EPTObesity now a global issue - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zerste
United States112 Posts
| ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
I'm a skinny guy, but during my ICT jobs my weight went up to 100kilo. Those jobs paid good money, but I hated them. In the end I gave up on it. I found out I was way more happy with a less paid, less serious job in a big busy store than a well paid job in an office. No more stress, no more deadlines. Instead of staring at the same monitor, together with the same 3 people in the same room day in day out who rarely say a word, I'm now chatting and having fun at my work with all kinds of different people all day. And no more sitting all day anymore. Still enough sitting of course, I'm still a gamer  But during the day lots more walking and standing. That's all that was needed for me, I lost 30kilos and that's back to the 70 kilo I've always been No sports. No diet. Just less stress, more fun and more walking during the day. Fuck my 5 year study and career. Im so much healthier and happier now  | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 22 2014 22:03 keit wrote: That is not the point though. If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories. I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed. Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods. But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories. The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On June 23 2014 01:49 IgnE wrote: Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods. But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories. The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious. You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved. This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^ face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/ | ||
|
zdfgucker
China594 Posts
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh : -everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^ face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/ Meh. People prefer blaming others or diseases rather than themself. That's normal. Obviously it's not rocket science that you lose weight by running even a slight energy deficit but then again that requires willpower and some work for most people, i.e. the ones that aren't actually ill. However it's fruitless preaching all that again and again. Most people do know that and choose to ignore it. That's fine with me (it's your body overall) but I guess insurance companies should react and adjust their rates accordingly and either reward people for living healthy or punish for being unhealthy, whatever they prefer. Do whatever you want to, just don't make me pay for the consequences. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 03:21 Ropid wrote: You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved. This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality. Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh : -everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^ face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/ Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 23 2014 03:39 zdfgucker wrote: ...and either reward people for living healthy or punish for being unhealthy, whatever they prefer. Do whatever you want to, just don't make me pay for the consequences. Same is true for alcohol, any other drug, dangerous sports, and basically everything that is fun and involves you leaving your house. I'd rather pay for other peoples stupid behaviour than live in a society of pretentious pricks. On June 23 2014 04:24 IgnE wrote: Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work. You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 04:25 Nyxisto wrote: You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat. Yeah you don't need a PhD but come on. That's demonstrably false. Most of the food people eat in the western world is processed food. People routinely eat more of that food than they should because its addictive, deceptively caloric, and nutrient poor. I know that you would prefer that it was intuitive to people but it's not. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On June 23 2014 04:21 IgnE wrote: Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter. From everything I've learned about this, this is just not true. The diet can be close to 100% carbs or it can be close to 100% fats, and it ends up being roughly the same. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 23 2014 05:02 IgnE wrote: Yeah you don't need a PhD but come on. That's demonstrably false. Most of the food people eat in the western world is processed food. People routinely eat more of that food than they should because its addictive, deceptively caloric, and nutrient poor. I know that you would prefer that it was intuitive to people but it's not. You don't just wake up and are obese. If you're gaining weight you start noticing it. You can argue that people aren't responsible for being undisciplined , which might very well be true, but it's not about the knowledge or the deceptive food industry. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 05:18 Nyxisto wrote: You don't just wake up and are obese. If you're gaining weight you start noticing it. You can argue that people aren't responsible for being undisciplined , which might very well be true, but it's not about the knowledge or the deceptive food industry. So you've gone from, "knowing how much to eat of a given meal throughout the day is intuitive" to "you don't just wake up one day with a bunch of fat on you." If you can't see how the two are different I don't know what to tell you. The realities of living mean that people have to make judgments about how much to eat without knowing how many calories are in what they are eating, being 20%, 30%, 50% off of the real values. On top of that they have a broken metabolism, broken by design through an industry that knows its selling non-nutritive, calorically dense, addictive, unsatisfying products, so that they don't feel full until they've overeaten and feel hungry when they don't need to eat. If you say, fine, fine, that's all true but people still can notice they are getting fat then you've just fallen back into an obviously true, completely trivial observation that lends nothing to the conversation except obfuscating the real issues at play. Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 05:08 Ropid wrote: From everything I've learned about this, this is just not true. The diet can be close to 100% carbs or it can be close to 100% fats, and it ends up being roughly the same. That's great. Nutrition is perhaps the most convoluted human science. Nutrition books are already a decade or more out of date by the time they get published, and combing through nutrition books over several decades leads to totally conflicting information. I'm not even going to evaluate the hyperbolic claims you've asserted because they are ridiculous on their face, depending on your definition of "close to." If you want to talk about the nitty gritty of an actually complete diet compared to another actual complete diet be my guest. I wouldn't deny that diets can get similar results despite varying widely between people or even across the same person. That still doesn't mean that all calories are created equal. There's no biological basis for the distinction between "drugs" and "foodstuffs" that some cultures and governments create. We aren't cars with combustion engines. | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
![[image loading]](http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.10476250.7096/fc,550x550,white.jpg) User was warned for this post | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 23 2014 06:05 IgnE wrote: Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious. But what are you gonna do about it? That's the only way to shed pounds. Banning food is probably not a very good idea given the fact other prohibition adventures went. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On June 23 2014 06:12 IgnE wrote: That's great. Nutrition is perhaps the most convoluted human science. Nutrition books are already a decade or more out of date by the time they get published, and combing through nutrition books over several decades leads to totally conflicting information. I'm not even going to evaluate the hyperbolic claims you've asserted because they are ridiculous on their face, depending on your definition of "close to." If you want to talk about the nitty gritty of an actually complete diet compared to another actual complete diet be my guest. I wouldn't deny that diets can get similar results despite varying widely between people or even across the same person. That still doesn't mean that all calories are created equal. There's no biological basis for the distinction between "drugs" and "foodstuffs" that some cultures and governments create. We aren't cars with combustion engines. I feel I don't understand your point. I read what you are saying as, obese people would be merely overweight or possibly normal-weight if they'd rearrange the sources for the calories in their diet, could stay with the exact same overall calorie count despite losing weight? I really think that's just wrong. Do you have something concrete I could look at, perhaps a study about a particular diet change or something? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
You can lose a lot more weight, maintain a lot more muscle, and feel healthier eating X number of calories of real food than you can eating X number of calories eating the garbage that passes for food in most American grocery stores. Not only is compliance and success rate going to be higher with the real food option but there are also going to be physical differences in the weight lost on a twinkie diet of X calories vs. a raw vegan diet vs. a fruit, vegetable, and meat diet because all affect the maintenance and operation of your body in different ways. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 06:21 Nyxisto wrote: But what are you gonna do about it? That's the only way to shed pounds. Banning food is probably not a very good idea given the fact other prohibition adventures went. There are plenty of things you can do about it beyond the intellectually lazy dichotomy of preserving the status quo or banning foods. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 23 2014 07:01 IgnE wrote: There are plenty of things you can do about it beyond the intellectually lazy dichotomy of preserving the status quo or banning foods. .. for example? | ||
| ||
