When I say bullshit however, I'm talking about when Gary Taubes and his followers explain why it's helping alot of people. The hypothesis that: eating carbs -> insulin spike -> fat gain has also been debunked over and over again.

I know people who are afraid of eating fruit because of these "truths" that are establishing about carbs, sugar and fructose. And of course fruit is not bad for you:
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactiv...eport.pdf?ua=1




No. Read the above: The problem is demonising all carbs with a disproved hypothesis making people afraid of healthy food.



If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. But don't fool yourself that it works for everybody.

Hell yes. More people posting actual studies and who try to look through the industry bullshit, please.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
women be talkin'!
vagina lips flappin'!
(10-18-2017, 07:09 PM)
Liu Kang Baking A Pie's Avatar

Originally Posted by empyrean

See lots of mentions of a “balanced” diet. Can anyone define what that is? Isn’t part of the issue that we are struggling to define what a “balanced” diet is? Should carbs be 40%? Should fat be higher? Should we eat more protein? It’s ok to say “eat a balanced diet” but if we don’t know what that is then the advice is meaningless.

This is why I say "everything in moderation" and "balanced diet" are bullshit copouts. They mean nothing and just make others wonder why one's saying something so vague after also being so precise about the impact of specific nutrients and macros.

One related thing to this is that I don't think most people realize the US food pyramid we're used to and think represents the "balanced diet" only has meat and dairy on it because those industries lobbied hard for it, not because those foods have been proven to be necessities in our diet. The latest update now just says "Protein" where meat used to be, which is a huge victory relative to the non-progress we've had before. I wish people cared about this as much as they care about NRA influence or other better known corporate lobbyists.

http://time.com/4130043/lobbying-pol...ry-guidelines/



Even things like telling the public to "eat less meat" becomes "reduce saturated fat intake" because you can't literally tell anyone to eat less meat when the beef industry is around. Oprah found this out in 1996. Everything is fucking politics, and this whole thread's continued confusion on diet is the result. "Doubt is our product."
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
(10-18-2017, 07:31 PM)
Morrigan Stark's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zefah

Oh, man. Liu Kang said it?! And by quoting an article from a site called NutritionFacts.org? FACTS! I mean, it's right in the URL. It must be correct! Not only that, but the article was written by a guy who is proud of having been on the Dr. Oz Show?! There can be no greater authority!

Vegan hero Dr. Greger's writing is of course completely objective and free of any kind of bias, agenda, or industry influence. Contradicting studies must have been corrupted by Big Meat, Big Egg, and Big Dairy. It's the only answer.

lmao
Ernest
Banned
(10-18-2017, 07:32 PM)

Originally Posted by OmegaTreeFish

Thats not what my reply was about. you have taken it out of context. It was to the guy who is fit and healthy but says its extreamly hard to stay that way. I am simply curious as to what makes it that way for him.

I know thats not the solution to the epidemic lol.

My point is that it takes a lot of work and sustaining discipline - a straight up lifestyle change that most people can't fit into their already hectic lives. it might be easy to you, but even your regiment is unsustainable for many people. I could say mine is easy, but then I understand how not everyone has my life-situation.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
(10-18-2017, 07:40 PM)

Originally Posted by Ernest

My point is that it takes a lot of work and sustaining discipline - a straight up lifestyle change that most people can't fit into their already hectic lives. it might be easy to you, but even your regiment is unsustainable for many people. I could say mine is easy, but then I understand how not everyone has my life-situation.

I was simply curious what makes it hard for you. Not in a judgemental way.

As for my routine, its incredibly low effort as far as prep is concerned. If people couldn't do what i do its not because of lack of time. Its other factors.

I would guess it's mostly hard because of the constant temptation of bad food everywhere then?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
women be talkin'!
vagina lips flappin'!
(10-18-2017, 07:43 PM)
Liu Kang Baking A Pie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zefah

Oh, man. Liu Kang said it?! And by quoting an article from a site called NutritionFacts.org? FACTS! I mean, it's right in the URL. It must be correct! Not only that, but the article was written by a guy who is proud of having been on the Dr. Oz Show?! There can be no greater authority!

Vegan hero Dr. Greger's writing is of course completely objective and free of any kind of bias, agenda, or industry influence. Contradicting studies must have been corrupted by Big Meat, Big Egg, and Big Dairy. It's the only answer.

Greger donates everything he makes off his book and nutritionfacts.org, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to your jumps to conclusions and accusations of bias.

Watch the videos, all he does is blandly go over studies. I'd love to see you actually refute things point by point instead of... whatever this childish post is.
Laiza
Member
(10-18-2017, 07:54 PM)
Laiza's Avatar

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

Robert Lustigs "hypothesis" about fructose has been debunked again, and again and again. Read: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

Thanks for this. So it really is as simple as caloric management, something we've understood pretty well for decades now? It makes sense. It's also very sad. I wonder if education will actually help with this, or if we'll need to resort to helping people with probiotics and fecal implants to fix their gut biomes.
PerkeyMan
Member
(10-18-2017, 07:59 PM)
PerkeyMan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Griss

The article refers to 'lifestyle changes', which to me is not the same as a concise education on nutritional realities. I was taught all about 'a healthy lifestyle' at school while I was putting on a bunch of weight, and it didn't help me whatsoever.

Once I learned what a calorie actually was, that I needed to know how much I was eating a day, once I understood how many I had been consuming under my old standard diet, and finally that a 3,500 calorie deficit meant a pound of weight loss, I was off and running. And then once I understood macros, I felt like I gained real, final control over my diet, health and weight. The shame was that I didn't learn any of this until my late 20s, because I was so inundated with false nutritional info and fad diets.

Now maybe the Norweigans are giving people that education but it's also possible they got the basic 'walk more, exercise, eat fruits and veg' generic advise that appears to help no one. I still think nutritional education is a huge key to this whole thing. It's what saved me, and my experience can't be that unique.

The very first sentence of the article:

"Treating seriously obese children in Norway often involves months or years of work with obesity specialists at a Norwegian hospital."

Now, it doesn't specify exactly how this treatment is carried out and how deep into actual nutrition they go but no, it's not just "eat less and excercise more" which doesn't help anyone.

And besides, they are focusing on children. Are you gonna teach them about calories and macronutrients?
Ernest
Banned
(10-18-2017, 08:11 PM)
Another contributing factor that keeps obese people discouraged is how it's actually much harder for them to keep weight off than it is for non-obese people.

For example, take two 150 pound people; one has always been that weight, one used to be, say, 300 pounds. The previously obese person will have to work exponentially harder and consume far less calories to maintain that weight than the person who has always been 150. Not just "a lot" more work, but a seemingly unfair amount of work - enough for it to NOT be worth sustaining. Which is why over 90% of diets fail. It's not like people don't know how to lose weight, it's that their bodies (not to mention society) is working against them almost every step of the way.
ShyMel
Member
(10-18-2017, 08:21 PM)
ShyMel's Avatar
Teaching young children about calories and macronutrients in depth is definitely not the best solution. It could cause them to hyper focus and end up on the opposite side of the scale. As that article about the Norwegian stated, once children hit around 12 years old the lifestyle treatment approach is not as successful. Which as someone who used to weigh about 200 pounds (which put me in the obese category for my sex and height), I completely understand.

It is extremely difficult to change how you have eaten for a good portion of your life. When you grow up in a family where the vast majority of them are obese as well, that is your normal.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
(10-18-2017, 08:30 PM)
SapientWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ripenen

The obesity epidemic is an epidemic, which means it's a problem on a macro scale. Your own personal experiences and routines, while interesting, are irrelevant. It's not just you but everyone.

It's like saying well i'm not addicted to opiates so why can't everyone just not do opiates?

By doing that we put the onus entirely on the individual and in so doing fail to acknowledge and fix the massive social, commercial, governmental failures that make the problem an epidemic.

What other option is there? Ultimately, you can't remove people's choice without making junk food illegal. The government isn't going to schedule doughnuts.

You can educate and provide healthy food options, and make those options more cost effective than the junk. But in the end, people will eat what they want to eat.
PerkeyMan
Member
(10-18-2017, 08:34 PM)
PerkeyMan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ernest

Another contributing factor that keeps obese people discouraged is how it's actually much harder for them to keep weight off than it is for non-obese people.

For example, take two 150 pound people; one has always been that weight, one used to be, say, 300 pounds. The previously obese person will have to work exponentially harder and consume far less calories to maintain that weight than the person who has always been 150. Not just "a lot" more work, but a seemingly unfair amount of work - enough for it to be worth sustaining. Which is why over 90% of diets fail. It's not like people don't know how to lose weight, it's that their bodies (not to mention society) is working against them almost every step of the way.

This is a really good point which I'm upset I didn't bring to the discussion sooner. The Biggest Loser Study demonstrates this really well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388

Therefore, long term weight loss requires vigilant combat against persistent metabolic adaptation that acts to proportionally counter ongoing efforts to reduce body weight.

And you should all google Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study where a number of adult men live at 1500 kcal per day over several months. The result showed that their energy consumption at rest decreased by up to 40 percent. This is the energy the body uses just to function normally.

Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16449298/


Originally Posted by Laiza

Thanks for this. So it really is as simple as caloric management, something we've understood pretty well for decades now? It makes sense. It's also very sad. I wonder if education will actually help with this, or if we'll need to resort to helping people with probiotics and fecal implants to fix their gut biomes.

Yes, it is that simple. But calculating your calorie management is NOT. I'll quote myself:

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

Speaking about energy in vs energy out: Yes, it is that simple. What's NOT simple is all the different factors you have to take into account when calculating how much energy you have to "get rid of" to lose weight.

So when people assume it's Energy in = Energi out ± stored energy (stored as in fat, glycogen or protein) they leave out the following:

- the body don't store 100% of the energy you consume
- the energy your body uses just to function: BMR.
- the energy you use to break down food which is called Thermic effect of food (TEF).
- the energy the body use during spontaneus physical activity called NEAT
- the energy you use during for example a workut called TEA

So the formula now goes like this:

Energy in food - energy you don't store = TEF + BMR + NEAT + TEA ± stored energy.

For example NEAT is very interesting and poeple don't tend to believe these things when explained to them, but movements you don't "control" or know your doing can have a huge effect on yout total energy usage.

R10Neymarfan
Member
(10-18-2017, 08:38 PM)
R10Neymarfan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Liu Kang Baking A Pie

Greger donates everything he makes off his book and nutritionfacts.org, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯ to your jumps to conclusions and accusations of bias.

Watch the videos, all he does is blandly go over studies. I'd love to see you actually refute things point by point instead of... whatever this childish post is.

I would post or recommend Mic the Vegan as summary on good health but because of his name he would get written off on here. And Mic posts the actual studies to so you can check it out and decide for yourself
Bog
Junior Ace
(10-18-2017, 08:47 PM)
Bog's Avatar

Originally Posted by LumpOfCole

I truly think in 30 years, we’ll be looking back on soda use today the way we look back on cigarette use in the 60s and 70s.

Just yesterday I was saying that, but about diet soda specifically and all the garbage in that.
Gunslinger
Member
(10-18-2017, 08:53 PM)
Gunslinger's Avatar
I used to be 230 few years back. One day just woke up and said fuck it I gotta do something about it. Went to gym started working out. I am now 175 and have a good physique. You just gotta take the step and stick with it. Result will come. I am a living proof of that.
Ripenen
Member
(10-18-2017, 09:12 PM)

Originally Posted by SapientWolf

What other option is there? Ultimately, you can't remove people's choice without making junk food illegal. The government isn't going to schedule doughnuts.

You can educate and provide healthy food options, and make those options more cost effective than the junk. But in the end, people will eat what they want to eat.

You just said it: provide better education and food options to people who need it most.

When you say "people will eat what they want to eat" that assumes that people are logically weighing their options when it comes to food and those who eat poorly just don't care about the health consequences. Not only do many people not even have options when it comes to food, but even if they did they wouldn't be knowledgeable enough to make the right decisions when it comes to their health.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
women be talkin'!
vagina lips flappin'!
(10-18-2017, 09:29 PM)
Liu Kang Baking A Pie's Avatar
Another reminder of the various food industries and corporations manipulating you your whole life with fake news to the point we're all confused and just buy whatever and hate ourselves. #capitalism

When Soda Makers Fund Studies, Links to Obesity Weaken
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...cUN?li=BBnb7Kz

Sugar And Your Health: How The Sugar Industry Influenced Scientific Research
http://www.ibtimes.com/sugar-your-he...51190?ft=95p2z
(big takeaway: 61 different names for sugar found in 74% of our grocery store items)
Zefah
Member
(10-18-2017, 11:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Liu Kang Baking A Pie

Greger donates everything he makes off his book and nutritionfacts.org, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to your jumps to conclusions and accusations of bias.

Watch the videos, all he does is blandly go over studies. I'd love to see you actually refute things point by point instead of... whatever this childish post is.

I'm sure he is a good guy and everything, but what does his generosity have to do with anything I said? He is very passionate about the Vegan cause and does what he can to help drive it forward.

I made that sarcastic post because I found it funny that the poster I was responding to had more or less claimed that all studies that come to conclusions not in agreement with Veganism must be compromised by industry interests, and simultaneously propped up an obviously biased source who is very selective in the studies and research he chooses to use as supporting evidence in his articles.

And no, I'm not going to go through his entire website and body of work to find things to refute that you and no one else will likely read or care about, just like I'm sure you didn't give a damn about the links I posted refuting the idea that intake of saturated fat or even fat in general leads to developing diabetes, which is one of the claims that Greger has made on multiple occasions.

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

No. Read the above: The problem is demonising all carbs with a disproved hypothesis making people afraid of healthy food.

To which hypothesis are you referring?

Originally Posted by Laiza

Thanks for this. So it really is as simple as caloric management, something we've understood pretty well for decades now? It makes sense. It's also very sad. I wonder if education will actually help with this, or if we'll need to resort to helping people with probiotics and fecal implants to fix their gut biomes.

I'm not going to say Lustig has it all figured out or is even half right, but definitely don't take Alan Aragon's claims as gospel, either. He is definitely one of the biggest and most vocal champions of the calories in/calories out hypothesis and takes every opportunity to trumpet it. Definitely another problem with nutrition discussion on the Internet. You've got zealots in every corner who have found their thing and spend all of their time coming up with convincing arguments and writing detailed articles to support their preference, meanwhile bending over backwards to ignore anything that is inconvenient.
R10Neymarfan
Member
(10-18-2017, 11:49 PM)
R10Neymarfan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Liu Kang Baking A Pie

This is why I say "everything in moderation" and "balanced diet" are bullshit copouts. They mean nothing and just make others wonder why one's saying something so vague after also being so precise about the impact of specific nutrients and macros.

One related thing to this is that I don't think most people realize the US food pyramid we're used to and think represents the "balanced diet" only has meat and dairy on it because those industries lobbied hard for it, not because those foods have been proven to be necessities in our diet. The latest update now just says "Protein" where meat used to be, which is a huge victory relative to the non-progress we've had before. I wish people cared about this as much as they care about NRA influence or other better known corporate lobbyists.

http://time.com/4130043/lobbying-pol...ry-guidelines/



Even things like telling the public to "eat less meat" becomes "reduce saturated fat intake" because you can't literally tell anyone to eat less meat when the beef industry is around. Oprah found this out in 1996. Everything is fucking politics, and this whole thread's continued confusion on diet is the result. "Doubt is our product."

Speaking of which Belgium has a new food pyramid that should probably be used in some form over here (too bad lobbying won't make this true)

lenovox1
Member
(10-19-2017, 03:06 AM)
lenovox1's Avatar

Originally Posted by R10Neymarfan

Speaking of which Belgium has a new food pyramid that should probably be used in some form over here (too bad lobbying won't make this true)

One of the points of the plate was to move away from recommending specific foods and messages and move toward more generalized recommendations. I'm assuming the attempt was remove the look of any influence by an outside industry.

I like the way Belgium's pyramid is designed, but the USDA plate communicates the same message.

What makes that pyramid stronger than the MyPlate circle graph for you?

https://www.choosemyplate.gov
Madness
Member
(10-19-2017, 03:19 AM)
Madness's Avatar

Originally Posted by Liu Kang Baking A Pie

Another reminder of the various food industries and corporations manipulating you your whole life with fake news to the point we're all confused and just buy whatever and hate ourselves. #capitalism

When Soda Makers Fund Studies, Links to Obesity Weaken
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...cUN?li=BBnb7Kz

Sugar And Your Health: How The Sugar Industry Influenced Scientific Research
http://www.ibtimes.com/sugar-your-he...51190?ft=95p2z
(big takeaway: 61 different names for sugar found in 74% of our grocery store items)

Look we get it, the American food industry and lobbyists are horrendous, but you are completely laying the blame at their feet. Why are other nations also seeing rising ratea of obesity? Are they also lobbied by US industries, even in communist nations? Or is increasingly sedentary lifestyles, pseudoscience quackery like Health at Every Size, the shift from blue collar work industry to white collar, the decline in the ability of Americans to actually cook food also part of it? People have forgotten simple cooking techniques. Italians make their own pastas and sauces, Americans will buy pre-made pastas and a bottle of ragu and call it a day. Or they'll go to an Olive Garden and eat an entire days worth of calories in one sitting. Yes we all saw What The Health, Super Size Me, and know all about the meat, dairy and food industry lobbying, but it doesn't explain why even China is seeing year over year rises in obesity. We have equated human development and industry with convenience and laziness. It is a sign of wealth to take an elevator up 12 floors than take stairs. It is a requirement to drive to work than ride a bike. We are protecting our kids by giving them a Nintendo Switch and keeping them indoors rather than getting lost outside running and playing etc.
Lemon Crest
Member
(10-19-2017, 08:24 AM)
Lemon Crest's Avatar
Just want to plug Fast Food Nation in here.

It talks about how and why fast food is so prevalent in America and what the effects of that are in American and global culture.
Unbounded
Member
(10-19-2017, 08:30 AM)
Unbounded's Avatar

Originally Posted by Greenpaint

There is a reason why we have such a strong instinct for breeding. Because everyone who doesn't is dead and so is their ideology. You can "stop breeding yourself", but others will continue "to breed themselves". And it's those others whose ideology will live on and yours will vanish into nothingness.

Only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to kill everyone else, before killing yourself, which would make you a hypocrite.

Didn't know that ideology was in the genes.

Learn something new everyday I guess.
snail_maze
Member
(10-19-2017, 08:54 AM)
snail_maze's Avatar
I lived in Vienna for several years and you could usually recognize the american tourist groups simply due to their body shapes
PerkeyMan
Member
(10-19-2017, 09:04 AM)
PerkeyMan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zefah

To which hypothesis are you referring?

That you get a metabolic advantage eating a low carb-diet.

Or basically: Eat carbs -> Get insulin spike -> gain weight
Zepp Twofist
Member
(10-19-2017, 09:16 AM)
Zepp Twofist's Avatar

Originally Posted by PerkeyMan

This is a really good point which I'm upset I didn't bring to the discussion sooner. The Biggest Loser Study demonstrates this really well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388

The Biggest Loser Study is a terrible study. Just sample size alone is awful, not to mention who the participants were. I don't think anybody are arguing the merits of putting people through a reality show for sustained weight loss success, so I'd argue this study says nothing about the real world.

Thread Tools