Fat shaming vs. necessary dialouge on obesity

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
ILikeEggs said:
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.
See below.
Also, it doesn't distinguish, because it doesn't really matter. The different studies all end up with the same or similar results.


Colour Scientist said:
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.
Actually, it refers to the restriction of calories in order to lose weight. And its conclusion is that in many cases, not going on a diet is actually healthier for you than going on a diet. Some of which including studies and programs including exercise, even though they didn't look at that particular thing.

Here's the whole thing.
http://motivatedandfit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Diets_dont_work.pdf

Oh, and here's another thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453

One more thing!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full

It's completetly possible to keep off a small amount of weight for an extended period of time, but people who actually get to and maintain a healthy weight are like unicorns. Thin, sexy unicorns.
http://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/


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."
So, she doesn't know. What's your point?

ILikeEggs said:
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.
No, the problem is that your body is going to tell you that it's starving until it regains all the lost weight. At that point, all you can do is develop a crippling fear of unhealthy foods to scare yourself out of eating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
Vegosiux said:
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.
It is a strong word but I don't know how else to refer to a system that puts taxes towards free/subsidised healthcare for the good of society.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
archiebawled said:
Hungry? Yes, starving? That's a bit much. Swapping crisps for an apple doesn't make you starve. Swapping your lunch from a burger to a salad isn't going to make you starve (I had a salad with chips for a few months to make the eventual transition to regular salad easier). Switching to diet coke instead of regular coke isn't going to make you starve.
"A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as a biologically altered state. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the ?hunger hormone,? was about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected. A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels. It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn?t tried to lose weight in the first place."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&



From the "Diets don't work" link you posted, page 221 (page 2 of the PDF), second paragraph:

We begin by evaluating the quality of evidence for the most common obesity treatment?the severe restriction of calorie intake (which we will refer to as dieting) according to one primary outcome measure: sustained weight loss.
They are referring to severe calory restriction, which is what you seem to be talking about. We're talking about moderation; not neurotically removing everything that has carbs and worrying if a biscuit once a week will cause problems. Balanced diet, moderation, a biscuit every so often but a salad at lunch time (for example). Your every gastronomic desire won't be fulfilled so you'll feel a bit hungry sometimes, but that's not starvation.

We're suggesting a slower movement towards a healthier lifestyle, not a sudden and dramatic change that is held onto for 2 months, before old habits are resumed.
There were plenty of links I provided, with different parameters analysed all coming to the same or similar conclusions. Hell, scientist even find weight watchers success rate impressive, because half of the participants were able to maintain a 5% weight loss after five years. Consider that. Going from 300 pounds to 285 pounds means that you're still obese.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/good-news-for-weight-watchers/

Also, what you consider "moderation" is still something that would leave a lot of people feeling hungry all the time. Even people who lose a lot of weight report that they still constantly think about food, years after they lost the weight.

Fact is that obesity is a disease, both genetic and often instilled at an early age. It's also an addiction. Asking an obese person to eat less and healthier is almost like asking an alcoholic to only have 2 drinks a day instead of quitting entirely. That's not a reason not to try though, but it's something to keep in mind.
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
I think what irritates me most about Obesity is that, as a smoker and a drinker (and former drug user), I've spent an awful lot of my life being told how unhealthy my choices are - being taxed to the hilt for it (seriously, in Britain the level of tax on Tobacco and Alcohol is through the fucking roof).

I've no problem with this, because it's a fair point - even paying a fuckton of tax seems fair as I'll undoubtedly find myself needing the NHS more in later life than my healthy compatriots who eat nothing but Quorn and vegetables, drink nothing but water and lemongrass juice, and run 20 miles a day. So if anything I see the extra taxation as a downpayment on my new liver/lungs/kidneys/throat/whatever.

Which is where the irritation on fat people comes in - They don't pay anything extra into the system (less, in fact: Cake is Zero rate VAT, wheras fruit and veg are 20%.), yet they're just as likely (more, arguably - I may drink and smoke like a champion, but I also do physical exercise 6 days a week, including 3 different sports, as well as running, gym, swimming etc.) to end up requiring expensive surgery/medical treatment as me.

In fact, one way in the UK they're talking about trying to cut the bill from Obese people is by giving them all gastric bands (the theory being that with a one off payment of a gastric band they'll cost less money in the long run).

Obesity is a massive problem in the UK, and if it's okay for some woman to come up to me in public (as happened yesterday) to berate me for the horrendous crime of smoking (she actually felt the need to stop me in the street, I suppose she was of the opinion I wasn't aware of the dangers of smoking and she was being a good citizen by passing on the word, alas that I was in no mood for such an education and may have, in less than polite terms, asked her to move on), then why isn't it okay to point out that Fat people are wrong as well.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in going round berating fat people in public, but surely there should be some sort of smoking/alcohol like efforts out there to try and convince people to stop being fucking fat? It sounds harsh, and I know it's not easy once you're fat to get to a state of not being fat, but the same can be said of smoking and yet they plug away trying to get us to quit it.


Final point:

I think what really, REALLY pisses me off, is that it's not even about calorie moderation or eating right for me - I eat like a fatty all the time - It's about Phys. People simply don't do enough exercise.

If people would just go outside and play a sport 3 times a week - I don't advocate running because I find it boring as fuck and incredibly anti-social, I used to run with other people but was finding that everybody just kinda puts their ipods in/goes to their happy place and runs - with sports (Soccer, Rugby, Field Hockey, Lacrosse, whatever the fuck you want to do as long as it involves running around a lot) there's a massive social element which I think would keep people more interested.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
Vegosiux said:
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 Nuazi.
You make fun of the term socialist but the point made is still sound. Other people pay for your poor life choices when it results in the use of public healthcare.

Socialism is not a 4 letter word and is fine as a discription of the nhs. Its run collectively by public funds for the public good and is not for profit. When it was introduced it was highly controversial with the right leaning conservatives up in arms with the usual right wing messages about big government not up to the challenge and ruining the economy.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
chikusho said:
Here's the whole thing.
http://motivatedandfit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Diets_dont_work.pdf

Oh, and here's another thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453

One more thing!
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full

It's completetly possible to keep off a small amount of weight for an extended period of time, but people who actually get to and maintain a healthy weight are like unicorns. Thin, sexy unicorns.
http://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/
With respect, those studies are hooey. Archiebawled did a good job of explaining why. A couple of those articles have very obvious bias, anyway.

If 0.2% of people lose weight permanently on a diet, then the vast majority are doing things horribly wrong. Seems to me that most of these studies are taking "diet" to mean "short-term period of massive caloric deficit" which is the kind of thing that no dietician or doctor worth their salt would recommend. Standard nutritional advice is to switch to foods with a lower caloric density and take in a mild deficit - say, 500 cals a day less than maintenance.

The "genetic excuse" is hogwash. Genetics are not destiny, as evidenced by anybody who has ever gained weight, lost weight, or trained for a sport. There may be a small genetic predisposition but I'm confident that environmental factors are much more important. When people say, look, both my parents are fat, my siblings are fat, of course I'm fat, it's genetics, it's simpler to point to the fact that you all live in the same house and you share an eating culture (portion sizes, types of foods, snacking, etc).

Very few people in the West will ever enter a true starvation mode, and those who do will invariably lose weight. For evidence look no further than people who actually were starved - African victims of famine, holocaust survivors, and so on. Universally thin and emaciated. Not a single big chubby one who "eats the same as all the others, but just can't lose weight!" Of course I'm not suggesting extended periods of fasting as a healthy way to lose weight, but calorie restriction works.

Possibly a more legitimate factor preventing weight loss is sugar/fat addiction. Other unhelpful factors include habitual under-reporting of calories in (snacks don't really count, drinks don't count, fruit doesn't count because it's natural, etc) - and, crucially, this anti-placebo misinformation being disseminated that "you're naturally fat, diets don't work, love yourself just the way you are!". As I mentioned before this kind of thing is about as honest as anti-vaccination movements, and potentially even more harmful.
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
chikusho said:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816
That study is really interesting. I couldn't check the citations to see if that has been reproduced (the citations seem to be broken in my browser plus there are 137 of them so I'm not sure I would find the right one in a reasonable amount of time), but even with only 34 people the results seem to indicate that there there are long term consequences that increase the risk of weight gain.
True, it's not at all what archiebawled asked for but it's still food for thought. I wonder if a more gradual change in dietary habits or a change in lifestyle towards appropriate exercise with regards to calorie intake have the same long term effects.
chikusho said:
Fact is that obesity is a disease, both genetic and often instilled at an early age. It's also an addiction. Asking an obese person to eat less and healthier is almost like asking an alcoholic to only have 2 drinks a day instead of quitting entirely. That's not a reason not to try though, but it's something to keep in mind.
You can't expect everyone to sufficiently understand brain chemistry to the point of just accepting addictions as diseases, especially because of the "self-inflicted" nature of it. In a way that's like saying HIV/AIDS it not a disease if you got it from unprotected sex, but that's how people are I guess?
It's much easier to just dismiss obese people as lazy, as bjj hero demonstrates.

Stu35 said:
I may drink and smoke like a champion, but I also do physical exercise 6 days a week, including 3 different sports, as well as running

I don't advocate running because I find it boring as fuck and incredibly anti-social, I used to run with other people but was finding that everybody just kinda puts their ipods in/goes to their happy place and runs
Aha.
Well, I declined my friend's invitation to join the running group at my university, so allow me to shed some light on this. I don't run to socialize. There are more effective ways to do that. If I had excess breath to talk, I would rather increase my speed. I run to embrace the void. The sensation that the world ends at the next curve and that there is nothing to focus on besides keeping my pace and steady breathing. It's peaceful. Also it's fun to train my body.

Batou667 said:
With respect, those studies are hooey. Archiebawled did a good job of explaining why. A couple of those articles have very obvious bias, anyway.
Really? A 1 line dismissal, are you kidding me?! None of the 3 things linked are studies, but rather surveys/meta analyses of MANY studies.
Archiebawled did a good job explaining why the one specific study (which the post you quoted did NOT link) didn't address her point about gradual weight loss.
There are a few things you can complain about when it comes to the studies and the surveys actually do so, but you can't just handwave away that much data to fit your agenda like some politician.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
giles said:
Really? A 1 line dismissal, are you kidding me?! ... you can't just handwave away that much data to fit your agenda like some politician.
I can, and I did! Muahahahaha!

I'll sit down and read those studies in depth later but I've read very similar arguments making very similar claims so I'm confident they share the same misconceptions and flawed methodology.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
Batou667 said:
Standard nutritional advice is to switch to foods with a lower caloric density and take in a mild deficit - say, 500 cals a day less than maintenance.
A diet change with low levels of calories and fat maintained in a strict schedule, regularly self-monitoring weight and exercising for 1 hour/day has about a 2 to 20 percent chance of succeeding in 10% or more weight reduction after five years. So yeah, if you basically shape your life around your figure you might be able to get some results.

The only known solution to obesity that has a somewhat reliable success rate is bariatric surgery.

The "genetic excuse" is hogwash. Genetics are not destiny, as evidenced by anybody who has ever gained weight, lost weight, or trained for a sport. There may be a small genetic predisposition but I'm confident that environmental factors are much more important.When people say, look, both my parents are fat, my siblings are fat, of course I'm fat, it's genetics, it's simpler to point to the fact that you all live in the same house and you share an eating culture (portion sizes, types of foods, snacking, etc).
Depending on population, genetics have been identified as to cause 6% to 85% of Obesity.
"Heritabilities for obesity-related phenotypes varied from 6% to 85% among various populations"
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/49



Genetics not only determine what your body will do with the stuff you put in it, it can also decide how much you need it, i.e your hunger level. An obese person has about 20% more of a hormone that regulates hunger, and a brain that reacts more strongly to it. When losing weight, the hunger levels actually increase and some studies have actually found a link to decreased metabolism just from this.

Very few people in the West will ever enter a true starvation mode, and those who do will invariably lose weight.
Starvation mode conserves energy, it doesn't expend it. If you starve while fat, you'll most likely die fat.
Oh, and also, most people who are food insecure in the US are obese. Figures.

For evidence look no further than people who actually were starved - African victims of famine, holocaust survivors, and so on. Universally thin and emaciated. Not a single big chubby one who "eats the same as all the others, but just can't lose weight!"
For someone to eat the same as all the others, there has to be food. What the hell are you talking about?


archiebawled said:
As I said above: slow movement towards a healthier lifestyle is what I'm suggesting.
Obese people still have a major difference in hunger levels compared to people who have never been fat. Not to mention a potentially flawed reward system in their brains.

I've been spending months moving towards it, bit by bit, to make it feasible.
Great! Good luck and hang in there. I really hope you make it.

Predisposition towards obesity is genetic, actual obesity is not. The genetics of entire nations don't change in 30 years.
Why would the genetics need to change?

It is entirely different to asking an alcoholic to have only 2 drinks a day. Quitting food isn't an option, it's something that everybody must partake in on a regular basis. My instinctive feeling would be that it's harder than dealing with alcoholism.
Exactly my point. You don't expect an alcoholic to maintain a 2 drink/day diet. Yet society expects a fat person to do basically the same thing, just have less of what you're addicted to. All by yourself by willpower alone.

Instilling bad habits at a young age certainly happens, and is a pretty bad thing to do. Whilst it certainly adds a hurdle to overcome, if somebody is capable of choosing their own food in the supermarket then they have enough independence that continuing to blame their childhood for the food they buy as an adult, then I think they're not taking responsibility for their choices.
So, if you were kidnapped and injected with heroin for months on end, it's still your own fault that you're addicted to heroin when you're released? You're just not taking responsibility for your choices?
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
archiebawled said:
Small point of note: the "Diets don't work" PDF was a meta-study, the abstract says:
The authors review studies of the long-term outcomes of calorie-restricting diets to assess whether dieting is an effective treatment for obesity
and they have a fairly dense 2 pages of references for a 12 page paper.

I also commented on two items: the NYTimes article, and the "Diets don't work" PDF. They both looked discussed severe calory restriction.

I haven't looked into the other links yet (other than a skim of the titles and abstracts), but will do so when I get a bit of free time, as I'd be interested to see what they say.
Oh, it wasn't meant to critize you. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I agree with you about that specific study on the long term effects and found your response to be quite adequate. I just mentioned you in my post to Batou667 because it felt like he was completely dismissing all of the analyses based on what you said about something which had nothing to do with what he was quoting.
 

Grampy_bone

New member
Mar 12, 2008
797
0
0
People who keep stressing over how difficult it is to lose weight and keep it off are only reinforcing the importance of not getting fat in the first place.

Number of people killed each year by anorexia: a few hundred
Number of people killed each year by obesity: tens of thousands.

Fat-shaming doesn't occur anywhere near the frequency of thin-shaming. My girlfriend's fatass coworkers find some way to tell her she is too skinny on a daily basis. From the faux-concern "Oh you don't look healthy, are you eating enough?" to the backhanded insults "I wish I could be that thin but I won't starve myself." Fat women don't like thin women, the only solution is to make all women fat.

As for motivation, I simply tell my girlfriend if she gets fat I won't be attracted to her anymore.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
archiebawled said:
You're adding conditions that weren't stated. I haven't finished going through the studies yet, but I hope you have a source for your percentages.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full

Depending on population, genetics have been identified as to cause 6% to 85% of Obesity.
"Heritabilities for obesity-related phenotypes varied from 6% to 85% among various populations"
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/49
Phenotypes aren't genetic characteristics - that's genotypes.
Either way, that can still be a part of your biology you are unable to control.

Predisposition towards obesity is genetic, actual obesity is not. The genetics of entire nations don't change in 30 years.
Why would the genetics need to change?
Because if the genetics have stayed largely the same and obesity has increased significantly, then it strongly suggests that something else has caused the increase.
I don't see it that way. You're right, genetics of a nation don't change over a 30 year period.
But you could still theoretically have a genetic predisposition to morphine addiction before the invention of morphine.

The analogy is not appropriate. As an adult, you can choose what food you buy, I trust we have no disagreement there. Being raised on bad food obviously has an effect and causes bad habits, but how long can you really hold onto that? "My parents fed me chips as a child, so 20 years down the line I always choose to eat chips."? 30 years? 40? There's a limit to how much can be blamed on parents.
And what you're saying right there is exactly like calling heroin addicts irresponsible for buying/using heroin. Or maybe more like calling a heroin addict irresponsible because he's using too much heroin instead of only a little, like regular people.

As an addict, you can't simply "choose" not to continue with your addiction. It takes years of therapy and tortuously hard work to kick something like that, and that struggle will never end until you give up or die.
 

Ninmecu

New member
May 31, 2011
262
0
0
chikusho said:
Batou667 said:
Standard nutritional advice is to switch to foods with a lower caloric density and take in a mild deficit - say, 500 cals a day less than maintenance.
A diet change with low levels of calories and fat maintained in a strict schedule, regularly self-monitoring weight and exercising for 1 hour/day has about a 2 to 20 percent chance of succeeding in 10% or more weight reduction after five years. So yeah, if you basically shape your life around your figure you might be able to get some results.

The only known solution to obesity that has a somewhat reliable success rate is bariatric surgery.

Only that's wrong. That is not the only known somewhat reliable solution. We've known for over a century that calorie restriction, so called "Semi starvation" diets only work if they reduce carbohydrate intake and increase fat. It borders on the impossible to overeat while eating low carb. The problem with attempting to cite properly done studies is that inevitably, they consider a 40/40/30 split to be High Fat/Low Carb/Proper Protein. That means on a 2,000 calorie diet, you're eating 200 grams of carbs per day, 89 grams of fat and 150 grams of protein. If we're going to do it on a semi starvation diet assuming it's out of 2,000 calories. We're looking at 150 grams of Carbs, 67 grams of fat and 113 grams of protein. Which is still biased towards an excess of carbohydrates blocking the possibility of exchanging the fuel supply from carbs(which burn quickly and easily.) to fat(which has a slow burn and increases long term satiety.). The reason semi starvation diets almost never work, is you're always hungry. For hours and hours, days and days, the gnawing sensation of being hungry is always present. When a semi starvation diet is done while limiting carbohydrates, that effect is almost completely negated, if anything patients find themselves having a hard time eating to the amount they were asked. The Germans knew this, prior to WWII they were the leading force behind many(read almost all) scientific advancements. If you wanted to make a name for yourself in any scientific field, you HAD to learn German. Post WWII, the world learned from their advances but naturally, they ignored the nutritional knowledge they had gained, assuming the Germans(This is coming from the view point of the veterans.) were just trying to kill them slowly as payback for what had happened. So, we instead had Ancel Keys come along and propose the Lipid Hypothesis, which was based(as I said many a time) on an observational study, which means it has no merit, disregarding the fact that he excluded 16 viable countries that he had the metrics for because they skewed the data and broke his theory.


Predisposition towards obesity is genetic, actual obesity is not. The genetics of entire nations don't change in 30 years.
Why would the genetics need to change?
Here's the rub, our genetics didn't modify, and that's part of the problem. The big issue boils down to sugar and starchy foods that we've adopted as "normal" we think it's "normal" to eat bread like we do, we think it's "normal" for our bread to have a sugar content that can rival coke cans. We think it's "normal" to feed a diabetic a loaf of whole grain bread under the assumption that it's healthier for them, disregarding the fact that whole grains have a glycemic index in the mid 70's, over table sugar. We as a society have succumbed to a massive amount of misinformation that has been perpetuated by a "You either tell us what we want to hear or you can kiss your research grants good bye" by the governmental offices in charge after the McGovern committee created the guidelines for feeding all of America(And subsequently the world when WHO got a hold of it.) Now? We've got the obesity epidemic and we're all pointing fingers yelling idiotic fallacies like "IT'S BASIC PHYSICS, CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT, STOP EATING SO MUCH AND DO SOME EXCERCISE." Let's disregard for one instance the fact that the human body is not an all consuming furnace that burns everything equally. We know for a fact the different macros, ie protein, carbohydrate, fat, all have different effects on the human body and are all digested in a different manner. The only thing they have in common is they all end up going down our throats and out the other end, eventually. But we act as though two grams of carbs is the equivalent to 1 gram of fat when we digest it. Yes, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, because a calorie is a man made method of determining the strength of an energy source. However, our bodies do not treat every macros calories the same. That is fundamentally the major difference that we need to investigate and stop assuming everyone suddenly became a Sloth and a Glutton seemingly overnight.

Predisposition towards obesity is genetic, actual obesity is not. The genetics of entire nations don't change in 30 years.
Why would the genetics need to change?
Because if the genetics have stayed largely the same and obesity has increased significantly, then it strongly suggests that something else has caused the increase.
I don't see it that way. You're right, genetics of a nation don't change over a 30 year period.
But you could still theoretically have a genetic predisposition to morphine addiction before the invention of morphine.
The odds of having a predisposition towards an addiction for a specific foreign substance that you've never consumed and doesn't match the profile of anything you or your ancestors met is, I would assume, exceedingly small. Even so far as to call it miniscule. As I mentioned earlier in this post, the big dramatic shift we had was regarding dietary fats becoming demonized and sugar being heralded as "totally ok", then we started eating "vegetable oils" which with the exception of Olive and a handful of others, are not naturally occurring and require a lot of chemical processing in order to extract it, let alone make it palatable for the human animal. Basically, we need to re-investigate the previous century and a half's research and work on the subject of adiposity and disregard the heavily indefensible lipid hypothesis as proposed by Ancel Keys, for the sake of our children and our childrens children, never mind ourselves, we need to start looking at it and stop stomping our feet and yelling "lalalalalalala it's ARTERY CLOGGING SATURATED FATS, THEY BE BAD FOR YOU, LALALALALALAA". Seriously, we tried the high carb low fat method, look where it got us in 50~years. We're a planet of obese individuals with Metabolic syndrome, Skinny people with metabolic syndrome and becoming a powerful drain on the global economy. It's not just fat people, skinny people at a rate of about 40% also gain Metabolic Syndrome and THAT, ladies and gents, is the real drain on the economy, NOT Obesity, which is a symptom.


chikusho said:
archiebawled said:
Snip so that everyone involed in the discussion is sent the message.
 

False Messiah

Afflicted with DDDS
Jan 29, 2009
118
0
0
I think fat shaming is neccessary for some people, both as a kick in the arse and motivation to keep at it.

Before I get ahead of myself let me explain my situation, I used to be very overweigt. At my worst I was clocking in on 150 kg at 183 cm. I couldn't walk for 5 km without hurting ad climbing stairs was hell. My parents are fat, my brother is fat, I was sure that my girth was genetics. I tried dieting, always fad diets that hold your hand for a month and after that I would always gain back the weight.
But I was pretty happy, owning up to my fatness, knowing that it wasn't my fault. I knew that I could change my weight a bit but I thought it was too hard and I wasn't eating THAT much, I just didn't want to give up my lifestyle.

About a year ago I decided to finally get fit after browsing a thread on another website where the posters where mercilessly shaming fat people. And I really do mean mercilessly, they where basically pointing out fat people, lauging at them and telling eachother that fat people are the worst scum on the earth. I didn't want people to view me like that even though outside of getting a date I never have felt very shamed about my size. So I read up on nutrition and exercise and started counting my calories. I was shocked at how easy it was to hold a diet that's just a bit under your maintenance compaired to the fad diets that I tried in the past. And with just counting calories, aiming to stay under a target in the end of the week.

Every time I feel like giving up and just scarving down food I go back to that website, there is always a thread shaming fat people. I feel sorry for some, find me laughing at others and sometimes feeling bad about myself for lauging at people. But sitting here, weighting 94 kg and still losing fat, I know I don't want to go back. And I now know that loosing weight isn't as hard as people make it out to be, but you have to keep at it and stop making excuses.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
chikusho said:
A diet change with low levels of calories and fat maintained in a strict schedule, regularly self-monitoring weight and exercising for 1 hour/day has about a 2 to 20 percent chance of succeeding in 10% or more weight reduction after five years. So yeah, if you basically shape your life around your figure you might be able to get some results.

The only known solution to obesity that has a somewhat reliable success rate is bariatric surgery.
Citation pls? Do you mean a small level of total input calories (i.e. a near-fast) or a small level of caloric deficit (i.e. only a small reduction to what your body would need to maintain weight)? How long is this lifestyle change maintained for, the full five years, or only some of it? And at any rate, how does an hour daily exercise, making healthier food choices and occasionally stepping on a scale equate "shaping your life around your figure"? I admit that calorie counting is initially a chore and unintuitive for many people, but it's the kind of thing that becomes routine, faster, easier, and eventually you can estimate pretty accurately and objectively without having to weigh your food.

chikusho said:
Depending on population, genetics have been identified as to cause 6% to 85% of Obesity.
"Heritabilities for obesity-related phenotypes varied from 6% to 85% among various populations"
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/49
Archiebawled, yet again, responded better than I could have to this. Worth noting that phenotypes aren't just the result of genetics, and include environmental factors and behaviour - i.e., everything I mentioned before about "fat running in the family" not necessarily being genetic still stands.

chikusho said:
Genetics not only determine what your body will do with the stuff you put in it, it can also decide how much you need it, i.e your hunger level. An obese person has about 20% more of a hormone that regulates hunger, and a brain that reacts more strongly to it. When losing weight, the hunger levels actually increase and some studies have actually found a link to decreased metabolism just from this.
Again, citation please, and anyway genetics aren't destiny. Some people might find it harder to stick to a caloric deficit, but hard =/= impossible.

chikusho said:
Starvation mode conserves energy, it doesn't expend it. If you starve while fat, you'll most likely die fat.
Oh, and also, most people who are food insecure in the US are obese. Figures.
Starvation mode slows the metabolism to reduce the rate of energy expenditure - it doesn't cause the human body to clam up and cease expending energy altogether. "If you starve while fat, you'll most likely die fat" - sorry, but that's laughable. Fat in the body fulfills the role precisely of an energy store which is tapped into in times of caloric deficit, i.e. the basis of any weight loss program that involves either more exercise or less calories in.

I'm not sure what "food insecure" means, but you're right, obesity is linked to malnutrition in the US. That's not because they don't have enough food to eat, it's because the food they're eating is calorie-dense and nutritionally poor.

chikusho said:
For someone to eat the same as all the others, there has to be food. What the hell are you talking about?
Ok, I should have said "Has the same diet as all the others", whether that means subsisting off a very calorie-restricted diet, long periods of outright fasting, whatever. Point still stands. If you want to utterly disprove me, just find one picture of a famine where there is a fat person who has undergone the same hardship but hasn't lost weight.