-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Study: Obese men and women have <1% chance of attaining a normal weight (mod edit OP)
- Thread starter Guevara
- Start date
- Status
deltatheta
Member
Yeah, still not great for you but I don't think it's deniable that a few slices of that would count as a serving of vegetables.
Valkyria
Banned
You are welcome. It's good to spread the information.
deltatheta
Member
What on earth is that based on?
Zoe
Member
How would that be different from cooked vegetables in any other dish?
Hey, I said "I'm not quite sure". I'm asking for an answer here, because I don't have it. And to be clear I was talking about pre-made frozen pizzas, not homecooked ones ("do frozen vegetables keep all of their nutriments?" was the underlying question I was actually asking). If that my assumption is incorrect, feel free to correct me.
Did you read the article I linked? It explicitly states why 1/8c pizza sauce does constitute a "serving". Because it stacks up better than 1/2c apple slices. It has more potassium, more protein and more calcium while being the same calorie count and .1g fat higher. It also has less sugar and (very slightly more) fiber.
You eat less of it and get better nutritional value, calorie for calorie. Add on the additional vegetables (and add on lean meat like chicken) and you do actually get some nutritional value. Is it perfect? No, you still have to deal with the crust and cheese (which itself will give you additional protein) but you're not going to get kids to choose something "good for them" over this.
In general, frozen vegetables keep their nutrients just fine. Better than some canned vegetables even. So if you can eat fresh, if not, frozen, and if not, canned.
GreenTornadoX
Member
I had VSG on the 13th and I'll be on my way to the <1% 
deltatheta
Member
Maybe I'm too focused on weight loss, but in my mind, the main benefit of vegetables is that they are calorie sparse for their mass. Vegetables satiate hunger while carrying hardly any calories.
You're not getting this benefit at all with a tiny amount of tomato paste. Sure, the vitamin content is comparable to normal sized servings of other fruits and vegetables, but isn't obesity the bigger concern than vitamin deficiency?
diffusionx
Gold Member
This is why child obesity is so tragic. It literally sets the kids up for a lifetime of this.
O really ? Then how come I can eat whatever the hell I want and always stay in the 75-80 kgs range and my wife who eats the same as me gains pounds just by looking at food ? Both of us are couch potatoes btw.
Zoe
Member
Does your wife have the same height and frame type as you?
Jelly Rajah
Banned
diffusionx
Gold Member
How old are you? What is your job? I think all of us look back to a time when we could eat whatever we want and not gain weight. Sadly that doesn't last forever.
I did it ¯\_(ツ
Seconded. While I was never severely obese, I went from 110Kg to my current 83Kg.
Dusk Soldier
Member
Just because you "eat whatever the hell you want" doesn't mean you're eating a lot of food.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between eating a lot of food. And eating a lot of food in one sitting.
Well there is your problem. Women typically should require less calories than men. If she is eating the same as you then it is only to be expected that she gains weight.
Classic case of engineer's disease.
Typically I'm very conscious of what I eat and how much I eat of it. Since I feel eating is more to serve as a necessity than to serve as a hobby or whatever. I do enjoy delicious food of course but I'll (often consciously) stop eating if I think I've head enough even if I could physically stuff more in. I think that is the reason why I've never been obese and never will become obese.
Hari Seldon
Member
Coming into this thread late and reading the Mod Edit of the OP, this is why nutrition is such a shit science. Even the scientists that do nutrition rely on mathematically incorrect methods to perform their studies, so how the hell are the average people supposed to do anything? The entire science is at a level of 16th century astrology. Fucking disgraceful. Get your shit together and stop burning witches nutrition scientists.
Beer Monkey
Member
The Fed Up movie is BS bro science. I would watch it with some nice companion features like Seeds of Death (anti-GMO bullshit), Merchants of Doubt (climate denial bullshit) and Shots in the Dark (anti-vaccine bullshit).
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
Seriously, count your calories. Stick with that and you're good. If you find it hard, definitely cut out the empty carbs and sugar-laden processed food, but not because it is hurting your metabolism. It isn't. The problem is it isn't filling. You'll eat again a couple hours later. The advantage of avoiding shitty food is that it isn't filling.
Eat a cup of cottage cheese for breakfast. You'll feel full for hours and hours.
Your wife shouldn't eat the same as you.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Let's assume that your beliefs about calories are true and they are all that matter.
At the same time, you fully recognize that eating carbohydrates is going to make you hungrier faster. Eating fat and protein, especially in the absence of carbohydrates, is extremely satiating.
In that case, why would you recommend anything but a low/no-carb diet to people looking to drop pounds by eating fewer calories, as you believe is the only possible way to do so?
If carbs are completely unnecessary from a nutritional standpoint, and abstaining from them does wonders for a person's hunger levels, then why would your recommendation be to focus on total calories instead of total carbs for someone who wants to lose weight without feeling like they are starving all the time?
It's puzzling to me that your first recommendation is for people to just stick with whatever diet they've been doing that made them fat in the first place, but just eat less of it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Seems like you're reading into it something that the researchers aren't really covering, and that's your fault, not the study's fault.
I think a lot of people seem to be expecting this to finally answer the debate of the ability to lose weight based on willpower, but that's not what this study is about. Even if the only reason anyone stays fat is because there's no willpower to lose weight, it's still important to note that no one is losing enough weight to be at a normal weight.
As an individual, this study isn't very useful, but from the standpoint of public policy and the general focus of health research, what's the point in putting all the effort into promoting weight loss when that strategy has clearly been ineffective, no matter the reason for that ineffectiveness?
Valkyria
Banned
You don't have to take the movies word, just read the latest W.H.O report recommending a sugar intake inferior to 30 gr/day. (Actually 10% of energy intake).
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
Even the blog you linked explains that it could be sugar, it could be carbs, but it is not conclusive. Correlation does not imply causation, but I'm sure you can google many studies regarding the terrible impact on sugar on people health 1; 2
That you compare a maybe flawed not perfect movie to things like anti vaccine movement actually trigger my alarms regarding your agenda.
Beer Monkey
Member
The reason I don't is that most people who eat high protein/fat diets usually only do so for weight loss and don't want to do it for maintenance for the rest of their lives. So they go back to eating a "high" carbohydrate diet after they lose weight and they end up gaining it back. If you want to take advantage of the fact that eating fat and protein suppresses appetite, you're going to have to stick with it for life. If you don't want to stick with it for life, you're better off learning to exert self-discipline by counting calories and accepting that you'll sometimes have hunger pangs.
Whoa, I did not say that.
"Starving all the time" = hyperbole. Hunger is not starvation. Hunger pangs aren't even as uncomfortable as muscle soreness from lifting weights.
The "diet" that made them fat is how much of it they ate.
The WHO is a deeply flawed organization rife with political conflict and their own recommendations often contradict themselves. I pay no attention to the WHO for these reasons.
Stop making sugar the scapegoat.
[metastudy]
"A statistical analysis can never definitely state that an association or effect is exactly zero. Given a large enough sample size or enough additional studies, even a small association may be distinguished from zero. However, these results of the quantitative meta-analysis provide a precise estimate of the association of the relation between SB consumption and BMI that is close to zero."
Yes, the findings were that cutting sugar-sweetened beverage intake isn't going to make our kids weigh less. Yes, really.
Feeling hungry part of the time is normal. It's time to re-learn this. We have collectively forgotten.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Fair enough. The only time I've seen people "fail" this lifestyle is when they stop doing it and revert to old habits or otherwise deviate from it too much.
I did, because they are, although there is an argument for insoluble fiber. Otherwise, they are completely 100% unnecessary for human health. They can be useful as all hell, of course, but unlike protein and fat, no part of the body actually requires that you consume carbohydrates in order to survive.
It's how people feel when they just start eating less.
The WHO makes a distinction between Starch and Sugar.
Reducing sugar intake is probably the first thing anyone attempting weight loss needs to scratch off their list.
That does not mean you need to abstain from carbohydrate intake over the long term. In removing sugars you will without a doubt drastically lower carb intake. Eating hundreds of grams of carbs without seeking refined foods is a ton of eating.
I cant really recommend obese folks to jump on the keto/atkins bandwagon immediately at least. People are eating so much they are killing themselves, you need to ease them into it. Just axing universally poor choices(ex soda) is enough of a challenge, then you can work on portion control, then later you can consider food group exclusive diets.
Reducing sugar intake is probably the first thing anyone attempting weight loss needs to scratch off their list.
That does not mean you need to abstain from carbohydrate intake over the long term. In removing sugars you will without a doubt drastically lower carb intake. Eating hundreds of grams of carbs without seeking refined foods is a ton of eating.
I cant really recommend obese folks to jump on the keto/atkins bandwagon immediately at least. People are eating so much they are killing themselves, you need to ease them into it. Just axing universally poor choices(ex soda) is enough of a challenge, then you can work on portion control, then later you can consider food group exclusive diets.
Valkyria
Banned
Contra study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
And the W.H.O is not reliable? Yeah, I no longer have doubts regarding your agenda.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
And the W.H.O is not reliable? Yeah, I no longer have doubts regarding your agenda.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I was never obese but when I found myself getting too heavy the first thing I did was cut back on my soda intake. Not eliminate, just cut back. It's really amazing how quickly the pounds fell off once I did that. From there I continued to cut back.
If someone was overweight and wanted to lose weight they would lose a lot just by cutting back portions of what they are eating. In other words, less calories. Then from there they can optimize as needed. I really think this is the best way to do things, mentally speaking. It'd be great if our minds didn't crave junky food but they do, and depriving yourself completely is just setting yourself up for failure.
If someone was overweight and wanted to lose weight they would lose a lot just by cutting back portions of what they are eating. In other words, less calories. Then from there they can optimize as needed. I really think this is the best way to do things, mentally speaking. It'd be great if our minds didn't crave junky food but they do, and depriving yourself completely is just setting yourself up for failure.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
How to safely drop excess weight should be taught in high school.
Drink water before you eat. Reduce portions until your weight is in the range you want.
Drink water before you eat. Reduce portions until your weight is in the range you want.
Beer Monkey
Member
I'll read this.
You obviously haven't been following the WHO and their tobacco policies the last several years.
My agenda? Are you implying I'm in the pocket of Big Sugar?
For the record, I don't even drink any sweetened drinks myself. None beyond a (self-sweetened) single teaspoon of honey in my morning tea. I just know that emphasizing diet composition isn't going to fix anything. When most parents of overweight children don't even view their kids as overweight, they sure as hell aren't going to start teaching these kids to stop drinking sugar. You have to see the problem before you are ever going to start addressing it. As for adults, every diet should emphasize calorie counting and teach thermodynamics. Total consumption should be emphasized as much or greater than diet composition, because composition isn't the problem. Self-control and self-awareness is. My advice to adults wanting to lose weight is to:
1) Count every calorie. Buy a scale and use MyFitnessPal or equivalent.
2) Alter diet composition if needed if you can't develop the self-control to stay under your limits on your typical composition.
3) If you use altered diet composition to suppress appetite, acknowledge and plan for staying on that altered diet (typically low carb) for the rest of your life if you want to keep the weight off.
Vicetrailia
Member
To lose weight all I gotta do is exercise. My wife....not so much.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Thermodynamics says nothing about what happens to food after it is consumed by humans.
Why do you seem to think that all food is either used as energy or stored as fat, and not only that, but also that all foods, regardless of what they might be, are processed identically?
hockeypuck
Member
Yes, it is no surprise that a study sponsored by the American Beverage Association would come to that conclusion. It is no surprise that one of the authors of your paper accepted a job position with that industry while the paper was under review. It is no surprise that the beverage industry asked the authors to hire a third-party protocol analyst during the initial proposal submission to the sponsor. All factors that speak to conflict of interest. These were all disclosed in the paper and you were either ignorant of them or chose to ignore them.
The paper you linked was published in 2008. It was included in a separate 2013 research review which compared soda/obesity outcomes depending on industry financial ties. A meta-analysis of meta-analyses. You can probably figure out the conclusions of that study.
A lot of higher-quality meta-analyses out there without disclosed financial conflicts of interest and you chose a shitty one.
PaulExcellent
Member
Well, that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.
Valkyria
Banned
Well, here it is. Thanks for your post.
He's not wrong though. Want to loose weight? Consume less calories. Of course this isn't true for 100% of the population, but for the vast, vast, majority it is. Not saying it's easy, but it's true. Now building muscle, reducing fat percentage, and eating healther requires more strict diets, but to loose weight just eat less calories.
Beer Monkey
Member
You got me. I'll admit it. There's likely a correlation between sweetened beverages and obesity.
Still, count your calories. That's all that really matters. Plenty of developed nations sell sweetened beverages without the obesity crisis that US/Canada/UK have. Let's be like them. It is patently obvious that allowing sweetened beverages on the market doesn't create an obese population. Let's stop consuming too many calories. We don't have to. And lets start holding parents accountable for raising obese children.
But we can't consume less calories! We are Americans!
Seriously. Look at our typical portion sizes in the Americas and Canada and observe how people call hunger pangs 'starvation' and 'torture' and then laugh at those who blame that sweetened beverages are on the market as the cause (not correlation!) of our obesity!
It's a fucking joke.
Feeling hungry is normal. And our lazy pampered privileged culture has stopped believing that.
entremet
Member
- Status