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.