Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

Pretty terrible comparison.

Hating on fatties is much less about wanting to improve the lifestyle and fitness of fatties... than it is about the fact that people are wretched creatures that thrive on fear and hate.

Like really... those powerful emotions are completely understandable and extremely useful in the context of a every man and dog for himself natural world in which our predecessors evolved.

But counterproductive for a relatively peaceful egalitarian society that we find ourselves to currently be in.

Of course now that we've riled against pretty much every form of silly discrimination, haters are ever looking for 'legitimate' reasons to engage in some of that delicious cortical stimulation that they get from hate.

Protip to haters: Hate on hating. It's pretty legit AND useful.

Begging the Question. You narrowed "anti-obesity" to "hating on fatties" which is obviously never going to be in line with "wanting to improve the lifestyle and fitness".

I'm "anti-obesity". I've seen the consequences. I don't "hate on" people that are obese, but I am certainly concerned for their well-being.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Pretty terrible comparison.

Begging the Question. You narrowed "anti-obesity" to "hating on fatties" which is obviously never going to be in line with "wanting to improve the lifestyle and fitness".

I'm "anti-obesity". I've seen the consequences. I don't "hate on" people that are obese, but I am certainly concerned for their well-being.

I'm really curious, is anyone in this thread really 'pro-obesity'? I really doubt it, I mean, I'm sure their are crazy people who are but I doubt they're here.

I think most people just want to be left to their unhealthy choices alone, even if they know they're killing themselves. It's much like smoking in that regard.

 

[zoukka]

It's much like smoking in that regard.

Or ignorance, laziness, fear, racism, fanatism and all other forms of destructive behaviour. Some just aren't visible at first glance.

 

[Socreges]

I'm really curious, is anyone in this thread really 'pro-obesity'? I really doubt it, I mean, I'm sure their are crazy people who are but I doubt they're here.

If you're not anti-obesity, that doesn't have to mean you're therefore pro-obesity. You can just not give a shit and sincerely have no opinion on how people 'should' be. I think being "anti-obesity" means that you've got a conception in your mind that people shouldn't be obese. And I don't think everyone (or even most people) takes that position.

I think most people just want to be left to their unhealthy choices alone, even if they know they're killing themselves. It's much like smoking in that regard.

I'd like to think that those people will be offered help (or some concern) from immediate family members, though.

 

[Yoshiya]

I think being "anti-obesity" means that you've got a conception in your mind that people shouldn't be obese. And I don't think everyone (or even most people) takes that position.

That's absurd. I think people shouldn't be obese. There is no obese person who wouldn't be beter off if they were not obese.

I'd be surprised if that was unusual sentiment.

 

[zoukka]

That's absurd. I think people shouldn't be obese. There is no obese person who wouldn't be beter off if they were not obese.

I'd be surprised if that was unusual sentiment.

I think people shouldn't smoke, but I don't mind it either unless it's on my face.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Telling fat people they ought to be thin is about as helpful as telling gay people they should be straight

For some reason it seems like people in this thread are reading this quote as "Telling fat people they ought to be thin is like telling gay people they should be straight"

Those are two completely different sentences. Telling fat people they should be thin isn't like telling gay people they should be straight. That sentence assumes that being fat is the same as being gay.


The sentence in the article reads "is about as helpful as", meaning that telling them to be something they aren't isn't going to change anything.

 

[Socreges]

That's absurd. I think people shouldn't be obese. There is no obese person who wouldn't be beter off if they were not obese.

I'd be surprised if that was unusual sentiment.

What's absurd? I put in "or even most people" as a qualifier because I don't have any actual figures, not because I actually believe that's the case. Anyway, it's not important. Just saying that some people truly don't think "should" enters into it.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

As for the efficiency of low-carb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets

Again, this only points to keto being one very effective weight loss technique.

Stop trying to push it as the end-all-be-all of losing weight, while discrediting other equally effective techniques used by many people. You came in here claiming that exercise is essentially a waste of time and ineffective when trying to lose weight, and that people shouldn't bother and instead should focus entirely on diet. This is insane.

Read these:

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n10/abs/0803015a.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414141449.htm

Now look at some of your earlier claims:

Exercise can have a role in preventing insulin resistance but is practically worthless for losing weight.

Exercise is only needed when you're eating carbs, like an athlete does.

Have I ever said that exercise and calorie restriction doesn't work? No, only that it is clear that it is less effective. It's bad advice.

And you wonder why people are telling you you're wrong/crazy?

As for exercise, it does play a role in preventing obesity. It's not the main culprit:

As I said before, I agree that diet is more important than exercise for losing weight, so we mostly agree here. Here are a few things to consider:

1. That graph only goes back 25 years. We've had an issue with overweight/obese people longer than that, and the factors that could influence or lead to obesity can certainly start early in people's lives even if they don't manifest fully until many years and years later. They compound over time.

2. I'm not even sure how leisure time vs physical activity is even a good metric. It doesn't show how the absolute amount of time people exercise changes, only in relation to leisure time. I imagine that the amount of leisure time people have has changed quite a bit since 1988.

3. The graph doesn't take into account the fact that people have more sedentary lifestyles in general now than they did 50 years ago (it doesn't even go back that far either, as I mentioned). People might not head to the gym or go outside for a run any more or less, but now they sit in their office chairs or on the couch or sleep in bed practically all day, take their cars everywhere instead of walking, etc. That loss of caloric expense has to be made up for somehow in the form of more reserved time for exercise.

 

[jaxword]

But it indeed has changed a lot in a very small timeframe. It's not the biggest, ugliest, meanest mofos that are kings anymore. Of course we still see the primitive traits present in many occasions, but we have advanced nonetheless.

Actually, the meanest mofos are the king. They just don't have to kill people directly, they do so via cutthroat business and driving others to poverty.

Note that I'm not demeaning this, it's just capitalism.

 

[zoukka]

Actually, the meanest mofos are the king. They just don't have to kill people directly, they do so via cutthroat business and driving others to poverty.

Note that I'm not demeaning this, it's just capitalism.

You need brains for that. And social skills.

 

[MjFrancis]

His site does look to me like he's trying to sell me homeopathy, a chicken roaster, gold, or a Bowflex. That's because people who sell nonsense are often not all that great at it... and it's just an opinion. I don't care if you think that his website is great or whatever. I don't have the time or interest to read his book mostly because of that quote you posted: it's wrong. Ketosis works. I don't know what there is to say.

[...]

Hope that didn't sound spiteful towards you or this Brad dude.

Not spiteful, just ignorant. What he sold was the idea of intermittent fasting, and it's been reinforced numerous times by a variety of nutritional experts such as John Berardi, Lyle McDonald, Martin Berkhan and others. Ignoring his work because you don't like his website is asinine.

But then again, you don't just ignore his work. You say it's wrong. With no explanation.

And then you assert that ketosis works. Which I didn't refute. And Brad Pilon wouldn't deny people lose weight following that diet either. So does it all come down to you not liking to cut of his jib or something?

You're on thin ground from which you're clearly not willing to debate from.

 

[jaxword]

You need brains for that. And social skills.

Sociopathy, more like.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

I am really split on this issue...

On the one hand i can understand trying to show fat people that they are harming themselves and that they really NEED to change their lifestyles for the sake of their health.

On the other hand though i know TONS of really fat people, some of them are pretty damn old as well and oftentimes at LEAST as "healthy" as their thinner counterparts so in the end i believe that a lot of it (not all obviously) is propaganda too by media/companies etc that have a specific agenda...

on a sidenote, both my grandma and my gf's grandma were fat and both lived to the age of well beyond 85 with no noticable conditions associated to their weights

 

[Zaptruder]

Pretty terrible comparison.

Begging the Question. You narrowed "anti-obesity" to "hating on fatties" which is obviously never going to be in line with "wanting to improve the lifestyle and fitness".

I'm "anti-obesity". I've seen the consequences. I don't "hate on" people that are obese, but I am certainly concerned for their well-being.

The difference between concern and disgust is that with concern, you are overcome by empathy to want to help them out of their plight.

Disgust is where you look at a person and assume they're doing something wrong and proceed to start telling them what you think they should be doing.

I don't know which one you are - but there's very little confusion between the two internally - as long as you're been honest with yourself.

 

[twofold]

If you diet without exercising, you'll end up being skinny fat, which really sucks.

I used to weigh about 330lbs and dieted down to 180 using a slow carb diet (popularised by Tim Ferriss). I was thin, but I looked awful. Since putting on some weight and starting lifting, I look way better than I used to.

Hitting the gym 3 times a week to lift some heavy weights should be a staple of any weight loss plan. It makes such a huge difference.

 

[elongation]

For some reason it seems like people in this thread are reading this quote as "Telling fat people they ought to be thin is like telling gay people they should be straight"

Those are two completely different sentences. Telling fat people they should be thin isn't like telling gay people they should be straight. That sentence assumes that being fat is the same as being gay.


The sentence in the article reads "is about as helpful as", meaning that telling them to be something they aren't isn't going to change anything.

Very much this.

Obesity is a health concern and we should have assistence programs to help overweight people get healthy, or at least encourage them to try. But of course, many people who are obese do try already, but this sort of thing can be a difficult and long road. The last thing we should do is be dicks to obese people as this will not solve the problem, it will only exacerbate it.

 

[Nocebo]

For some reason it seems like people in this thread are reading this quote as "Telling fat people they ought to be thin is like telling gay people they should be straight"

Those are two completely different sentences. Telling fat people they should be thin isn't like telling gay people they should be straight. That sentence assumes that being fat is the same as being gay.


The sentence in the article reads "is about as helpful as", meaning that telling them to be something they aren't isn't going to change anything.

So the article is implying that homosexuality is a condition that should be helped or that it's somehow a negative status? That's even worse.

 

[Ra\/en]

I am really split on this issue...

On the one hand i can understand trying to show fat people that they are harming themselves and that they really NEED to change their lifestyles for the sake of their health.

On the other hand though i know TONS of really fat people, some of them are pretty damn old as well and oftentimes at LEAST as "healthy" as their thinner counterparts so in the end i believe that a lot of it (not all obviously) is propaganda too by media/companies etc that have a specific agenda...

on a sidenote, both my grandma and my gf's grandma were fat and both lived to the age of well beyond 85 with no noticable conditions associated to their weights

No no no. On the population level, obesity is a major risk factor for a many different medical complications and diseases.

At the individual level these statistics don't always apply. There are people who defy the norm. But please don't base your decisions on individual examples. That's like saying "my grandfather smoked a pack a day and died in a car crash when he was 89". Those people do exist. Just like obese people who live until the age of 85.

 

[kaioshade]

As someone who was pretty damned obese in college, i know how the hate can be. People instantly think you are some lazy slob without even knowing your story. Granted i WAS a lazy slob.

However the reverse is also true. When people see you making an effort to get healthier, i have seen no shortage of support. Even in the gym, where i thought i would be relentlessly mocked. I have lost weight (still have a lot to go), but people can swing on both sides, cruel or supportive.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

So the article is implying that homosexuality is a condition that should be helped or that it's somehow a negative status? That's even worse.

No... It should not be this hard to understand.


How about this:

Telling fat people they should be thin is as helpful as telling a dog to be a cat.

It's established that dogs cannot be cats. It doesn't say they SHOULD be cats, it is just comparing how equally useless the statement "you should be *B*" is in both cases.

 

[andycapps]

No... It should not be this hard to understand.


How about this:

Telling fat people they should be thin is as helpful as telling a dog to be a cat.

It's established that dogs cannot be cats. It doesn't say they SHOULD be cats, it is just comparing how equally useless the statement "you should be *B*" is in both cases.

It's still an ignorant statement. A dog can't ever be a cat. A fat person can become thin.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

No no no. On the population level, obesity is a major risk factor for a many different medical complications and diseases.

At the individual level these statistics don't always apply. There are people who defy the norm. But please don't base your decisions on individual examples. That's like saying "my grandfather smoked a pack a day and died in a car crash when he was 89". Those people do exist. Just like obese people who live until the age of 85.

yeah i know, the thing is when pretty much ALL the people you know in your surroundings that are fat are also as healthy as anyone else then statistically it's starting to get me to question the general opinion...

Maybe it's also a matter of how ACTIVE these people are, since most people i know that are fat but healthy tend to work a lot / do a lot of exercise regardless so i'd wager a big factor of fat people is not being fat but being inactive/just sitting around all day long and as a result they are fat. Chronically inactive people will contract numerous health issues though no matter whether they're fat or skinny. It's really a question of which angle you chose to observe this matter from as are most statistics.

 

[DyTonic]

I feel bad for fat people, I don't hate em.. I see them in public, I'm like damn..

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

It's still an ignorant statement. A dog can't ever be a cat. A fat person can become thin.

I just said that. You are still reading it as LIKE telling a gay person to be straight. It's "as helpful as".


Meaning that TELLING THEM that they should be something they aren't is not going to do anything to change them. It's not saying gay people can be, or should be straight. It's saying that just telling them to be *b* does nothing.

 

[andycapps]

I just said that. You are still reading it as LIKE telling a gay person to be straight. It's "as helpful as".


Meaning that TELLING THEM that they should be something they aren't is not going to do anything to change them. It's not saying gay people can be, or should be straight. It's saying that just telling them to be *b* does nothing.

Well no shit. They have to actually do something to make it happen. I could tell you that you should dye your hair, but you have to do it to make it happen. So yes, saying a fat person needs to change their diet and exercise to be in a normal weight range is not going to help them do it, they have to actually do something. They still have control over whether they can do it or not. Telling someone that's gay that they should be straight is completely different.

One can be changed by effort of the individual, the other can't.

 

[.la1n]

Yeah putting aside the obesity advocates versus anti-obesity thing, comparing it to homophobia or asking a homosexual to be straight is completely absurd and ignorant.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Well no shit. They have to actually do something to make it happen. I could tell you that you should dye your hair, but you have to do it to make it happen. So yes, saying a fat person needs to change their diet and exercise to be in a normal weight range is not going to help them do it, they have to actually do something. They still have control over whether they can do it or not. Telling someone that's gay that they should be straight is completely different.

One can be changed by effort of the individual, the other can't.

Congrats. You just repeated what I've been saying this entire time, and you're now reading the sentence properly. The second bolded part would only apply if the sentence had said "like", but it didn't. It said "as helpful as".

 

[beastmode]

Not spiteful, just ignorant. What he sold was the idea of intermittent fasting, and it's been reinforced numerous times by a variety of nutritional experts such as John Berardi, Lyle McDonald, Martin Berkhan and others. Ignoring his work because you don't like his website is asinine.

But then again, you don't just ignore his work. You say it's wrong. With no explanation.

And then you assert that ketosis works. Which I didn't refute. And Brad Pilon wouldn't deny people lose weight following that diet either. So does it all come down to you not liking to cut of his jib or something?

You're on thin ground from which you're clearly not willing to debate from.

No, I did not say his work was wrong. I said the quote you posted was wrong. I assume the book is longer than one paragraph. That one paragraph says that the only thing that can be said for certain is calories in, calories out. Which is false. You were trying to say that ketogenic diets and insulin are beside the point and that it's all calories in, calories out. Which it isn't.

That's also not the website I linked to, this is: http://www.eatstopeat.com/

Again, this only points to keto being one very effective weight loss technique.

Stop trying to push it as the end-all-be-all of losing weight, while discrediting other equally effective techniques used by many people. You came in here claiming that exercise is essentially a waste of time and ineffective when trying to lose weight, and that people shouldn't bother and instead should focus entirely on diet. This is insane.

Read these:

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n10/abs/0803015a.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414141449.htm







And you wonder why people are telling you you're wrong/crazy?

People do not (primarily) gain weight because of energy imbalance. I've pointed out that insulin is (the primary) regulator of fat storage. Insulin is (primarily) what makes you fat. It's also linked to heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's. The biggest factor in the obesity epidemic seems obvious: sugar/HFCS.

I have no doubt that the diet and exercise method works. I have not disputed this, nor tried to "discredit" it. I have said that treating the cause of the illness (insulin) seems preferable both in terms of effectiveness (backed by multiple studies) and easiness/idiot proofing (also backed by studies.) If you're going the ketosis route, exercise would seem to have a largely diminished return. Exercise and calorie counting isn't necessary. Please point out to me what's so "insane" or "wrong/crazy" about this.

The evidence is vastly in favor of a low-carbohydrate diet over a high-carbohydrate diet. Since you don't actually need to either consciously cut calories or exercise, I feel that this treatment should be stressed. It's easy, more effective, and would go a long way to removing the hateful atmosphere that suggests that all fat people can't control themselves and are lazy, gluttonous, beasts who should be ashamed of themselves.

A more recent meta-study of randomized controlled studies (from January 2000 to March 2007) that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found that measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets. They conclude that "Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year." They also call for more long-term studies.

A 2012 systematic review studying the effects of low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in body weight, body mass index, abdominal circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, blood insulin and plasma C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and creatinine did not change significantly. The study found the LCD was shown to have favorable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors.

 

[ScOULaris]

You know what, I love fast food and I ain't gonna change.

DAT apple is the only thing I'd eat in that picture.

 

[andycapps]

Congrats. You just repeated what I've been saying this entire time, and you're now reading the sentence properly. The second bolded part would only apply if the sentence had said "like", but it didn't. It said "as helpful as".

What is your point? That by telling someone that's fat that they should lose weight that we aren't helping them since they have to actually do something? You're not saying anything that isn't obvious to anyone else. It's obvious that every person has free will whether to do something that is suggested to them. We're not talking about Inception where we can plant an idea in a fat person's mind and then they're going to unknowingly follow our suggestion.

I don't see why it matters that telling someone they should lose weight is not going to help them do it. It's better to tell them that than to suggest to them that being overweight has no adverse health effects (as some seem to be suggesting). You're arguing a point that seems self explanatory. Being overweight is unhealthy, but telling someone to lose weight doesn't help the pounds magically melt off. They have the choice whether to do it or not.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

What is your point? That by telling someone that's fat that they should lose weight that we aren't helping them since they have to actually do something? You're not saying anything that isn't obvious to anyone else. It's obvious that every person has free will whether to do something that is suggested to them. We're not talking about Inception where we can plant an idea in a fat person's mind and then they're going to unknowingly follow our suggestion.

I don't see why it matters that telling someone they should lose weight is not going to help them do it. It's better to tell them that than to suggest to them that being overweight has no adverse health effects (as some seem to be suggesting). You're arguing a point that seems self explanatory. Being overweight is unhealthy, but telling someone to lose weight doesn't help the pounds magically melt off. They have the choice whether to do it or not.

I wasn't arguing any point for that, other than the fact that people were not reading the quote properly. They were taking it as a shot at homosexuality, or saying that the quote implies that there is something wrong with it, like you did earlier. I was simply clarifying what the sentence said exactly. Which you have caught onto. Other people have not.

 

[beastmode]

What is your point? That by telling someone that's fat that they should lose weight that we aren't helping them since they have to actually do something? You're not saying anything that isn't obvious to anyone else. It's obvious that every person has free will whether to do something that is suggested to them. We're not talking about Inception where we can plant an idea in a fat person's mind and then they're going to unknowingly follow our suggestion.

I don't see why it matters that telling someone they should lose weight is not going to help them do it. It's better to tell them that than to suggest to them that being overweight has no adverse health effects (as some seem to be suggesting). You're arguing a point that seems self explanatory. Being overweight is unhealthy, but telling someone to lose weight doesn't help the pounds magically melt off. They have the choice whether to do it or not.

There's not a single person in this thread that believes that. Everyone agrees that the articles is ridiculous, some are just trying to point out that conditions that brought someone to write it are serious and should be addressed.

Looked over that site again, not apologizing for calling it suspicious on my first impression. Examples of wahjah:

 

[AgentP]

So eating poorly and not exercising is like a innate sexual preference?

What BS. Being obese is a health issue and is easily fixable. Being gay is not a choice.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

So eating poorly and not exercising is like a innate sexual preference?

What BS. Being obese is a health issue and is easily fixable. Being gay is not a choice.

Nobody said being gay is a choice.

 

[prwxv3]

 

[Petrie]

Nobody said being gay is a choice.

but for 99.9% of cases, being obese is a choice.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

but for 99.9% of cases, being obese is a choice.

What's your point?

 

[beastmode]

but for 99.9% of cases, being obese is a choice.

An irrational choice that has a fairly easy solution. I don't see why we should be treating obesity similarly to (but on a way smaller scale) the war on drugs. Education and treatment work, ridicule does nothing. Nobody should be defamed.

 

[Cheech]

If you're going the ketosis route, exercise would seem to have a largely diminished return. Exercise and calorie counting isn't necessary. Please point out to me what's so "insane" or "wrong/crazy" about this.

It's the wrong train of thought because ketosis is not sustainable throughout the rest of your life. Eating less, eating well, and exercise ARE sustainable.

Exercise is important for many reasons: mental health, metabolism, joint/muscle health, faster progress at losing weight (important for the impatient!), allows you a higher tolerance for "cheat" meals/food, etc. etc..

Some people might do just fine using ketosis for the rest of their lives. I'm not. If I don't eat carbs I get sluggish and feel like shit, and my workouts suffer. The key is eating the RIGHT carbs, and keeping the lid on simple stuff like white bread and potatoes.

There's no such thing as "thin privilege". Jesus. She seems bitter about being fat. She SHOULD be feeling bitter about being stupid instead.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Like expecting two seats for one ticket.

 

[diffusionx]

An irrational choice that has a fairly easy solution. I don't see why we should be treating obesity similarly to (but on a way smaller scale) the war on drugs. Education and treatment work, ridicule does nothing. Nobody should be defamed.

The whole point of that article is that it does NOT have a "fairly easy" solution. The solution is actually ridiculously tough. I mean, it's not hard to hit the gym and lose the pounds. What's next?

People who lose significant amounts of weight have around a 95% probability of putting it back on within 5 years. Within 10 years it's probably more like 99%. And the simple truth is... the yo-yo is worse for your body than just staying fat.

This isn't just the empirical evidence, the science of it says the same thing. A person who loses lots of weight needs to eat significantly less to stay thin than a thin person.

Nobody knows how to lose weight and keep it off. I don't mean that literally - obviously a few people do it (1 out of 20 or so) do it. What I mean is, nobody knows of a system, or plan, or policy, that can make sure obese people can lose the weight and keep it off. Because that's the challenge.

Not that I agree with this article, but it's not an easy fix.

 

[marrec]

There's no such thing as "thin privilege". Jesus. She seems bitter about being fat. She SHOULD be feeling bitter about being stupid instead.

Get your fucking smart privilege out of here, you didn't earn that shit.

 

[andycapps]

The whole point of that article is that it does NOT have a "fairly easy" solution. The solution is actually ridiculously tough. I mean, it's not hard to hit the gym and lose the pounds. What's next?

People who lose significant amounts of weight have around a 95% probability of putting it back on within 5 years. Within 10 years it's probably more like 99%. And the simple truth is... the yo-yo is worse for your body than just staying fat.

This isn't just the empirical evidence, the science of it says the same thing. A person who loses lots of weight needs to eat significantly less to stay thin than a thin person.

Nobody knows how to lose weight and keep it off. I don't mean that literally - obviously a few people do it (1 out of 20 or so) do it. What I mean is, nobody knows of a system, or plan, or policy, that can make sure obese people can lose the weight and keep it off. Because that's the challenge.

Not that I agree with this article, but it's not an easy fix.

The solution to how to remain fit after you lose weight, is to keep doing what it took to get you there, but to increase your diet to macro levels that maintain weight instead of being on a cut.

I think the big temptation is that once you lose weight, you think that because you're skinny that you've earned eating whatever you want for a period of time and that you'll just stay skinny. Which is why I'm a big proponent of diets that encourage you to have a cheat day once a week such as LeanGains. If my diet already allows me to eat what I want on certain days, then that's a lot easier for me to deal with than a strict diet that I can't ever screw up on without feeling horrible about myself. On this, I'm encouraged to do so. Martin Berkhan is known to eat an entire cheesecake somewhat often, and definitely indulges his sweet tooth so long as he stays within his goals.

 

[twofold]

The whole point of that article is that it does NOT have a "fairly easy" solution. The solution is actually ridiculously tough. I mean, it's not hard to hit the gym and lose the pounds. What's next?

People who lose significant amounts of weight have around a 95% probability of putting it back on within 5 years. Within 10 years it's probably more like 99%. And the simple truth is... the yo-yo is worse for your body than just staying fat.

This isn't just the empirical evidence, the science of it says the same thing. A person who loses lots of weight needs to eat significantly less to stay thin than a thin person.

Nobody knows how to lose weight and keep it off. I don't mean that literally - obviously a few people do it (1 out of 20 or so) do it. What I mean is, nobody knows of a system, or plan, or policy, that can make sure obese people can lose the weight and keep it off. Because that's the challenge.

Not that I agree with this article, but it's not an easy fix.

It's because people do dumb unsustainable diets that produce short term "results". Eventually, they fall off the wagon and go back to their old ways.

You have to change your habits and your lifestyle. If you do that, maintaining your weight is easy.

 

[Gustav]

but for 99.9% of cases, being obese is a choice.

Just stop with this nonsense.

 

[Cheech]

What I mean is, nobody knows of a system, or plan, or policy, that can make sure obese people can lose the weight and keep it off. Because that's the challenge.

Eating less, eating well, and exercise ARE sustainable.

That's all there is to it. But nobody wants to hear that answer, they want to hear, "Hey brah, just eat a carrot a day and the pounds will stay away!". The more ambitious ones want a "plan" to follow. Guess what? It doesn't exist, because everyone is different. And plans don't work because like ketosis for example, it's NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Cheech's plan:

1. Stop shoving food in your fucking face when you're not hungry.
2. When you are hungry, know how you're going to address it in advance and not just eat whatever is laying around. Going to lunch at Panera? Get a low fat soup and salad with fat free dressing. Nothing to eat at home? Stop at the grocery and pick up stuff to make healthy sandwiches. Never, ever buy food that isn't good for you and keep it in the house. You will eventually eat it and hate yourself.
3. Get off your fucking ass and exercise a few times a week. Enough so that you break a sweat and your shirt has sweat all over it when you finish. "Brisk 30 minute walks" are for 80 year olds.

Do this, and the weight takes care of itself.

 

[andycapps]

Just stop with this nonsense.

Did the guy in your avatar have a gun to their head forcing them to be obese?

 

[harSon]

Again, this only points to keto being one very effective weight loss technique.

Stop trying to push it as the end-all-be-all of losing weight, while discrediting other equally effective techniques used by many people. You came in here claiming that exercise is essentially a waste of time and ineffective when trying to lose weight, and that people shouldn't bother and instead should focus entirely on diet. This is insane.

Read these:

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n10/abs/0803015a.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414141449.htm

Now look at some of your earlier claims:

And you wonder why people are telling you you're wrong/crazy?



As I said before, I agree that diet is more important than exercise for losing weight, so we mostly agree here. Here are a few things to consider:

1. That graph only goes back 25 years. We've had an issue with overweight/obese people longer than that, and the factors that could influence or lead to obesity can certainly start early in people's lives even if they don't manifest fully until many years and years later. They compound over time.

2. I'm not even sure how leisure time vs physical activity is even a good metric. It doesn't show how the absolute amount of time people exercise changes, only in relation to leisure time. I imagine that the amount of leisure time people have has changed quite a bit since 1988.

3. The graph doesn't take into account the fact that people have more sedentary lifestyles in general now than they did 50 years ago (it doesn't even go back that far either, as I mentioned). People might not head to the gym or go outside for a run any more or less, but now they sit in their office chairs or on the couch or sleep in bed practically all day, take their cars everywhere instead of walking, etc. That loss of caloric expense has to be made up for somehow in the form of more reserved time for exercise.

He's right though. Our bodily composition isn't simple enough to work in the way that you're suggesting, the first law of thermodynamic, the basis behind the calories in/out diet, does not really apply to our body in ways that calories in/out suggests.

There are other forms of dieting that can result in weight loss, but at the end of the day, the reason calorie restriction works is because it forces you to make cuts to your diet, a lot of which are carbohydrates since they're some of the most calorie dense foods in a person's diet. What are the first things we cut from our diets when we want to lose weight? Soda, candy and other forms nutrition free junk. And what are they filled with? Sugar/Carbs.

Calorie restriction certainly works because of the above, but study after study has proven that a Low-Carb diet is more effective than a low calorie diet. Why? Because it's singling out the aspect of the calorie restriction diet that is responsible for the weight loss, and perfecting the practice.

And in terms of exercise; while cardio is certainly good for you're overall health, it's not going to really help you lose weight. Strength training is infinitely more effective for fat burning than Cardio, due to the fact that your metabolism is spiked post workout while your body is trying repair your muscles. Not to mention the fact that the negligible effect that Cardio will have on your weight is counter balanced by the fact that you're more likely to splurge on food, due to the fact that your body will demand food to replenish spent energy.

 

[marrec]

That's all there is to it. But nobody wants to hear that answer, they want to hear, "Hey brah, just eat a carrot a day and the pounds will stay away!". The more ambitious ones want a "plan" to follow. Guess what? It doesn't exist, because everyone is different. And plans don't work because like ketosis for example, it's NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Cheech's plan:

1. Stop shoving food in your fucking face when you're not hungry.
2. When you are hungry, know how you're going to address it in advance and not just eat whatever is laying around. Going to lunch at Panera? Get a low fat soup and salad with fat free dressing. Nothing to eat at home? Stop at the grocery and pick up stuff to make healthy sandwiches. Never, ever buy food that isn't good for you and keep it in the house. You will eventually eat it and hate yourself.
3. Get off your fucking ass and exercise a few times a week. Enough so that you break a sweat and your shirt has sweat all over it when you finish. "Brisk 30 minute walks" are for 80 year olds.

Do this, and the weight takes care of itself.

This is the worst advise ever for an obese person. Do you WANT them to injure themselves? They have to build a program of exercise that is tailored to their weight. A brisk 30 minute walk, if they've had no regular exercise in the past, can VASTLY improve their overall health.