Fat shaming vs. necessary dialouge on obesity

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
Vegosiux said:
All I know is that they have reasons and that I don't know anyone's reasons, because I simply don't care enough about the issue. But since I'm not a complete misanthrope, I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt. Or maybe I'm just doing that because we can't even agree what "fat" means whenever such a discussion starts. BMI is a lousy measure, since excessive fitness (yes, I used those words in the same sentence) will also result in an abnormally high BMI...
This isn't and shouldn't be about judging the invididual. You made several posts now that are pretty much just repeated finger wagging how we shouldn't judge people. Yes, individuals may have reasons, big surprise, thanks for the input.
The larger picture here, and the reason for the PSA that's supposedly underlying this discussion, is that research shows how obesity is threatening to become (or you could say already is) a costly cultural problem in developed countries. The reason for this is not 100% clear, but it's popped up in the recent years. As a previous poster also pointed out, research shows that it's difficult to stop being obese for the average person (with only a ~20% long term success rate).
So, pray tell, what do we do about this problem? Ignore it lest we hurt anyone's feelings?

That said, I would consider a more productive approach than the "lay off the fries, tubby!" some people here seem to favour. When I started exercising I was lucky enough to have a mostly deserted track field nearby to get me started. The idea of people watching me as I began my pathetic laps every morning... it's unpleasant. So much so that if I didn't have said conveniently deserted track nearby I might have never started.
So in a way, all those slurs and scorn against being overweight might actually prevent people from exercising, because they are ashamed to exercise their unfit bodies in public? I can't be sure about the larger scale of course, but at least for me that was a big hurdle.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
giles said:
The larger picture here, and the reason for the PSA that's supposedly underlying this discussion, is that research shows how obesity is threatening to become (or you could say already is) a costly cultural problem in developed countries. The reason for this is not 100% clear, but it's popped up in the recent years. As a previous poster also pointed out, research shows that it's difficult to stop being obese for the average person (with only a ~20% long term success rate).
So, pray tell, what do we do about this problem? Ignore it lest we hurt anyone's feelings?
No, we deal with it. But we're going to have to spend some tax dollars, euros, sterlings, or shekels on it one way or another. And preferably we do it in a way that actually helps the society in general, instead of sending the message that as long as someone's got their head stuck so deep int heir own ass it's right back on their shoulders again the society should cater to their every whim and ostracize whoever they don't like.

That said, I would consider a more productive approach than the "lay off the fries, tubby!" some people here seem to favour. When I started exercising I was lucky enough to have a mostly deserted track field nearby to get me started. The idea of people watching me as I began my pathetic laps every morning... it's unpleasant. So much so that if I didn't have said conveniently deserted track nearby I might have never started.
So in a way, all those slurs and scorn against being overweight might actually prevent people from exercising, because they are ashamed to exercise their unfit bodies in public? I can't be sure about the larger scale of course, but at least for me that was a big hurdle.
I so hope everyone participating in this thread reads this particular bit, especially some of the posters I've been replying to in it. Though I'm afraid I can half-predict that they're going to say the entire "being anxious about people ridiculing you for trying to lose weight in public" shtick is some sort of rite of passage you need to fulfill before you're worthy of joining the master race.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Vegosiux said:
All I know is that they have reasons and that I don't know anyone's reasons, because I simply don't care enough about the issue. But since I'm not a complete misanthrope, I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt.
There's having compassion and there's respecting other peoples choices as a basic matter of personal liberty. That I agree with. I'm not about to start making fun of a chubby guy jogging down the street, and I don't go up to fat women and slap the ice cream out of their hands.

But benefit of the doubt only goes so far before the "explanations" start smelling like bullshit. Like when somebody claims it's "genetic" that they weight 350lbs (and the fact that they eat a large pizza every day is purely coincidental). Or when people claim all their excess weight is due to self-diagnosed hypothyroidism (despite thyroid disorder being associated with only moderate amounts of excess weight). Or when people self-report eating under 1500 Calories a day and regular exercise and are increasing in weight; which is more likely: they're a) overestimating their exercise and underestimating caloric intake or b) they're breaking the laws of thermodynamics?

Everybody has reasons for what they do. Some of those reasons are valid, others aren't worth the time of day, particularly when they're based on completely fallacious information and faulty logic, and especially when this faulty reasoning is then used to oppose health education, undermine efforts to reduce childhood obesity, etc. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Put it this way: if somebody claimed their genetics made smoking completely harmless for them, would you believe them? What if they used this belief to justify letting their kids smoke? Would you extend benefit of the doubt to them, despite it going against everything you know about the health risks of smoking?
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
Vegosiux said:
I so hope everyone participating in this thread reads this particular bit, especially some of the posters I've been replying to in it. Though I'm afraid I can half-predict that they're going to say the entire "being anxious about people ridiculing you for trying to lose weight in public" shtick is some sort of rite of passage you need to fulfill before you're worthy of joining the master race.
Like I said, it's hard to generalize from my personal experience. I am, if you excuse my lack of modesty for a moment, now approaching the build of a greek god and I still feel awkward when my run takes me through a densely populated area or when I think people might be watching me exercise through the window. But it's at least an example of how a scornful attitude towards obesity can contribute to making it worse.
 

Henkie36

New member
Aug 25, 2010
678
0
0
The solution is actually quite simple: treat it like the issue of a group of people, not target the individual. The smaller the group gets, the more effective it becomes, until you get to a single person, where the pressure can easily become too much.
 

Kinitawowi

New member
Nov 21, 2012
575
0
0
The opposite of acceptance is not shaming.

Here's the way I see fatness - it's a symptom, not the problem. You're fat? That's not necessarily a problem. You eat like shit, never exercise and would get somebody else to take a dump for you if it were possible to save you the effort? That's a problem.

Fatness is, in 99% of cases, the most outwardly visible symptom of a potential number of unpleasant problems. Eating disorders, anxiety issues, etcetera, nobody feels comfortable when symptoms are as publicly visible as excessive weight and obesity, because they tell the world that there are underlying problems.

Those problems need to be addressed. Eating disorders, psychological compulsions, overeating through anxiety, they're nasty and difficult problems. Exercise is still part of a balanced solution, though.

Being fat because you're lazy, though? And let's be honest, most of us have the ability to lose weight through some not particularly massive lifestyle changes? Stop blaming society for thinking you're ugly. I live with people who would sooner sit in a chair and shout at somebody elsewhere in the house than actually get up and walk around, or climb stairs. Those slights I mentioned up top? Yup, all based on a real person. The sum total of the physical effort they do in simply moving around the house is just enough to haul their fat arse up and down the stairs to bed, and to waddle to the toilet and back. And they smoke as well, just for good measure. The symptom is being fat. The problem is being bone idle. Neither of those is a pleasant image. Basic exercise is cheap (£0).

Fat people should not be shamed. Lazy bastards should be. And most fat people fall into the latter category.
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
Vegosiux said:
renegade7 said:
You don't need help. You have the time. You don't need to spend money on equipment, or trainers, or special food. You know EXACTLY what you need to do: it's no simpler than "Eat less, exercise more." I came down to a healthy, even athletic weight, from near-morbid obesity in under two years, while taking 20 credit hour semesters (maintaining a 3.75 GPA to keep my scholarship) and working two jobs to pay for college.

You have got to be kidding me. This is what the entire build-up was about?
Hey, this was a rant, not a professional editorial piece. I think I should have put that bit earlier, though excellent point.

You think this gets you into the privileged club of thin people? Sorry, only us people who have always been thin get to have that privilege ;)
OMG check your privilege shitlord. You've never known how hard it is to have to stretch your seat belt all the way out when you drive to the Burger King two blocks away. You don't me! You don't know my life! OPPRESSION = POWER + PRIVILEGE! AFTER THE REVOLUTION MAYBE YOU'LL KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
Kinitawowi said:
Fat people should not be shamed. Lazy bastards should be. And most fat people fall into the latter category.
Shaming is not helping anyone. You are statistically likely to be an unhealthy, lazy bastard compared to my current lifestyle. Should you be ashamed?
No, what would be the point? If someone wants to change to a more healthy lifestyle that will also benefit society, we should encourage and educate them. The public should have an overwhelmingly positive attitude (the whole package with thumbs up and friendly smiles) to seeing an obese person ordering a light meal or work out at the gym or do nordic walking or whatever it is old people do for exercise. What's really happening though? Tacit condescension. Exchanging grins or raised eyebrows when they pass by or order said meal. At least that's my experience.
If they don't want to change it's their choice. No point guilt tripping them.
 

Kinitawowi

New member
Nov 21, 2012
575
0
0
giles said:
If someone wants to change to a more healthy lifestyle that will also benefit society, we should encourage and educate them. The public should have an overwhelmingly positive attitude (the whole package with thumbs up and friendly smiles) to seeing an obese person ordering a light meal or work out at the gym or do nordic walking or whatever it is old people do for exercise. What's really happening though? Tacit condescension. Exchanging grins or raised eyebrows when they pass by or order said meal.
Oh, I completely agree with you. I love the notion of people recognising a problem, and seeking to better themselves, and they should be roundly applauded for it. But do you know how many times I've seen an obese person order a light meal or work out at the gym or do nordic walking or whatever? I can count that on one hand. Do you know many times I've seen an obese person continue to feed their obesity and allow it to grow and fester? Too many.
 

ILikeEggs

New member
Mar 30, 2011
64
0
0
Ninmecu said:
I love it when people throw that statistic around but never bother to do any research into the changes that occurred during that same time frame. In the 1960's there was a lobby reform based around the observational study done by one Ancel Keys, which stated with a graph that the higher dietary fat in a countries population, the higher the heart disease rate. It was a clearly unmistakeable line pattern. The hook? He threw out 16 countries in his 22 country study because it didn't show the direct correlation that he wanted to put forward. His reward for this bit of scientific voodoo, was to become a part of the American Heart Associations board of directors, meaning suddenly overnight the AHA decided the "Heart Healthy Benefits" of a low fat high carb diet would be spread across America. The problem? No clinical studies have ever shown a direct correlation between Dietary Fat intake and increased CHD and CVD.(Heart Disease and Cardiovascular disease.) So suddenly overnight we went from a population that ate high fat and restricted carbohydrate intake to the occasional treat, to basing our entire diets on it.
Man, I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. I think everyone eating a highly Westernised diet(high amounts of processed carbs, sugars, low protein and fat) should probably consider reading the book "Death by Food Pyramid" by Denise Minger.

Another thing that drives me insane is when people talk about how bad red meat is for you, and conveniently choose to ignore a number of things.
One, that all those "Red-Meat studies" are often backed by organisations with vested interests in people eating less red meak(aka PETA).
Two, such studies citing decreased life expectancy more often than not fail to account for the fact that people who eat red meat are often the same people who drink(sometimes excessively), smoke, eat highly processed food and avoid exercise, while the vegetarians tend to be more conscious about smoking, drinking, exercising, and the quality of the food they eat.
Lastly, how all these studies exclusively target people eating muscle meat, which is not really something we as humans evolved doing. As if our pre-historic ancestors evolved killing animals and throwing away livers, kidneys, hearts, brains, tripe, bone marrow and connective tissue, just to eat the muscle meat.

chikusho said:
Something to remember is that it's almost impossible to be cured from obesity.
Might want to back that up with some statistics, because right now that sounds like a load of shit.

I wonder how many people in this thread who claim they can't easily lose weight have tried cutting added sugar, processed foods and excessive carbs and adding in more vegetables, high quality protein(pasture-raised meat, or fish) and healthy fats(coconut oil, butter, high fat meat) into their diets. Throw in 20-30 minutes of intense exercise every 2nd day and I'm pretty sure they'd even have some muscle definition.
 

Ninmecu

New member
May 31, 2011
262
0
0
ILikeEggs said:
Ninmecu said:
I love it when people throw that statistic around but never bother to do any research into the changes that occurred during that same time frame. In the 1960's there was a lobby reform based around the observational study done by one Ancel Keys, which stated with a graph that the higher dietary fat in a countries population, the higher the heart disease rate. It was a clearly unmistakeable line pattern. The hook? He threw out 16 countries in his 22 country study because it didn't show the direct correlation that he wanted to put forward. His reward for this bit of scientific voodoo, was to become a part of the American Heart Associations board of directors, meaning suddenly overnight the AHA decided the "Heart Healthy Benefits" of a low fat high carb diet would be spread across America. The problem? No clinical studies have ever shown a direct correlation between Dietary Fat intake and increased CHD and CVD.(Heart Disease and Cardiovascular disease.) So suddenly overnight we went from a population that ate high fat and restricted carbohydrate intake to the occasional treat, to basing our entire diets on it.
Man, I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. I think everyone eating a highly Westernised diet(high amounts of processed carbs, sugars, low protein and fat) should probably consider reading the book "Death by Food Pyramid" by Denise Minger.

Another thing that drives me insane is when people talk about how bad red meat is for you, and conveniently choose to ignore a number of things.
One, that all those "Red-Meat studies" are often backed by organisations with vested interests in people eating less red meak(aka PETA).
Two, such studies citing decreased life expectancy more often than not fail to account for the fact that people who eat red meat are often the same people who drink(sometimes excessively), smoke, eat highly processed food and avoid exercise, while the vegetarians tend to be more conscious about smoking, drinking, exercising, and the quality of the food they eat.
Lastly, how all these studies exclusively target people eating muscle meat, which is not really something we as humans evolved doing. As if our pre-historic ancestors evolved killing animals and throwing away livers, kidneys, hearts, brains, tripe, bone marrow and connective tissue, just to eat the muscle meat.

chikusho said:
Something to remember is that it's almost impossible to be cured from obesity.
Might want to back that up with some statistics, because right now that sounds like a load of shit.

I wonder how many people in this thread who claim they can't easily lose weight have tried cutting added sugar, processed foods and excessive carbs and adding in more vegetables, high quality protein(pasture-raised meat, or fish) and healthy fats(coconut oil, butter, high fat meat) into their diets. Throw in 20-30 minutes of intense exercise every 2nd day and I'm pretty sure they'd even have some muscle definition.


Those red meat studies also include heavily processed meats among them. They never purely test for red meats to show any negative effects and when they do, they cherry pick the results by using observational studies. Very rarely are double blind clinical trials done to effectively test various diets for human consumption and long term health, the most prevalent I can think of is the A to Z study, or the Atkins, Total, Ornish and Zero diet(s) respectively. Though I'll admit, I might be mistaken on the name of the T diet. In double blind studies we're realizing that the Germans had the right idea in the 1930's with restriction of carbohydrate intake and free reign on protein and dietary fats(From animals, not these new age chemically produced "fats", though I'll include the healthy naturally occurring saturated fats like Coconut/Olive/Nuts because they are just as good for you as animal fats.) In one fell swoop we ignored a century and a halfs worth of empirical data and supported a god damned Observational study that excluded 16 viable countries that didn't support the theory put forward.


Now? We've got the obesity epidemic and everyone is quick to throw the blame around at everyone else. Ever watched Supersize me? That one doctor in it pisses me the fuck off. "You're eating a high fat diet, you're eating a high fat diet, you're pickling your liver on this high fat diet, its' going to kill you." Then at the end of the movie they show how much food he consumed throughout the month. He ingested over 1lb of SUGAR EVERY SINGLE DAY. EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. DAY. His fat content? roughly 240~grams/day which even by Ketogenic standards is rather high but by no means terror inducing, in actuality he ingested about 2160 kCals a day in fat. Which sounds like a lot, until you remember, his dietician stated at least twice during the movie, "You're eating 5,000 calories a day." 5,000 calories a day for a sedentary individual is bad no matter what food you eat. Only a handful of athletes require that kind of caloric content and that's during their training periods, sometimes higher. No sane individual would consume that kind of caloric excess whilst being sedentary. Unless there was something wrong under the hood, which brings us to Adiposity 101, a book that was largely ignored and treated like a piece of vile trash, but I'll save it for another thread because as I said, I intend to do this subject due diligence to spread the word so people can be properly informed and stop this ridiculousness. Google it if you're interested.


Off Topic, I don't love eggs, but I do like your post.


Kinitawowi said:
giles said:
If someone wants to change to a more healthy lifestyle that will also benefit society, we should encourage and educate them. The public should have an overwhelmingly positive attitude (the whole package with thumbs up and friendly smiles) to seeing an obese person ordering a light meal or work out at the gym or do nordic walking or whatever it is old people do for exercise. What's really happening though? Tacit condescension. Exchanging grins or raised eyebrows when they pass by or order said meal.
Oh, I completely agree with you. I love the notion of people recognising a problem, and seeking to better themselves, and they should be roundly applauded for it. But do you know how many times I've seen an obese person order a light meal or work out at the gym or do nordic walking or whatever? I can count that on one hand. Do you know many times I've seen an obese person continue to feed their obesity and allow it to grow and fester? Too many.

Do you know what the "Lite" meal used to be? A burger without a bun, 1 tomatto slice, bit of bacon if you paid the extra and a tall glass of water. Total carb content? Next to nothing. And it worked. These days we have the intelligent design of feeding insulin to diabetics under the pretense that once a diabetic takes insulin, the body becomes slightly less resistant to it, disregarding the fact that we constantly train the body to become /more/ insulin resistant by doing so, leading to greater adipose tissue deposits, leading to our current situation. We have doctors that recommend to obese patients to take a larger dose of insulin if they plan on eating that extra slice of cake rather than teaching them to limit carbohydrate intake in favor of a higher dietary fat intake. Which is, again, a topic for another time.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
giles said:
chikusho said:
Something to remember is that it's almost impossible to be cured from obesity.

The only known ways of curing it is basically surgery, or developing an eating disorder on the opposite side of the spectrum.
People who go from being obese to maintaining a healthy weight are a disappearingly small percentage. In fact, over 80 percent of people who try both with exercise and dieting will weigh more than their starting weight after five years.

That's of course no reason not to make an effort of living healthier. But it's important that people know about this before passing judgement.
Got anything to back that up or are we just making shit up now?
ILikeEggs said:
Might want to back that up with some statistics, because right now that sounds like a load of shit.

"You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number of diets, but then the weight comes back," said Traci Mann, UCLAassociate professor of psychology and lead author of the study. "We found thatthe majority of people regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weightloss was found only in a small minority of participants, while complete weightregain was found in the majority. Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss orhealth benefits for the majority of people."
...
Another study, which examined a variety of lifestyle factorsand their relationship to changes in weight in more than 19,000 healthy older menover a four-year period, found that "one of the best predictors of weight gainover the four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during theyears before the study started," Tomiyama said. In several studies, people incontrol groups who did not diet were not that much worse off ? and in manycases were better off ? than those who did diet, she said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832

ILikeEggs said:
I wonder how many people in this thread who claim they can't easily lose weight have tried cutting added sugar, processed foods and excessive carbs and adding in more vegetables, high quality protein(pasture-raised meat, or fish) and healthy fats(coconut oil, butter, high fat meat) into their diets. Throw in 20-30 minutes of intense exercise every 2nd day and I'm pretty sure they'd even have some muscle definition.
archiebawled said:
No. Developing an eating disorder is very different to managing your intake of calories. Cutting back on pizza and increasing the number of salads you eat is not an eating disorder. Switching from full-sugar coke to diet coke (or something equivalent with much less sugar) is not an eating disorder. Neither is going swimming.

Believe me when I say that I understand that it's difficult to make the changes, but it's not developing an eating disorder, and you're belittling the hard work of people who lose weight in a controlled and sensible manner.
No. But being in a constant state of anxiety over what you can and cannot eat is developing an eating disorder. And that's basically what it takes to deny yourself something that your body is hungering after - salt, fat, sugar and unhealthy foods. Being addicted to food and sugar is just as strong, if not stronger, than a heroin addiction. Only it's harder to kick, because you will literally die without sustenance, so you still have to give your body small portions of the substances.
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
Fat is tricky.

If you live in a socialist country where everyone has to pay for the fat/smoker/druggy healthcare? Then I can see a reason for there to be government nose-sticking, of some sort, because those people's poor choices (note: some fat people are victims of unfortunate biology, not life choices) are affecting others in that they are consuming taxes which could be spent elsewhere.

However. If you live in a country like America where you have to fund your own healthcare, I don't think it is anyone's business (not even concerned family) how you live your life. So long as it's not hurting anyone else? Go for it. Everyone dies sooner or later, you may as well enjoy yourself before you go.

I do however STRONGLY feel that there should be government attention on the link between cheap food and high-calorie-really-bad-for-you-food. I know from living dirt poor myself that 'eating healthy' was just something I couldn't afford to do, in part due to cost and in part because healthy and fresh food doesn't last long. Ideally, some sort of 'nutrient balanced daily intake' slop would be nice. Something cheap or very affordable, it doesn't have to be palatable. Sorry about the tangent.
 

Ninmecu

New member
May 31, 2011
262
0
0
chikusho said:
No. But being in a constant state of anxiety over what you can and cannot eat is developing an eating disorder. And that's basically what it takes to deny yourself something that your body is hungering after - salt, fat, sugar and unhealthy foods. Being addicted to food and sugar is just as strong, if not stronger, than a heroin addiction. Only it's harder to kick, because you will literally die without sustenance, so you still have to give your body small portions of the substances.
But the assumption that fat and salt is bad for your general health is one of those poorly supported dogmatic equations we've grown greatly attached to. Not realizing the science behind it has never truly supported the theory. Hell, science created an entirely new branch of statistical analysis to make it seem like the differences are greater than they actually are.

On the subject of sodium, the AHA(American Heart Association) has lowered it's recommendation of sodium intake to below an acceptable amount for basic survival, never mind long term health.

As for Sugar,


Dr. Lustig is able to explain why we should be banning or at least controlling the substance rather than allowing it free reign.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
VondeVon said:
Fat is tricky.

If you live in a socialist country where everyone has to pay for the fat/smoker/druggy healthcare? Then I can see a reason for there to be government nose-sticking, of some sort, because those people's poor choices (note: some fat people are victims of unfortunate biology, not life choices) are affecting others in that they are consuming taxes which could be spent elsewhere.
Ehhhhh, that's not "socialist". The workforce owning the means of production is "socialist". Public healthcare makes a country socialist the same way being a painter makes you a Nazi.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
michael87cn said:
Becoming fat is a choice.
True, but it is not a choice that begins and ends with them, affecting no one else. I work in hospice care in the United States of America, almost 100% of which is paid for by Medicare--by federal taxes--and the patients of mine who are not dying because of cigarettes are dying of complications of being too fat for too long. The costs of their care and deaths are being passed on to the taxpayers, and while I don't mind that on either a personal level (everyone's gotta die of something) or a professional one (the worse people eat, the better my business), I don't think it's at all fair to dismiss it as a choice no one else is affected by or has any right to comment on.
 

ILikeEggs

New member
Mar 30, 2011
64
0
0
Ninmecu said:
Do you know what the "Lite" meal used to be? A burger without a bun, 1 tomatto slice, bit of bacon if you paid the extra and a tall glass of water. Total carb content? Next to nothing. And it worked. These days we have the intelligent design of feeding insulin to diabetics under the pretense that once a diabetic takes insulin, the body becomes slightly less resistant to it, disregarding the fact that we constantly train the body to become /more/ insulin resistant by doing so, leading to greater adipose tissue deposits, leading to our current situation. We have doctors that recommend to obese patients to take a larger dose of insulin if they plan on eating that extra slice of cake rather than teaching them to limit carbohydrate intake in favor of a higher dietary fat intake. Which is, again, a topic for another time.
Oh man, don't get me started on that. I almost want to laugh when people with diabetes tell me they "Avoid rice and potatoes, but eat 'healthy' starches like whole grains". All those whole grains will turn into just as much blood glucose as an equivalent amount of rice/potatoes, just slower, sunshine.

chikusho said:
"You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number of diets, but then the weight comes back," said Traci Mann, UCLAassociate professor of psychology and lead author of the study. "We found thatthe majority of people regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weightloss was found only in a small minority of participants, while complete weightregain was found in the majority. Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss orhealth benefits for the majority of people."
...
Another study, which examined a variety of lifestyle factorsand their relationship to changes in weight in more than 19,000 healthy older menover a four-year period, found that "one of the best predictors of weight gainover the four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during theyears before the study started," Tomiyama said. In several studies, people incontrol groups who did not diet were not that much worse off ? and in manycases were better off ? than those who did diet, she said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832
Only your initial point was that obesity was "uncurable". Also, that link you're citing isn't exactly doing a good job proving your point. It's not a study in and of itself, simply an analysis of a number of studies, none of which are cited, which could have been conducted without appropriate standards, and don't even bother to distinguish between types of diets.

chikusho said:
No. But being in a constant state of anxiety over what you can and cannot eat is developing an eating disorder. And that's basically what it takes to deny yourself something that your body is hungering after - salt, fat, sugar and unhealthy foods. Being addicted to food and sugar is just as strong, if not stronger, than a heroin addiction. Only it's harder to kick, because you will literally die without sustenance, so you still have to give your body small portions of the substances.
The problem therein is you're assuming you need to be on some masochistic vegan "diet" to lose weight. Or assuming that you have to starve yourself and eat only lettuce and celery three meals a day.

Unsurprisingly, I find myself echoing Ninmecu's sentinments on salt and fat. I've gotten used to the fact that people look at me funny when I discuss nutrition because of propaganda(fat, salt, and red meat are the devil, grains and grain oils are great for you) spawned by people and corporations like Senator George McGovern, Ancel Keys, Colin Campbell, Proctor and Gamble and countless others.
But if you really look back in time at the literature, at all the nutritionists, scientists and statisticians who refused to toe the line and who were demonised or had funding instantly cut off, you'll realise how twisted the standard American diet is, and how literally everything you know about nutrition is wrong. Did you know the human body needs dietary fat to accomplish a host of biological functions? Did you know the body can burn fat as fuel instead of glucose?

I've been eating low carb for over a year now, and yes, I did initially have carb cravings and did backslide a bit, although I've never been one to put on weight. The point is, the hunger and carb cravings were just as bad as an obese person. But I stuck through it for a few months, slowly figuring out how to incorporate more butter, ghee, coconut oil, meat and vegetables into my diet, and eventually my palate, and the kind of food I enjoyed eating changed drastically.
Today, if you asked me to choose between a nice steak with an equal amount of lightly steamed, salted, buttered leafy greens and a deep-dish, stuffed crust pizza, I'd choose the former in an instant, based almost entirely on taste.

So maybe, just maybe people don't understand that dieting isn't solely about calories in and calories out, but also about the quality of each calorie. Maybe that's why all those diets fail; because people are so busy cyclically self-starving and then binging on calorically-dense, low-satiety, low nutrient food that the government tells them is so good for them.
Maybe if they ate food that actually provided sufficient nutrients(rather than just empty calories), satiation and didn't get turned straight into fat(by the way, dietary fat isn't what makes you fat), people wouldn't be back-sliding on their "diets", or as I like to call it, their lifestyle.
 

Ninmecu

New member
May 31, 2011
262
0
0
ILikeEggs said:
Ninmecu said:
Do you know what the "Lite" meal used to be? A burger without a bun, 1 tomatto slice, bit of bacon if you paid the extra and a tall glass of water. Total carb content? Next to nothing. And it worked. These days we have the intelligent design of feeding insulin to diabetics under the pretense that once a diabetic takes insulin, the body becomes slightly less resistant to it, disregarding the fact that we constantly train the body to become /more/ insulin resistant by doing so, leading to greater adipose tissue deposits, leading to our current situation. We have doctors that recommend to obese patients to take a larger dose of insulin if they plan on eating that extra slice of cake rather than teaching them to limit carbohydrate intake in favor of a higher dietary fat intake. Which is, again, a topic for another time.
Oh man, don't get me started on that. I almost want to laugh when people with diabetes tell me they "Avoid rice and potatoes, but eat 'healthy' starches like whole grains". All those whole grains will turn into just as much blood glucose as an equivalent amount of rice/potatoes, just slower, sunshine.

Unsurprisingly, I find myself echoing Ninmecu's sentinments on salt and fat. I've gotten used to the fact that people look at me funny when I discuss nutrition because of propaganda(fat, salt, and red meat are the devil, grains and grain oils are great for you) spawned by people and corporations like Senator George McGovern, Ancel Keys, Colin Campbell, Proctor and Gamble and countless others.
But if you really look back in time at the literature, at all the nutritionists, scientists and statisticians who refused to toe the line and who were demonised or had funding instantly cut off, you'll realise how twisted the standard American diet is, and how literally everything you know about nutrition is wrong. Did you know the human body needs dietary fat to accomplish a host of biological functions? Did you know the body can burn fat as fuel instead of glucose?
Well I've got an easier time of it. I'm a Quarter Algonquin but if you saw me walking down the street you'd swear I was pure. When I do grocery shopping my girlfriend and her mother used to give me odd looks but after seeing me lose 50+lbs over the course of 3 months, they figured I was doing something right. (Though now I'm sitting on 350~ish to get rid of. Fell off the bandwagon and as a child had very little if any protein/fat to eat, a hell of a lot of carbs.) Went to get diagnosed for Celiac's Disease because grains made me feel /very/ ill. Doctor said "you've got /some/ signs of it in your bloodwork, but I'll grant you the diagnosis because you've told me you avoid the problem foods like mad so it stands to reason it's not going to show up. I can't in good consciousness prescribe you to poison yourself simply to prove the test right properly." I've been eating Ketogenically for the last month, lost a good 20lbs, over that initial carb desire hump and I'm going strong at this point. Though I'm far from willing to tell /everyone/ to eat Ketogenically, it's got amazing weight loss potential but it's certainly not for everyone.

One of the other reasons I've been doing all this research on the subject is my father is Type 2 Diabetic and my younger sister(Different father) is type 1. Not long after, I turned out to have Celiacs and Lactose Intolerance. So, I did some research. Found Paleo, tried it out, worked out rather nicely. Didn't ever really worry about CHD or CVD but decided I should look into the matter more, found Fat Head, Good Calories Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat and What To Do About it and more recently the work of Dr. Lustig and his colleagues. Discovered all the issues that have been going on around us, all the bullshit and misinformation that's been spread, pushed by a poorly thought out governmental agenda(No, I don't care if you think this makes me a tinfoil hat wearing fool. Do the research yourself and you'll agree with me.). The whole situation is just, disgustingly bad to look at. I can't take the AHA, ADA, WHO or the Canadian Equivalents(I'm Canadian) seriously anymore. They literally double talk. They tell you we don't know what causes diabetes but we know insulin is part of the problem, so what's the cure? Keep on carbing up and we'll fight it with more Insulin. And we know exactly what Insulin causes in our bodies. We've had the Endocrinology for a long time.


On the subject of the people to blame. I feel for them the same way I feel for the men who put forth the Indian Act of 1867. They fucked up, hard, but they (it seems) had good intentions in mind. Ancel Keys truly wanted to help the world. The problem is, he ignored the basic rule of scientific theory. If you have a theory, it's your job to prove it by looking for Black Swans. If there are no black swans, your theory has merit. But the second you start finding Black Swans, it's time to reconsider and re-assess, he didn't. He adamantly fought for that theory to become accepted. Hell, the AHA was fighting it for years, nearly a decade if memory serves and suddenly he's given a seat on the board and *Add Zelda Chest Theme Here* The AHA then decided his theory was completely and totally legit and anyone who was trying to say otherwise was clearly bought out and corrupt and should have their funding cut. Good god what a horrible time that must've been for many researchers. I feel so sorry for them and I'm proud of those who tried to fight it, I wish I could do more for them(especially during their time of struggle back when it was current.) but they fought to keep the truth from being burried, but we're suffering for it right now.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
ILikeEggs said:
Unsurprisingly, I find myself echoing Ninmecu's sentinments on salt and fat. I've gotten used to the fact that people look at me funny when I discuss nutrition because of propaganda(fat, salt, and red meat are the devil, grains and grain oils are great for you) spawned by people and corporations like Senator George McGovern, Ancel Keys, Colin Campbell, Proctor and Gamble and countless others.
.
when I was a kid there was an old Food pyramid in the homec room..I remember grains and such where pretty much a stale above "bad" things like meat milk and eggs....seemed like bullshit to me even at that age
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
chikusho said:
"You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number of diets, but then the weight comes back," said Traci Mann, UCLAassociate professor of psychology and lead author of the study. "We found thatthe majority of people regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weightloss was found only in a small minority of participants, while complete weightregain was found in the majority. Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss orhealth benefits for the majority of people."
...
Another study, which examined a variety of lifestyle factorsand their relationship to changes in weight in more than 19,000 healthy older menover a four-year period, found that "one of the best predictors of weight gainover the four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during theyears before the study started," Tomiyama said. In several studies, people incontrol groups who did not diet were not that much worse off ? and in manycases were better off ? than those who did diet, she said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832
That study refers to "diets" in the sense of commercial diets like the Atkins or the Zone, non-sustainable crash diets intended to make the person lose a lot of weight quickly. it's not about losing weight in general through exercise, healthy lifestyle changes and healthy diet. It's the slower path but it's more sustainable in the long term.

If dieting doesn't work, what does?

"Eating in moderation is a good idea for everybody, and so is regular exercise," Mann said. "That is not what we looked at in this study."