Support NeoGAF

[Cagey]

So you're telling me that you didn't bother to look at those citations to see how those numbers were determined.

I looked at the study cited in Footnote 25. The measurement of the commitment to the reported "weight loss strategies" or what those strategies entailed was lacking, thus the quote you pulled from my post which you incorrectly dismissed about the "undetermined amount of time and commitment".

From the study:

The second outcome of interest was the dichotomous variable pursuit of weight control, defined as either trying to lose weight or doing anything to keep from gaining weight during the past 12 months. Participants who were categorized as pursuing weight control and were further asked to report all of the ways they tried to lose weight or keep from gaining weight. We categorized these weight control strategies as (1) dietary changes, (2) physical activity or (3) other.

My obese cousins purchasing Weight Watchers products and loosely following a WW-themed nutrition plan for a week could count as self-reported attempt at a "weight loss strategy".

From the abstract, which is simply quotes pulled from the 7 page article itself.

Overall, 64% (73% women, 55% men) reported a desire to weigh less and 48% (57% women, 40% men) reported pursuing weight control.

Weight control was positively associated with overweight perception (odds ratio (OR) women 3.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.96, 4.73; OR men 2.82; 95% CI 2.11, 3.76) and an HCP diagnosis of overweight/obesity (OR women 2.22; 95% CI 1.69, 2.91; OR men 2.14; 95% CI 1.58, 2.91), independent of measured weight status.

A large proportion of overweight individuals (23% women, 48% men) perceived themselves as having the right weight. Also, 74% of overweight and 29% of obese individuals never had an HCP diagnosis of overweight/obesity.

Although the majority of overweight/obese individuals (74% women, 60% men) pursued at least one weight management strategy, fewer (39% women, 32% men) pursued both dietary change and physical activity.

Among overweight/obese adults, those with an HCP diagnosis of overweight/obesity were more likely to diet (74 versus 52%), exercise (44 versus 34%), or pursue both (41 versus 30%, all P<0.01) than those who remained undiagnosed.

 

[Nocebo]

No, because you turn hungry?

The more alluring alternative is to not take your time to cook and eat something unhealthy.

So? What is bad about feeling hungry? What happens if you do not eat for a few hours when you feel hungry? Also, what happens if you stop eating even if you're still feeling hungry?

Nothing wrong with being hungry.

Really, breakfast and lunch are the fasted meals to prep. Dinner is the hardest. Breakfast can be simple toast, lunch can easily just be a sandwich.

Exactly. Or some fruit in a blender. You don't even have to chew it. Just chug it down in under a minute. This is actually my new favorite thing. I used to feel like eating fruit was a chore (it's how I feel about eating in general) and barely ate any fruits. But now I consume 3 different fruits every single day. I'm thinking of adding pineapple chunks to the mix as well.

 

[SuperEpicGuy]

So? What is bad about feeling hungry? What happens if you do not eat for a few hours when you feel hungry? Also, what happens if you stop eating even if you're still feeling hungry?

It's "too hard". It's easier to complain than do work.

 

[jay]

Here's your fucking meta-analysis:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full

"In conclusion, this meta-analysis of 29 reports of long-term weight-loss maintenance indicated that weight-loss maintenance 4 or 5 y after a structured weight-loss program averages 3.0 kg or 23% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%. Individuals who participated in a VLED program or lost &#8805;20 kg had a weight-loss maintenance at 4 or 5 y of 7 kg or 29% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 6.6%. Although success in weight-loss maintenance has improved over the past decade, much more research is required to enable most individuals to sustain the lifestyle changes in physical activity and food choices necessary for successful weight maintenance."

Average weight loss of 3.0 KG after 4 or 5 years. Seems quite meager, but I'll let you try and correct me.

And another meta-analysis:

Another meta-analysis:

RESULTS:
A mean weight loss of 5 to 8.5 kg (5% to 9%) was observed during the first 6 months from interventions involving a reduced-energy diet and/or weight-loss medications with weight plateaus at approximately 6 months. In studies extending to 48 months, a mean 3 to 6 kg (3% to 6%) of weight loss was maintained with none of the groups experiencing weight regain to baseline. In contrast, advice-only and exercise-alone groups experienced minimal weight loss at any time point.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904936

Again, 3 to 6 kg. I'll let you try and correct me again.

Oh, and one more, for good measure, from 2015, no less:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121993

Trials enrolled 17,186 participants (53% female, mean age at randomization = 52 years). Mean body mass indices ranged from 30&#8211;46 kg/m2, follow-up times ranged from 18 months to 12.6 years (mean: 27 months), and average weight loss in reported trials was 5.5±4.0 kg. A total of 264 deaths were reported in weight loss groups and 310 in non-weight loss groups. The weight loss groups experienced a 15% lower all-cause mortality risk (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73&#8211;1.00). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of effect (Cochran&#8217;s Q = 5.59 (11 d.f.; p = 0.90); I2 = 0). Results were similar in trials with a mean age at randomization &#8805;55 years (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.71&#8211;0.99) and a follow-up time of &#8805;4 years (RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.72&#8211;1.00).

5.5 KG. What's wrong with this meta-analysis?

Everyone know 46% of all meta-studies are wrong. We need meta-studies of meta-studies of meta-studies. Or we can just go with anecdotal evidence from this thread, that also seems valid.

 

[Kureransu]

That's kind of my point though. Who ever taught people that you're supposed to feel full? Our parents maybe? I guess that works for teaching kids how much to eat initially...

I realize it is easy to over eat with this kind of high calorie food around. I don't live in the USA but is fruit and drinkable water hard to come by? and of course they're not hard to come by. Honestly the bad habits start in early childhood. I've a few friends (mid 30s) who say hey simply "can't do water. It's nasty"

Yes! This is my thought also. It seems pretty normal to me to wait to eat till dinner for instance even if you're feeling hungry. Do other people really feed their hunger almost immediately? Also I've encountered the "eat your plate clean" because "it's a waste of food to throw it away" habit a lot as well. This way of thinking seems like a slippery slope to me.

Allow me to correct myself. By full I mean satisfied. I'd eat that cooking and be crazy hungry with in a couple hours, if that.

 

[Prophet Steve]

People are just getting really soft these days, it's sad. Everyone's offended, too lazy and most are obese/fat. We're basically heading into the wall-e world.

I was obese once so I went to the gym and lost the damn weight. Then when I got it back 2 years later after an all inclusive buffet vacation + mclfurries all day I lost it again.


Skipping breakfast is kinda hard at first but you get used to it. Especially if you drink some coffee. However skipping meals isn't really all that healthy (plus potential muscle mass loss which is unacceptable for me) so I wouldn't recommend it unless you really need to lose some weight.

So? What is bad about feeling hungry? What happens if you do not eat for a few hours when you feel hungry? Also, what happens if you stop eating even if you're still feeling hungry?

Exactly. Or some fruit in a blender. You don't even have to chew it. Just chug it down in under a minute. This is actually my new favorite thing. I used to feel like eating fruit was a chore (it's how I feel about eating in general) and barely ate any fruits. But now I consume 3 different fruits every single day. I'm thinking of adding pineapple chunks to the mix as well.

Being hungry isn't exactly a pleasant feeling and it is not difficult to imagine that people would rather eat than being stuck with the feeling. It is kind of why it's there.

I know that I have a difficult time concentrating on my work when I feel hungry, which can be pretty fast. And that gets only worse over time.

 

[hockeypuck]

I looked at the study cited in Footnote 25. The measurement of the commitment to the reported "weight loss strategies" or what those strategies entailed was lacking, thus the quote you pulled from my post which you incorrectly dismissed about the "undetermined amount of time and commitment".

From the study:

My obese cousins purchasing Weight Watchers products and loosely following a WW-themed nutrition plan for a week could count as self-reported attempt at a "weight loss strategy".

From the abstract, which is simply quotes pulled from the 7 page article itself.

The paper in the OP is a retrospective cohort looking at over 250,000 participants. This level of specificity that you desire should have never been expected out of this paper and thus reading that passage that you fucking lol'd really shouldn't have been a surprise to you. Heck, you could have stopped reading after "279,000" in the OP since the results were never going to be at the level of specificity that you wanted.

To me it looks like the question you wanted asked was, "For obese people following a strictly-defined weight loss strategy, how many succeed?" That was not the purpose of this paper.

The question the study in the OP asked was, "For a large sample population representative of the UK as a whole, what percentage of obese people remained overweight after roughly 5 years or so?"
The answer they determined was, "Much higher than what many public health policymakers would have guessed"

It's a very, very simple question that they answered. This was merely an observational study.

 

[Nocebo]

Allow me to correct myself. By full I mean satisfied. I'd eat that cooking and be crazy hungry with in a couple hours, if that.

That doesn't really change my stance. What is "satisfied"? I assume you mean on a physical level (as opposed to feeling psychologically satisfied with a small portion that is high in nutrition). But even that isn't a requirement to get through a day, in my opinion of course. I'm starting to feel hungry right now but I will not allow myself to eat for a while or even at all. And if I do I will only eat a little bit, not until I'm full but until I feel there is something in my stomach which doesn't take much. Maybe my physiology is different than most people I don't know... I'm not an expert.

Being hungry isn't exactly a pleasant feeling and it is not difficult to imagine that people would rather eat than being stuck with the feeling. It is kind of why it's there.

I know that I have a difficult time concentrating on my work when I feel hungry, which can be pretty fast.

Perhaps you will learn to ignore that feeling for the most part in time or just gnaw on a carrot or something. I'm not a scientist though. How much time after eating something does the hunger feeling usually start to affect your concentration?

 

[Opiate]

Not the person you asked, but I did want to chime in about this.

Success in the "real world" is not a competition with yourself, it's a competition with everyone else. Not everyone can go to Harvard. It's prestigious, not just because of the quality of education, but because of the limited number of people that can go there. By definition, a pyramid MUST have a bottom with a select few in the upper echelons. Not everyone can be up there. Not only that, the select few need/depend on the lower classes in order to both maintain status and to profit. If everyone went to Harvard, then everyone is equal (so it'd be back to the start--how to segregate and distinguish who is more worthy of making more money?)

A few responses.

1) Yes, there are some things about doing well academically that are harder than doing well with weight loss. But the reverse is also true; for instance, there are companies with clear, moneyed interest in keeping you fat (i.e. fast food companies explicitly profit off the obesity epidemic).

2) I think this is much less a zero sum game than you are implying, because the number of people in the world is so large. Yes, not every single person can go to a prestigious college, but one individual probably could, if they worked hard enough. If everyone else started working really hard, then yes, that would be a problem, but that's not happening. Since we're in the real world here, and talking about individuals, after all. Not everyone can be a Doctor, but a single person probably could be, if they worked hard enough. Zero sum only is a logistical problem if you actually see everyone move in a single direction (everyone works hard, everyone wants to be a doctor, etc.) but we don't see that.

3) No two examples in an analogy will ever be exactly and perfectly alike. Pointing this out does not ruin the analogy. In this case, the analogy is that 1) Both obesity and poverty level have some factors that are significantly within our control, 2) Both obesity and poverty level have some factors that are significantly outside of our control, and 3) While neither is guaranteed, you are very likely to improve your weight and your job success by exercising, eating less, getting educated, and searching for jobs. 4) While some people find school easy but struggle their whole life with weight, some find the reverse, that school is very difficult and that losing weight is very hard. 5) Related to point 4, it is often true that both people who struggle in school and people who struggle to lose weight do so because of some combination of upbringing and genetics.

In those regards, the analogies are quite similar. Pointing out that there some differences isn't untrue, but it does strike me as a more vociferous form of finger pointing. "Yeah, well your struggles should be easier than mine!"
Weight loss, unlike material success in life, is a competition with yourself, and only yourself. If I lose 10 pounds, that doesn't mean everyone else collectively loses the ability to lose those 10 pounds. If I gain 10 pounds, it doesn't mean everyone else now has an easier time losing 10 pounds.

I understand your analogy as it relates to the concept of boot strapping being "easy," but I don't think they are quite similar in other regards as I described.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cagey]

The paper in the OP is a retrospective cohort looking at over 250,000 participants. This level of specificity that you desire should have never been expected out of this paper and thus reading that passage that you fucking lol'd really shouldn't have been a surprise to you. Heck, you could have stopped reading after "279,000" in the OP since the results were never going to be at the level of specificity that you wanted.

From the same page as the quote I pulled:

I had my suspicions given the way the article presented the study, but I would have never guessed the study itself would handwave away intention and earnest attempt to lose weight in the manner it did. It's one thing to acknowledge the limitations of the research, but it's quite another to dismiss the limitations with an assumption of that magnitude.

Thus, I said as much already. Your post isn't news.

You first claimed that I was laughable for thinking the researchers pulled an assumption out of their ass because there were footnotes, and then you assumed I hadn't read the studies cited in the footnote. Since both of your baseless assumptions of my ignorance were incorrect, you move onto "well you'll never be happy." What are you trying to get at here?

EDIT:

To me it looks like the question you wanted asked was, "For obese people following a strictly-defined weight loss strategy, how many succeed?" That was not the purpose of this paper.

I spent the initial pages of this thread pointing out that people saying "see it's so hard to lose weight! it's not just diet and exercise or fat shaming! less than 1% of obese people can do it!" were taking data out-of-context. I was correct. I never said the purpose of this paper was for the quote above. I noted to posters who didn't understand the purpose of the paper that what they "learned" from said paper wasn't what the paper was saying. Again, what's your point here?

 

[igordennis]

I think part of what this is showing is that it is not in your hand. At least, not in the way you mean it.

Hypothesis: if obesity was "truly in your control," very few people would be obese, because very few people enjoy being obese. They suffer from low energy, early mortality (if they are very obese, that is), are often ridiculed, and are typically given lower social status (as most people perceived as "ugly" are).

The fact that so many people seem to be "choosing" to be obese in the developed world when there is strong social and medical pressure to avoid it seems to be compatible with the notion hat this isn't really in your control in the way we mean it, and the sense that it's in your control is mostly an illusion.

Its really hard to come to terms with that. Im constantly trying but when im so accountable for what i eat its tough to look at obese people and come to terms that its not really their fault (in most cases) apparently.

 

[Prophet Steve]

That doesn't really change my stance. What is "satisfied"? I assume you mean on a physical level. But even that isn't a requirement to get through a day, in my opinion of course.



Perhaps you will learn to ignore that feeling for the most part in time or just gnaw on a carrot or something. I'm not a scientist though. How much time after eating something does the hunger feeling start to affect your concentration?

I can't start to ignore hunger. Just like I can't ignore a lack of sleeping, or being thirsty. And yes, usually I'll eat something healthy, but I don't have troubles with my weight. But skipping meals is not an easy thing.

As for how fast it happens with me, it depends. When I've exercised the evening before it can be much faster. When I'll have two slices of bread in the morning around 7.30AM I am pretty hungry by 11 AM and need to eat something. And then I still have lunch an hour later after which there still is the possibility I get hungry later in the afternoon. Today I had lunch at 12:30 PM and got too hungry to comfortably work so I went to eat something at 3 PM or so.

Skipping meals really is not a proper option for me.

 

[TickleMeElbow]

I was in the hospital for ten days total due to some medical issues.

For roughly half of those days, I was either on a no eat/no drink "diet" with an iv in me for fluids/vitamins, or a clear liquid diet consuming nothing but chicken broth, juice, jello, and popsicles. The other half of my stay consisted of about 2 - 3 low fat meals a day. Lost close to 10 pounds, and I didn't even move.

I know that's an extreme example, but basically it shows that for most people, all you have to do is eat less. You don't even have to exercise. Of course losing a pound a day isn't healthy, but if you just eat less and move a little, I don't see how losing 1 - 2 lbs a week is that hard. That's like 26 - 52 lbs in half a year.

 

[hockeypuck]

I never said the purpose of this paper was for the quote above. I noted to posters who didn't understand the purpose of the paper that what they "learned" from said paper wasn't what the paper was saying. Again, what's your point here?

In your own words, what do you think the question was these researchers were trying to answer?

 

[Nocebo]

I can't start to ignore hunger. Just like I can't ignore a lack of sleeping, or being thirsty. And yes, usually I'll eat something healthy, but I don't have troubles with my weight. But skipping meals is not an easy thing.

As for how fast it happens with me, it depends. When I've exercised the evening before it can be much faster. When I'll have two slices of bread in the morning around 7.30AM I am pretty hungry by 11 AM and need to eat something.

Well I guess you're clearly not a follower of Islam. Jokes aside, skipping things to a certain degree certainly isn't difficult (or perhaps it is only not difficult in my imagination?). Skipping 1 meal or half a meal is peanuts compared to what followers of Islam seem to go through during Ramadan. And there's over a billion of em doing it for a month (I'm assuming). Yes, it is an extreme example but skipping only one meal or half of a couple of meals seems well within the capacity of a human being and in a normal situation they're even allowed to drink as much water as they want! Humans are known to routinely ignore pain and the like as well. Ignoring hunger for 4 hours seems pedestrian.

Where is extra effort in preparing 2 sandwiches for lunch instead of 4 or 6?

 

[Cagey]

In your own words, what do you think the question was these researchers were trying to answer?

I think the researchers thought a clever method to see "what the rate was of obese people reducing their weight to a "normal" level" would be to take a large dataset of people periodically reporting their weight over many years and then determining the rates at which people went from obese to not obese, and a few other changes evaluated, as well.

What posters on the first page took from this was "only <1% of obese becoming not obese therefore its so hard to do with diet/exercise/bootstraps/hard work", which is not what the study demonstrates. At all.

For example:

Am I, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to care?

At a less than 1% sucess rate your method is pretty much confirmed garbage at doing anything more than giving you a false sense of superiority for doing it.

So easy 1% of people manage to do it!

Now I will restate my previous questions: what, exactly, are you arguing with me about? What is your point?

 

[bidguy]

"... it is difficult to lose weight once you are obese."

why ?

if you take less calories in than you burn shouldnt you lose weight automatically ?

 

[Prophet Steve]

Well I guess you're clearly not a follower of Islam. Jokes side, skipping things to a certain degree certainly isn't difficult. Skipping 1 meal or half a meal is peanuts compared to what followers of Islam seem to go through during Ramadan. And there's over a billion of em doing it for a month (I'm assuming). Yes, it is an extreme example but skipping only one meal or half of a couple of meals seems well within the capacity of a human being and they're even allowed to drink as much water as they want!

Where is extra effort in preparing 2 sandwiches for lunch instead of 4 or 6?

Well, yes, but that is kind of the point of Ramadan isn't it? To relate to the people that have it worse than you? Is that really an argument to make it seem easy to skip meals?

Of course it is within my capacity, but it would limit my productivity and it would not be something in which I'd have no difficulty, especially when I would do it repeatedly.

And there is little extra effort to make bigger lunches, especially because I prepare my lunches at work. But I can't always predict when I'll be hungry and I'm trying to lose a bit more weight.

Also if that is a solution for skipping another meal, well that would be kind of counterproductive.

"... it is difficult to lose weight once you are obese."

why ?

if you take less calories in than you burn shouldnt you lose weight automatically ?

Because motivation and willpower is not something that everyone of us has in unlimited supply. Also, automatically sounds so easy, but both taking in less calories and burning more calories is something that you have to put effort into.

 

[Madness]

Eat when you're hungry, but also remember to realize you're used to eating probably 600-1000 more calories than your body really needs if you're obese.

Portion size, and type of food matter just as much. If you're craving food, an apple will be more beneficial for you than a handful of potato chips or cookies.

Eat smaller meals, more time a day so you stay full but aren't just gorging on one meal. I would eat a big Mac combo when I was fat. Large coke, fries etc. And then I realized that it was almost 1100+ calories from one meal. So half my daily amount of calories, for lunch or after class. It's why overeating happens. Labels are so misleading too. Here is a bag of oreos and only 160 calories, but that's just for like 3 cookies. If you scarf the whole bag in a sitting, you've probably eaten close to 1500 calories.

 

[AnAnole]

"... it is difficult to lose weight once you are obese."

why ?

if you take less calories in than you burn shouldnt you lose weight automatically ?

It's easy if you completely ignore the well-studied homeostatic mechanisms that kick in after weight loss that dramatically reduce energy expenditure and dramatically increase appetite.

 

[Halcyon]

"... it is difficult to lose weight once you are obese."

why ?

if you take less calories in than you burn shouldnt you lose weight automatically ?

I think the reasoning is that obese people are addicted to food and eating stuff that is bad for you. Their lack of willpower is what has made them obese in the first place.

It's like saying to an alcoholic 'just stop drinking'.


Depression, trauma, motivation. These are all things that are in the mix. It'd possible to overcome it all, but it is hard making the change.

 

[Ettie]

I think we've reached a point where aggressive campaigns along the lines of what they have done for smoking are in order. As some have said, you need to stop people from getting fat in the first place. Things like that healthy school lunch initiative are a good start, but I think it needs to go further. I doubt younger people (especially) are thinking about their mortality with respect to their weight so I think an appeal to vanity is in order.

Much like showing a blackened lung (or what have you) is used to shock people into thinking about if smoking is worth it, I think showing people what happens to you body after massive weight loss might work as an effective deterrent. We rarely discuss what it's like after you've lost the weight, but that should absolutely be part of the discussion. If you need to lose 100+ pounds there is an extremely likely chance that you're going to end up with loose skin and stretch marks. I can tell you from experience after having lost about half my body weight that still being young and essentially having a ruined body is, at times, overwhelmingly depressing. I realize that this could have a negative effect on those who are already fat, but again, I think something like this should be used as a deterrent for those who aren't fat or not very fat yet.

Getting fat was the worst mistake I've ever made and I wasn't even fat my entire life. The far-flung mental consequences are terrible.

Good post; I'm with you brother. I wish so much that someone had showed me the consequences early on.

 

[hockeypuck]

I think the researchers thought a clever method to see "what the rate was of obese people reducing their weight to a "normal" level" would be to take a large dataset of people periodically reporting their weight over many years and then determining the rates at which people went from obese to not obese, and a few other changes evaluated, as well.

Now I will restate my previous questions: what, exactly, are you arguing with me about? What is your point?

My point is to me, it seemed like you focused on the lack on evidence of intentionality in this paper as a way to discount the paper's findings, when that was not the purpose of the paper. Sorry, it was what I could interpret from "fucking lol" without further explanation.

 

[Madness]

"... it is difficult to lose weight once you are obese."

why ?

if you take less calories in than you burn shouldnt you lose weight automatically ?

Because people don't stick to it and also because without massive changes to your lifestyle and way of eating, you'll revert back. There is a reason it's called fad diet. You have to commit to changing the way you live, eat and exercise. Once you're obese, you've ingrained probably decades of poor eating habits, sedentary lifestyle. When you've grown up eating junk food, sitting on the sofa watching television or playing games, never gone on hikes, swam, played sports, you're going to find its tough to lose weight. Additionally, someone who has never cooked, doesn't know the first thing about food or produce, portions, caloric needs, they won't see it goes beyond just not eating candies.

You have to stop eating that much, you have to become more active and then stay that way. You can't just revert back once you've hit your goal. Even something as simple as taking the stairs to work or class instead of elevators will create a positive change in your life.

 

[Nabbis]

I wonder if there's a certain threshold that you makes losing accumulated fat(in a long lasting manner) far more difficult.

 

[Nocebo]

Well, yes, but that is kind of the point of Ramadan isn't it? To relate to the people that have it worse than you? Is that really an argument to make it seem easy to skip meals?

Of course it is within my capacity, but it would limit my productivity and it would not be something in which I'd have no difficulty, especially when you would do it repeatedly.

And there is little extra effort to make bigger lunches, especially because I prepare my lunches at work. But I can't always predict when I'll be hungry and I'm trying to lose a bit more weight.

Also if that is a solution for skipping another meal, well that would be kind of counterproductive.



Because motivation and willpower is not something that everyone of us has in unlimited supply. Also, automatically sound so easy, but both taking in less calories and burning more calories is something that you have to put effort into.

How do you know you can't get used to ignoring the hunger feeling? How do you know the intensity of the hunger feeling won't subside? Have you ever tried doing it for a year or at least a very long time?

The Ramadan example was meant to illustrate a scale of difficulty when it comes to ignoring hunger. In my mind it is possible for almost any adult to not eat and drink for 12 hours for example. The not being allowed to drink is probably the hardest part. So that means being able to eat a little bit every few hours or waiting a couple of hours to eat should be pretty easy for most people, yeah? Plus they're allowed to drink as much water as they want. I guess I'm way off, though. So I'll stop trying to argue this.

By the way what do you drink every day?

 

[thepotatoman]

Maybe this one study alone doesn't prove the difficulty of losing weight, but every study I've seen seems to put success rates of losing 5% of your weight rate as being somewhat decent, and the success rate of losing 10% of your weight as being pretty poor. Only 20% of overweight people are able to lose 10% of their body weight for 1 year, and that number only goes down for every year after that.

For an obese person to attain a normal weight, they have to lose at least 20% of their weight, and that's not something I can find data for. Closest to that I've seen is this, which studied 621 people who lost a mean of 25.5% of their weight for men and 22.6% for women through a very low calorie diet.

After 3 years, only 35% of of those stayed below 10% of their original weight, which is still a lot better than the average and points to a brief low calorie diet for rapid weight loss as possible option for long term loss since you'll still have a good chance to level out below your original weight, but is not a good sign for the ease of maintaining a 20% weight loss even if you do achieve it. I'm sure achieving that 20% weight loss through other means would probably have better long term results, but I highly doubt there's much success in reaching that 20% weight loss through any other means.

 

[PanicFreak]

Well I guess you're clearly not a follower of Islam. Jokes aside, skipping things to a certain degree certainly isn't difficult (or perhaps it is only not difficult in my imagination?). Skipping 1 meal or half a meal is peanuts compared to what followers of Islam seem to go through during Ramadan. And there's over a billion of em doing it for a month (I'm assuming). Yes, it is an extreme example but skipping only one meal or half of a couple of meals seems well within the capacity of a human being and in a normal situation they're even allowed to drink as much water as they want! Humans are known to routinely ignore pain and the like as well. Ignoring hunger for 4 hours seems pedestrian.

Where is extra effort in preparing 2 sandwiches for lunch instead of 4 or 6?

This. Most people don't really know true hunger. Not eating for days at a time because you can't afford to buy food. That's what this world is like for some people. Four hours is nothing.

 

[Rookje]

If you were overweight for a significant amount of time (1 year or so), then lost weight your body will never be the same. It knew you could find those calories and retain that fat at one point and will do anything it can to get it back by manipulating your hunger and fat storage hormones. To keep the weight off is a permanent sort of eating disorder. There can't be a moment you aren't thinking about your weight, or what you're eating. You aren't normal.

Partying till 3am drinking and doing a taco bell run may be acceptable for someone who was never significantly overweight, but for the "ex-losers" that little stint is a huge deterrence that can easily hurl you back into your former self. And having to forgo birthday cakes, happy hour, the bread basket will make you seem un-cool among others who can easily participate since they never transitioned from being overweight.

 

[Dusk Soldier]

Honestly, preparing food is the hardest part, especially when you work full time. Trying to prep 3 meals a day is a daunting task, even more so when you're doing it for the entire family. It sucks, but it helps immensely. Add in having to exercise regularly during the week and you can see why it's so hard for people. You either need to compromise your wind down time or your sleep, neither of which most people are willing to do. I chose to sleep less and workout more, while ultimately trying (and failing to just sleep more on the weekends), but I also play soccer during the spring and fall so I don't workout nearly as much during those seasons.

Long story short, despite all the compromise, I'm still pretty hefty...not nearly as much as I was say..3 or 4 years ago, but I've found it really rough to break 250, especially when the time it took me to go from 305 to 260 was pretty quick.

While it's not always practical to do this, I think eating leftovers for Lunch helps cut down on the meal prep time. Especially since breakfast foods are typically very easy to prepare.

 

[Aske]

I once read that alcoholism is a disease, a choice, and a curse. I think the same is true of obesity.

We need to recognize that while willpower is a factor, for most people it's not enough to bring about the level of change that's necessary. People need help beyond education and societal pressure. I'm sure we'll see the equivalent of live-in drug rehabilitation clinics spring up in the next few years to deal with this epidemic.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

I think the biggest thing people need to start to understand is that being hungry isn't a bad thing.

Right now it's around 3:00, I have dinner around 6:00.

Today I had an english muffin with 1 tbsp of penut butter, one tbsp of jam, 8oz of milk, some coffee for breakfast. Around 11 I had wheat bread with two slices of roast beef and a slice of cheese.

That's not that much food, and I'm pretty fucking hungry right now. But that's ok! It's not a bad thing to be hungry for a few hours a day. When I was a kid anytime I was hungry I would eat till I was full, and that's how I developed my horrible habits.

Actually being hungry is a bad thing, being hungry triggers a metabolic slow down to conserve what energy reserve a person has. So that when they do eat their body will hold onto as much energy as possible from the food.

 

[Condom]

Food was a mistake, it was nothing but trash.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I once read that alcoholism is a disease, a choice, and a curse. I think the same is true of obesity.

We need to recognize that while willpower is a factor, for most people it's not enough to bring about the level of change that's necessary. People need help beyond education and societal pressure. I'm sure we'll see the equivalent of live-in drug rehabilitation clinics spring up in the next few years to deal with this epidemic.

"fat camps" have been around for decades.

 

[grumble]

Because people don't stick to it and also because without massive changes to your lifestyle and way of eating, you'll revert back. There is a reason it's called fad diet. You have to commit to changing the way you live, eat and exercise. Once you're obese, you've ingrained probably decades of poor eating habits, sedentary lifestyle. When you've grown up eating junk food, sitting on the sofa watching television or playing games, never gone on hikes, swam, played sports, you're going to find its tough to lose weight. Additionally, someone who has never cooked, doesn't know the first thing about food or produce, portions, caloric needs, they won't see it goes beyond just not eating candies.

You have to stop eating that much, you have to become more active and then stay that way. You can't just revert back once you've hit your goal. Even something as simple as taking the stairs to work or class instead of elevators will create a positive change in your life.

Not only is it a huge educational and lifestyle change, it's also your body fighting you and your very real addiction to the reward from food getting in the way.

It's like telling a heroin addict that they still need to pick up and use heroin, only pretty bad heroin and not enough to scratch the itch. It's also right next to the good stuff, costs more and is less convenient. And a lot of good stuff looks like the bad stuff unless you know what to look for, and you have to pretty consistently do it forever. Oh, and you have to change your daily habits too.

I mean doable yeah but hard!

 

[injurai]

Food was a mistake, it was nothing but trash.

Turn back, photosynthesis is better.

 

[Prophet Steve]

How do you know you can't get used to ignoring the hunger feeling? How do you know the intensity of the hunger feeling won't subside? Have you ever tried doing it for a year or at least a very long time?

The Ramadan example was meant to illustrate a scale of difficulty when it comes to ignoring hunger. In my mind it is possible for almost any adult to not eat and drink for 12 hours for example. The not being allowed to drink is probably the hardest part. So that means being able to eat a little bit every few hours or waiting a couple of hours to eat should be pretty easy for most people, yeah? Plus they're allowed to drink as much water as they want. I guess I'm way off, though. So I'll stop trying to argue this.

By the way what do you drink every day?

Well, when I don't eat it gets worse until I eat, there have been times where I got hungry and had not eaten immediately. Only time when that is different if I would be somewhat hungry before going to bed. No I haven't tried to habitually skip a meal for a longer time. This is also likely to be pretty useless advice for an obese person to try to lose weight. They have enough difficulty as it is when they try to lose weight. Just telling them to skip a meal until they aren't bothered by it anymore is not going to work.

And again, I am perfectly capable of skipping a meal and be hungry for a few hours. Doesn't mean it isn't bothersome to deal with. And I'm sure many obese people also don't feel like being hungry for a few hours. It is not more likely for them to skip a meal instead of just going for something unhealthy.

I pretty much drink only water throughout the day, 1.5-2 liters per day if I would have to guess. Sometimes tea.

This. Most people don't really know true hunger. Not eating for days at a time because you can't afford to buy food. That's what this world is like for some people. Four hours is nothing.

Well duh, if everybody would apply this context to everything why do we have overweight people in the first place. There are plenty of people that have to physically exercise all day and have very little to eat. Losing weight is nothing!

 

[Jackben]

What I don't understand is what the "fat acceptance movement" is all about.

 

[Aske]

"fat camps" have been around for decades.

Yes, but they're not treated as the mainstream solution that's necessary for most people.

 

[Prophet Steve]

What I don't understand is what the "fat acceptance movement" is all about.

I'm not entirely sure it is related to the thread.

But you'll likely have some people that want to promote it so they feel less guilty about being fat. And then you have people who think them being fat only affects them and therefore nobody else should judge them for it.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Actually being hungry is a bad thing, being hungry triggers a metabolic slow down to conserve what energy reserve a person has. So that when they do eat their body will hold onto as much energy as possible from the food.

you're talking about starvation, being hungry for a few hours a day isn't going to cause the food you eat to store and not burn it.

 

[AndyD]

While it's not always practical to do this, I think eating leftovers for Lunch helps cut down on the meal prep time. Especially since breakfast foods are typically very easy to prepare.

Indeed. Not every meal every day needs to be different and so it's not as impractical as described. Many people prep large dishes that last for days.

We prep two large dishes on Sundays, one for lunches, one for dinners that lasts 3-4 days. Also being versatile with food can mean a dinner can be prepped in minutes. A roast chicken with sides on the first night can mean a salad with chicken for lunch the next and a quick chicken omellete or sandwich for dinner the next with minimal prep.

Also keeping on hand rice, pasta, sauces, frozen veggies can speed things up enormously. I know we don't do a perfect job, but we can have dinner on the table for two adults and two toddlers in less than 15 minutes at least 4-5 nights a week. It's not easy, but not impossible.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

What I don't understand is what the "fat acceptance movement" is all about.

It's mainly an offshoot of the self-esteem movement.

It's one thing to not be a dick to people, it's another to promote an unhealthy style of living and encorage that being overweight is "healthy" and "natural".

 

[unholyrevenger72]

you're talking about starvation, being hungry for a few hours a day isn't going to cause the food you eat to store and not burn it.

No, hunger is a metabolic trigger regardless of the degree. People are designed to graze, you're supposed eat a small something every couple of waking hours the problem is people eat the wrong things, they Oreos instead of some carrots, they eat chips instead of an Apple. Going hungry is never a good eating habit.

 

[Sanke__]

It's mainly an offshoot of the self-esteem movement.

It's one thing to not be a dick to people, it's another to promote an unhealthy style of living and encorage that being overweight is "healthy" and "natural".

Yeah and it's one thing to say being overweight is unhealthy; it's another thing to tell overweight people to fuck off quit being lazy and get skinny if they want to be accepted as a member of the human race

Call me crazy but it might help with the underlying self esteem issues to start with the acceptance part then move to the health part

 

[Wiktor]

It's because people threat obesity as a result of consuming extra calories. Which is true, but it ignores what is also is - an effect of addition to junk food. Unless you treat it as addition you will most likely fail (unless you get a surgery). Plenty of obese people drop to normal weight, but then they foolishly assueme they're ok now and start eating "normally", assuming they will be able to control it. It's bassicaly like an alcoholic would get his one year sober chip and went "OMG! I'm cured! Let's go celebrate in the bar!"

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

No, hunger is a metabolic trigger regardless of the degree. People are designed to graze, you're supposed eat a small something every couple of waking hours the problem is people eat the wrong things, they Oreos instead of some carrots, they eat chips instead of an Apple. Going hungry is never a good eating habit.

If you're trying to diet, then grazing isn't going to be a great solution. Eating little snacks isn't really going to reduce ones hunger for a good period of time, and it's only going to increase your intake for the day.

If you're trying to maintain weight, grazing is perfectly fine.

That's the issue, dieting is hard because you're reducing the caloric intake of your body so it burns it's reserves. It requires dedication and constant tracking of what you eat and how much.

Yeah and it's one thing to say being overweight is unhealthy; it's another thing to tell overweight people to fuck off quit being lazy and get skinny if they want to be accepted as a member of the human race

Call me crazy but it might help with the underlying self esteem issues to start with the acceptance part then move to the health part

Which covers part A, don't be a dick.

 

[Wiktor]

Actually being hungry is a bad thing, being hungry triggers a metabolic slow down to conserve what energy reserve a person has. So that when they do eat their body will hold onto as much energy as possible from the food.

Yes. But that metabolic slow down only starts after about 70 hours of fasting. Before that your metabolism actually speeds up because your body is trying to give you enough energy to hunt something tasty down.

Of course, if you keep very low calories intake every single day your metabolism will slown down too. Hence if you want to seriously limit calories it's best to do 36 hours complete fasts every couple days. And no..people aren't meant to be grazing. People are meant to stuff themselves up to a point of it being painfull and then go on for longer periods of time without any food.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Your last sentence does not make any sense, since anything related to public health policy is based on epidemiology. Infection control, cancer screening, etc.

Drawing conclusions about cause and effect based solely off of epidemiological studies is a problem. They are a great place to start--something with which to form a hypothesis--but I think it's a pretty big problem that public health policy is based on them without a great deal of further research.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

It was 50% before they saw the statistics.