Yes you did
Unrestricted means, unrestricted. I'm going to unrestrict myself to 3500 calories.
How about you say something more logical like....
Low carb diets usually satiate you faster, so you take in less calories and lose weight.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
"Anti-obesity: The new homophobia?"
- Thread starter SeanR1221
- Start date
- Status
Yes you did
Unrestricted means, unrestricted. I'm going to unrestrict myself to 3500 calories.
How about you say something more logical like....
Low carb diets usually satiate you faster, so you take in less calories and lose weight.
They're on the same page as your post. It is a very big post, hard to miss.
Unrestricted does not mean forcing yourself to eat more than you want. It means not counting calories. There is no contradiction, you either have poor reading comprehension skills or are just trying to be an asshole.
So everyone has the same level of satiety now?
I already told you I can down a 800 calorie breakfast no problem.
Don't even get me on the sushi buffet by my house.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
False equivalency.
It's inevitable that people will be liars and cheats, and lying and cheating isn't a disease either.
Should be consider condemnation of lying the new homophobia?
Just can't agree. I do think we should have a society that has greater acceptance of lots of things, but being extremely unhealthy? No.
It's inevitable that people will be liars and cheats, and lying and cheating isn't a disease either.
Should be consider condemnation of lying the new homophobia?
Just can't agree. I do think we should have a society that has greater acceptance of lots of things, but being extremely unhealthy? No.
FallingEdge
Member
For real. I can easily eat 4-5k worth of calories without even trying.
The vast majority of people on a low-carbohydrate diet have a level of satiety that is reasonably proportional to the energy deficit left over after considering the energy used from fat stores. That's the hypothesis. It is backed up by studies, yours isn't.
I never said calories don't matter (as in not being real or whatever you were insinuating,) that is a lie and you know it. Admit it.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
How about you simply say "perhaps calorie-unrestricted wasn't the best term to use" and move on?
Because.. it wasn't.. it was misleading.
I must be some generic freak! I guess all those obese people would have major issues eating 3000 calories right? Right!?
It's a term used by researchers. I believe I saw it in the summary of a study saying that unrestricted low-carbohydrate diets were at least equal to restricted high-carbohydrate diets in respect to weight loss. The intent was probably to confuse people into thinking that both were equal.
It really wasn't that misleading. The diet he is suggesting is not dependent on the counting of calories or a hard limit on them it relies on satiety and the common sense of the dieter. The only way it's confusing is if you are looking to play a game of semantic gotcha.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Not a single one of those studies that I saw in tht post covers exercise in any way. They were all low carb vs other diets.
I'm on a phone so perhaps I missed one, if so can you point me to the study that says dieting alone is more effective than diet + exercise at helping people lose weight? Again, I already posted two studies explicitly demonstrating the opposite.
Which study says that suggesting exercise in addition to a diet is "bad advice"?
No reasonable person is going to eat nothing but cheese and bacon most days.
It's more difficult to eat 3,000 calories in Meat and Vegetables, than it is to eat a diet where anything is free game.
Well you better add a disclaimer when you say "unrestricted".
You know every person on the planet? Just admit you can't eat unrestricted, there has to be a caloric restriction.
Difficult but not impossible.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/bubba-foods-llc-bubba-burger-12587902
Two of those with 2 ounces of cheese comes in at over 1000 calories (gotta cook it in butter, right?)
Exactly.
Don't know why you would rely on this when a complete lack of satiety and common sense is what got them there in the first place.
The carbs and HFCS that this diet eliminates are what breaks satiety in the first place.
Even the study with a slant against low-carbohydrate diets says that unrestricted low-carb works better or at least as good as restricted high-carb.
The "every person on the planet" remark is idiocy.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Obese people don't have a difficult time eating, regardless of what it is. That's one reason they're obese.
Unrestricted to an obese person, even in low carb, could easily break their caloric limit pre-satiety.
I felt pretty fucking full on chicken and brown rice last night. More so then chicken and vegetables.
That's nice.
So we are back to eat as much as you want now? Go eat 10 bubba burgers throughout a day and get back to me.
"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."
DR2K
Banned
They'd be too high to care. Fat people don't really have that escape from reality. They're always fully aware of themselves.
I posted two studies above, once which shows a statistically significant increase in the risk for Type 2 Diabetes in association with LCHP diets and one which suggests that low calorie diets are more effective than LCHP diets.
The study that shows low calorie diets are more effective is actually done by THE SAME people who had previous showed that LCHP diets were more effective, from the first Meta-study you're quoting.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Great! I agree with this.
I highly doubt these researchers told the participants to eat "unrestricted" calories.
Just admit it was a poor word choice so we can all move on.
You're wrong! What a surprise.
It actually uses more supposedly confusing language!
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
They call it that in the study. That doesn't mean they told the participants "hey, eat as much as you want, don't hold back!"
Christ.
Also, please continue conveniently sidestepping the "exercise is bad advice" argument.
This is almost as bad as when PETA compared dogs to 19th century slaves.
Fat people have no physical struggle. They were not made to be fat. Most living things are not meant to be fat.
Obesity is a major health problem that stems from overeating (oversnacking mostly) and lack of exercise. It's not healthy and not something people should be championing as the next civil rights movement. Having said that, no one is saying you need to be strapped to a treadmill and be forced to eat charcoal all day. People should be comfortable with their bodies that their decisions have created. People come in all shapes and sizes, but the fact remains that obesity is not something you are, it's something you become.
Stop trying to say how hard it is to lose weight. We all know. It sucks to not eat certain foods we've come to love. It also sucks when we aren't motivated to lose weight. Obese people and anyone else trying to lose weight know they need to, but they're either just too depressed, stressed, or nervous about doing it. However, these are not excuses. They are just mental barriers that are part of any other decision. Get through them once and most likely a person will be able to get through them again and again.
Fat people have no physical struggle. They were not made to be fat. Most living things are not meant to be fat.
Obesity is a major health problem that stems from overeating (oversnacking mostly) and lack of exercise. It's not healthy and not something people should be championing as the next civil rights movement. Having said that, no one is saying you need to be strapped to a treadmill and be forced to eat charcoal all day. People should be comfortable with their bodies that their decisions have created. People come in all shapes and sizes, but the fact remains that obesity is not something you are, it's something you become.
Stop trying to say how hard it is to lose weight. We all know. It sucks to not eat certain foods we've come to love. It also sucks when we aren't motivated to lose weight. Obese people and anyone else trying to lose weight know they need to, but they're either just too depressed, stressed, or nervous about doing it. However, these are not excuses. They are just mental barriers that are part of any other decision. Get through them once and most likely a person will be able to get through them again and again.
Have I personally advocated (for use) an "unrestricted low-carbohydrate diet" or just a "low-carbohydrate diet" that is ostensibly unrestricted?
There are people who face more than just mental barriers when it comes to losing weight and until more people accept this then those who are poor and live in urban areas will continue to have increased rates of obesity and increased healthcare costs.
Would you advocate against a simple calorie restrictive diet low in sugars as opposed to no diet at all?
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know. I don't even care anymore...
Ok, let's break this into simpler terms.
I'm a morbidly obese man who admits to being able to eat a LOT of food. Do you tell me eat as much as I want or not?
Exercise as in, exercise + calorie restriction with no mention of carbohydrates vs. a low-carbohydrate diet. It is my opinion that the second option is a better strategy, public-health wise.
Then you shouldn't be trying to call me out via flimsy straw man bullshit.
Eat til you're full man. Meat and green veggies really fill you up.
Public-health wise it's much easier to provide people with the education and means to reduce calorie intake then it is to provide them with the means to completely change every food they eat. What a silly statement.
So bacon, bubba burgers and cheese. Can't wait to just eat till I'm full. And if I can eat much more than the average person, who cares its unrestricted!
Just admit unrestricted does not mean eat whatever and however much you want, Beast. It's getting old now.
I totally understand that lower income families can't access vegetables that cost twice as much as a family dinner from the local fast food joint. (Thanks a lot fast food economy) However, that does not restrict a family from going to the park to play with each other.
Eating the right things certainly helps in the long run, but if you're actually physical, I don't see why you can't maintain a certain weight.
You think carbohydrates are unimportant? Because that is the alternative I was talking about, that people were seriously arguing for.
Stop posting. This is my last response to anything you say.
Being simply physically active is not a great way to maintain long-term health. A dietary change of reduced calories and less fast food is always preferred. Of course, large swaths of America needs better educated on how easy it is to be active in most cases. Though some people might find it hard to get to a safe park that is acceptable for children.
They are important for a certain diet that, while effective, is not proven to be the most effective and has been shown to be associated with some long term health risks. (At least in LCHP diets) It's important to find the right way for someone to lose weight and up till now the most effective and consistent way to lose weight is by reducing calorie intake and eating better. If that means making a small change to your Carb intake as an ancillary effect then that is one thing, but saying 'LCHP diets are the ONLY way to lose weight!' (which you haven't said, I know) is not only wrong it's also detrimental to some people who might potentially want to start a new weight loss routine.
Find the best way for YOU to lose weight. If that's LCHP, then great! If that's low-calorie low-sugar, then great!
Gradually reducing calorie portions is the way to go. What I would suggest to any fat person is to meet a dietologist and pay them for a diet after of course getting weight body fat, discussing what they like and how hard they want to start with and so on. From my and close friend experience it is enough confidence boost and gets the hard work done of knowing how exactly to manage your diet to get you committed. Doing it alone might seem more of a mountain, since it is not just eating smaller but eating healthier and a more complete diet and they know how gradually to reduce the portions. It still won't be easy but I think there is some positive psychological boost from meeting dietologist and it is easier to commit when you have exactly a certain plan to follow.
I think it can really help. So what I do is tell others to go meet dietologists and make some commitment. It is even better if someone you also know also does it so if you have fat friends then going as well might also give a confidence boost although you can also go alone.
I think it can really help. So what I do is tell others to go meet dietologists and make some commitment. It is even better if someone you also know also does it so if you have fat friends then going as well might also give a confidence boost although you can also go alone.
I'll take that as a yes that you agree with me.
I think most people in the world know how to stay active. No one needs to know how many calories you burn while playing basketball for an hour, or how many minutes it takes to burn one M&M. People know how to lose weight. It's simply eat less, exercise more. That's the basics. If you want to go into how many carbs, fats, proteins, and what leafy green vegetables a person should be eating to increase their vitamin A deficiency, grab a book or go to a class.
This is what's frustrating about the obesity epidemic. People constantly say, "Oh we need more education on why people get fat, so they don't get fat." Again, the basics are, you're eating too much and not doing enough physical activities. Don't confuse people by saying organic breads, pastas, and potato chips are healthier than regular chips because some idiot 50 year-old mother is going to buy them for her children and say "Kids, we can eat these. They're good for you."
They're not. We all know vegetables are good, potato chips are bad. Once you start to "educate" people on what the good foods are and what the bad ones are you're just making the problem worse. Sure, you'll get some great nutritionists out of it, but most people will end up confused and start buying products through marketing (Fat-Free, Good Source of Calcium, etc) rather than through common sense.
My Irish ancestors who lived in Brooklyn shopped with common sense. So did most 19th and 20th century poor, urban, work-class, barely-educated immigrants. We don't need more education, we need less excuses.
You can eat bacon, burgers and cheese all you want, you're still going to lose weight. I ate Chorizo, eggs, bacon and sausage everyday for breakfast. I ate chicken, homemade double cheeseburgers minus the bun, steaks, sausages, porkchops/pork shoulder steaks, fish, etc and a shit ton of vegetables (Spinich, broccoli, Zucchini/squash, green beans, salad with: romaine lettuce, tomatoes, bell peppers, cheese, bacon, chicken, dressing, dressing and a whole avocado) for lunch and dinner every day. And I didn't shy away from a 2nd or 3rd plate if I will still hungry. I ate a bags of pork skins daily.
I just avoided most fruits (ate some berries), artificial sweeteners, simple/complex carbs, etc and the weight shed off of me, and I have a physical every 6 months with improvements to my health every single time.
And the argument about fat people being able to eat more is complete bullshit anyways. If calories matter, then the amount of calories that person can have to maintain their weight is EXTREMELY HIGH, and utilizing this same diet, you're supposed to lower your calorie consumption by .10-.20, which is still going to be an absurdly high number.
Not only is it more difficult to reach such high numbers of calories eating only meats and vegetables, but unlike carbs, they fill you up for longer.
I've advocated a diet low in sugar/HFCS for everyone, in this thread.
This is really all I've been trying to say:
-Carbohydrates make you fat.
-You do not need to exercise to lose weight.
-Unrestricted low-carbohydrate diets are shown to be easier and more effective than calorie counting.
-Carbohydrates probably increase your risk for other diseases, almost certainly more so than dietary fat/cholesterol.
-The standard advice of calorie counting + exercise isn't making much of a dent in the obesity epidemic.
- Status