Just got to convince myself pizza is a diet supplement and I'll be losing weight in no time!
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/07/diets_might_actually_just_work_via_placebo_effect.html
Quote
Are Diets Just Placebos?
The idea is at least worth considering—and it would explain a lot of strange things about how dieting works.
By Erik Vance
For years, nutrition experts have been trying to figure out the best diet for people who want to lose weight and have more energy. They haven't been terribly successful. Very few innovations in that field have lasted (beyond eating less and exercising more). Of course, that hasn't stopped us from trying: There's the Atkins diet, the all-cabbage diet, the morning-banana diet, the werewolf diet, the Israeli army diet, the Master Cleanse, the Zone, the charcoal cleanse, the alkaline diet, and the baby-food diet, and (my favorite) the Hollywood cookie diet. There's even a diet that says you will eat less and shed pounds if you just plug your nose while you eat.
While all of these make impressive claims, science has shown again and again that dieting just doesn't work in the long-term. Most people either don't lose the weight or see it boomerang right back (for others, the result of dieting is an eating disorder). But still, we cling to diets because we think they will work—or because often, for a short time, for some of us, for that friend-of-a-friend, they do.
If no diet has turned out to be a silver bullet for weight loss, then what could explain why some of them at least seem to work, at least for some time? In looking at our rampant dieting culture, I realized that there are a lot of elements that remind me of the placebo effects we see in other parts of our lives. And this got me thinking: Perhaps it's not the contents of the diet that matters. Perhaps it's simply the act of dieting. Is it possible that, rather than the specifics of the food regime you undertake, it's the mere act of starting a diet—any diet—that makes you thinner? Could it be that the inherent placebo effect that comes with any diet is what's causing you to lose weight?
The connection between brain chemistry, eating habits, and weight is nothing new. Our decisions to eat are based on brain chemistry, and the results of those decisions tend to affect our size. We know that stress hormones generated by dieting and other forms of starvation affect how our bodies process fat. Some studies even suggest that deficiencies in certain mood-moderating brain chemicals shape which junk foods we prefer: People with low dopamine crave sweets, those lacking the neurotransmitter acetylcholine crave fat, and those without serotonin try to eat all the starch they can get. So brain chemistry and metabolism are intimately linked.
But could the act of believing that what we are eating will cause weight loss actually be enough to trick our bodies into shedding pounds? It's a provocative idea but a hard one to test. The tricky thing about placebo effects is that the best way to measure them is through a little, well, trickery—give someone an inert pill, make him think it's something else, and measure what effect his own beliefs had. I'm not exactly sure what a placebo cookie would look like, but we do have some data from the emerging science of weight-loss medication that can offer an interesting starting point on weight-loss placebos. There are a number of prescription weight-loss drugs on the market, such as orlistat, liraglutide, and sibutramine (which has since been removed because it caused strokes and heart attacks—and, bizarrely, increased appetite). All of them carry side effects and shouldn't be considered diet pills, but all of them had to pass Food and Drug Administration placebo-controlled trials, too. And while they all out-performed placebo pills, people in the placebo arm still lost an average of five pounds or so over a few weeks or months.
Now, many of these studies merged the drug with calorie limitations, and just the act of counting calories tends to make people eat less of them. But still, five pounds is enough room for some kind of placebo effect. Similarly, weight-loss supplements get measured against placebo controls (though not as often as they should). In those cases, few if any of them outperform placebos—but people in the placebo arm also lose weight.
So there's enough circumstantial evidence around diet pills and supplements to think that placebo diets are at least possible. But supplements and drugs aren't really diets—what would happen if you convinced someone she's on a diet even though she's not? The few studies that have been able to devise a true placebo arm for diets have been riddled with bizarre effects, like one Australian study that tried to determine if nonceliac gluten sensitivity is a real thing. In it, subjects reported feeling worse for all kinds of nonsensical reasons, including going from placebo wheat to more placebo wheat.
But as I said before, the best placebo studies involve a little trickery, and thank God a few scientists are willing to go there. The landmark study comes from Alia Crum at Stanford. As a grad student, Crum did an experiment where she found that just telling hotel workers how much exercise they were getting at work could have positive effects on their health. So in 2010, she took the next logical step. She passed out two types of milkshake—a 620-calorie version and a 140-calorie one, complete with labels that claimed they were either indulgent or diet—to two separate groups. As one might expect, the people's gut chemistry behaved very differently depending on which shake they got, with their hunger hormones (which are also involved in metabolism) dropping much more with the fatty shake.
Except the thing is that she lied—both the shakes were 380 calories. In other words, their bellies responded not to what they were eating but to what they thought they were eating. The following year, a team at Purdue told patients they had invented special solid foods that turned to liquid once in the stomach as well as liquid foods that turn to solid. Some people got actual solids and liquids while others received the magical stomach-changing kinds. Of course, they were actually the exact same meals, and all had the same number of calories.
Advertisement
Naturally, people could feel the nonexisting transformations. The nontransforming-liquid drinkers were all quickly hungry, while the people drinking the "liquid-to-solid" said things like, "I could barely swallow the liquid it was so thick," "I am so full I can barely finish the glass," and my favorite, "It came out like a solid, too."
Meanwhile the people eating the real solid could barely finish them all while those eating the "solid-to-liquid" said, "It hardly feels like I ate anything," "It feels like I drank a bunch of liquid," and "It immediately went away when the cubes turned to liquid in my stomach."
Giggle all you want, but can you really be sure that given the same situation you wouldn't feel exactly the same thing? The subjects in an experiment like this aren't chosen because they are morons; they're chosen because they are us.
But here's the stranger bit: Their bodies' physical chemistry responded accordingly, too. The people who thought they were eating liquids passed them through their systems like liquids. Their hunger hormones, insulin, and other metabolic hormones fell in line with what they expected, not what they ate.
Like the supplements market, the dieting industry is almost totally unregulated.
Advertisement
A similar study showed that key brain regions respond similarly to SoBe Lifewater as a Ben & Jerry's milkshake, as long as the beverage was offered up with the word treat. Another, announced just days ago from UC–Berkeley, showed that rats that can't smell gain less weight after eating exactly the same amount of food than rats that can (maybe the nose-pluggers are on to something). No wonder scientists have begun calling our stomachs "the second brain."
Sadly, there aren't really a lot more studies picking away at how belief affects dieting, though the Stanford team says more are on the way. The problem, says one scientist who works with Crum, is that most of this work floats between nutrition, psychology, and marketing research, and no one is lining up to pay for it.
There is one more link between placebo effects and dieting: Most placebos (though notably not all) are temporary. And, as so many dieters have learned to their dismay, so are the effects of radical fad diets. As few as 1 percent of dieters will keep the weight off permanently.
All of this reminds me of another hugely popular and powerful industry that trades in fantastical, trendy, and ultimately often temporary health solutions: alternative medicines. I've written a book about alternative medicine, and I have nothing against them as long as they don't damage your body, checkbook, or endangered species. It's important to remember that like the supplements market, the dieting industry is almost totally unregulated. The kind of diet you create and sell to others is only limited by your imagination. Which makes it more important for consumers to understand how much they might be relying on the placebo effect to impart actual benefits.
There's plenty more to study when it comes to how our brain understands eating and how our bodies respond to the context around it. Eating is not just a physical act; it's sensual, cultural, and communal. Does the stomach respond similarly in people who truly love food versus those who see it as just fuel? How are we influenced by the attitudes of the people we eat with? Some of the newest placebo research suggests that placebos can be enhanced by peer pressure. (In one experiment, just knowing people experienced pain relief from a drug correlated with other people feeling unusually high placebo effects.)
Lately, I've had the chance to see this in my own life. Recently, at the behest of several family members, I cut gluten out of my diet. It's my first real diet, and yes, I am aware that gluten is not necessarily bad. But I've also felt a little like I'm joining not just my family, but a tribe of gluten-free people across the world, and I've dropped about 15 pounds. I have to say that the science is pretty strong that I am just experiencing a placebo effect.
But in the end, do I really care? Sometimes belief is as good as the real thing.
Pacebo to you too!
Losing weight = Calorie consumption < Calorie metabolic maintenance
That's not placebo, that's fact. Even experimentation made by the Nazis has demonstrated that it works.
I reread the article, just to be absolutely certain, in case the author did mention that lowering calorie consumption does lead to body weight loss.
Nope, he didn't. Still one of the dumbest articles I have read. And I've read Francis Fukuyama.
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:08:35 PM
Losing weight = Calorie consumption < Calorie metabolic maintenance
That's not placebo, that's fact. Even experimentation made by the Nazis has demonstrated that it works.
Some apples are red. That's a fact too. Only tangentially related to the topic and not addressing the point at all, but so is your fact.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2017, 07:19:33 PM
Some apples are red. That's a fact too. Only tangentially related to the topic and not addressing the point at all, but so is your fact.
That diets are crutches? Sure, they are made to be simple, compared to the option of counting every single food element you consume.
Diets actually require discipline? Yes, it's always tempting to eat just a little more, and dieting while being a couch potato will not help you lose weight.
Some diets are actually fraudulous? True, again especially for pop diets.
But any diet that decreases your calorie consumption below your daily maintenance will lead you to lose weight, and that's not in your head. It takes around 3000 calories to burn 1 lb of human fat, hence why it is recommended to have a 500 calorie daily deficit to lose 1 lb per week.
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:17:25 PM
I reread the article, just to be absolutely certain, in case the author did mention that lowering calorie consumption does lead to body weight loss.
Nope, he didn't. Still one of the dumbest articles I have read. And I've read Francis Fukuyama.
Did you read the first fucking paragraph?
QuoteFor years, nutrition experts have been trying to figure out the best diet for people who want to lose weight and have more energy. They haven't been terribly successful. Very few innovations in that field have lasted (beyond eating less and exercising more).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2017, 07:26:52 PM
Did you read the first fucking paragraph?
Do you actually read the how fucking dumb the articles you post are, before pressing Post?
I mean wow... diets are all placebo, even though numerous diets are actually proven to work!
I can appreciate the concept; as a young lad, for years I had convinced myself that my virginity was all in my head.
The desire to eat is in your head. It's a pretty natural desire, we would be extinct without it. Any argument relating to diets that doesn't address the desire part is as stupid as telling depressed people to get over it. That includes the discipline argument, or the "simple equation" argument that ignores the fact that you have feedback loop in both directions between the two variables, which makes this equation very not simple.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2017, 07:31:20 PM
The desire to eat is on your head. It's a pretty natural desire, we would be extinct without it. Any argument relating to diets that doesn't address the desire part is as stupid as telling depressed people to get over it. That includes the discipline argument, or the "simple equation" argument that ignores the fact that you have feedback loop in both directions between the two variables, which makes this equation very not simple.
True, however it can still be overridden by a person's will. It helps when if the person knows the whys behind the plan, like the estimation of caloric maintenance and how much calories your diet actually give. However, dieting to lose 100 or 200 pounds of weight can take a long, long time, and it is easy to fall aside and give up.
My experience is quite anecdotic, but the hardest when I cut is always the first few weeks. The body is used to a bigger caloric intake, and so asks for more. What helped for me was eating empty vegetables like cucumbers, eating the same basic stuff each and every day except meal variation, and keeping tabs. That's what I mean by "discipline"; holding oneself accountable.
Cucumbers. Barf.
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:36:50 PM
True, however it can still be overridden by a person's will.
There's the rub. In general, no, it cannot. Not in the long run. Willpower takes a lot of energy, and willpower required to be applied for a lifetime moreso. In the short run having some belief, stupid or not, can give you that energy, which is probably where that placebo effect comes in, but that's not sustainable.
A good solution works with what you have, not with what you should have. This is why "Losing weight = Calorie consumption < Calorie metabolic maintenance" is a useless fact rather than a practical diet plan.
I just take MUH water pills. I piss the pounds away.
Eat the right food. Develop an excersie routine that is progressive, sustainable, within your physical capability and doesn't bore you.
Fuck, it's not rocket science.
I just make sure my prostate gets enough exercise. Take care of the prostate that takes care of you!
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:08:35 PM
Losing weight = Calorie consumption < Calorie metabolic maintenance
That's not placebo, that's fact. Even experimentation made by the Nazis has demonstrated that it works.
For all its negatives, the holocaust did demonstrate that eating very few calories while doing vigorous physical work will help you drop pounds. The jewish fellows in those labor camps were quite thin.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2017, 10:34:10 PM
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:08:35 PM
Losing weight = Calorie consumption < Calorie metabolic maintenance
That's not placebo, that's fact. Even experimentation made by the Nazis has demonstrated that it works.
For all its negatives, the holocaust did demonstrate that eating very few calories while doing vigorous physical work will help you drop pounds. The jewish fellows in those labor camps were quite thin.
:lol: So was 76 days of ranger school. I started at 210 and by the end weighed 173. Was ripped like a mofo. But had the strength of a 10 year old and the energy of a geriatric.
Quote from: Drakken on July 13, 2017, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2017, 07:26:52 PM
Did you read the first fucking paragraph?
Do you actually read the how fucking dumb the articles you post are, before pressing Post?
I mean wow... diets are all placebo, even though numerous diets are actually proven to work!
I read it. There were numerous links within to various studies you might want to check out.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2017, 10:34:10 PM
For all its negatives, the holocaust did demonstrate that eating very few calories while doing vigorous physical work will help you drop pounds. The jewish fellows in those labor camps were quite thin.
Nonsense; it's just that the stripes were slimming.
As I understand placebo it is important in a great many human activities. That being said it IS very simple to lose weight, IF you want to. Will is the way. Many people don't want to lose weight. They may claim (even think) that they do, but they do not. As with all things, if you're not prepared to do what it takes to achieve something, in which meaningful way do you actually want to achieve it?
With weight all it takes is eat a little bit less than you need to maintain fat reserves. It's very simple.
We use discipline all the time. It takes discipline to go to work every day, it takes discipline to not say the first thing that pops into your head, it takes discipline to follow traffic regulations etc etc etc. It's part of being an adult. Now would it be nice to eliminate the need for discipline for some of those things? Sure, it would make more people act in a productive manner since not everyone has discipline.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2017, 10:03:30 PM
Eat the right food. Develop an excersie routine that is progressive, sustainable, within your physical capability and doesn't bore you.
Fuck, it's not rocket science.
While that is obviously true, it is also, for many folks, quite useless.
Akin to telling depressed people "develop healthy daily routines, make some good friends, and be less sad". :lol:
If they were mentally capable of doing that, presumably they would ...
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2017, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2017, 10:03:30 PM
Eat the right food. Develop an excersie routine that is progressive, sustainable, within your physical capability and doesn't bore you.
Fuck, it's not rocket science.
While that is obviously true, it is also, for many folks, quite useless.
Akin to telling depressed people "develop healthy daily routines, make some good friends, and be less sad". :lol:
If they were mentally capable of doing that, presumably they would ...
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
No, no, no. It's all a thyroid problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
Not an illness, but not a simple cure either - even though everyone knows what the cure is (eat less, exercise more).
While depression is classified as a mental illness, 'situational' depression isn't simply a chemical imbalance - more like a bad cycle of behaviors and thoughts.
The "cure" in both cases is indeed a mental one. It is similar to the "cure" for smoking (which is of course to ... stop smoking).
All three (overeating, smoking, depression) are similar to each other in this way - that how to stop the problem is, on the surface "obvious", but in practice some find it hard to do. In all three cases, those without those particular problems often have scant sympathy - the solution is so obvious, so why the overweight, smoking or chronically sad person can't just successfully pull themselves out of it by a simple exercise of willpower must be because they are weak.
I don't think the fat fucks on Languish are retarded nutjobs.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2017, 09:08:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
Not an illness, but not a simple cure either - even though everyone knows what the cure is (eat less, exercise more).
While depression is classified as a mental illness, 'situational' depression isn't simply a chemical imbalance - more like a bad cycle of behaviors and thoughts.
The "cure" in both cases is indeed a mental one. It is similar to the "cure" for smoking (which is of course to ... stop smoking).
All three (overeating, smoking, depression) are similar to each other in this way - that how to stop the problem is, on the surface "obvious", but in practice some find it hard to do. In all three cases, those without those particular problems often have scant sympathy - the solution is so obvious, so why the overweight, smoking or chronically sad person can't just successfully pull themselves out of it by a simple exercise of willpower must be because they are weak.
Very well put.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
I think that lifestyle is one way of framing it, but if we are looking at it as as social phenomenon I think food infrastructure and other social structures are more relevant things to consider.
If the observation is "look at how North Americans have gotten way fatter" then "it's the lifestyle" is not an explanation but simply a restating of the observation - North American lifestyles exist in a very different context now than in the past. So what are the things that affect the North American lifestyle that results in the expanding waistline?
If we approach any given individual case - so-and-so is really fat because of their lifestyle - the answer there (assuming they want to lose weight) is how can that individual restructure their lifestyle such that they lose weight, which once again touches on the social structures that inform said lifestyle.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2017, 09:11:17 AM
I don't think the fat fucks on Languish are retarded nutjobs.
Well, some of us are.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2017, 09:11:17 AM
I don't think the fat fucks on Languish are retarded nutjobs.
Well, some of us are.
I don't think you're technically retarded. :)
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2017, 09:08:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
Not an illness, but not a simple cure either - even though everyone knows what the cure is (eat less, exercise more).
While depression is classified as a mental illness, 'situational' depression isn't simply a chemical imbalance - more like a bad cycle of behaviors and thoughts.
The "cure" in both cases is indeed a mental one. It is similar to the "cure" for smoking (which is of course to ... stop smoking).
All three (overeating, smoking, depression) are similar to each other in this way - that how to stop the problem is, on the surface "obvious", but in practice some find it hard to do. In all three cases, those without those particular problems often have scant sympathy - the solution is so obvious, so why the overweight, smoking or chronically sad person can't just successfully pull themselves out of it by a simple exercise of willpower must be because they are weak.
You are again equating over eating to an addiction (smoking) or a mental illness (depression) and then you say they are similar because it they are hard to "cure". I grant you that addictions and mental illness are difficult to cure. I also grant you that some people are fat because they suffer from addictions or mental illness or both. But why do you think that all people who are fat will have the same difficulty exercising or eating less as a person who suffers from an addiction or a mental illness?
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2017, 01:52:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
I understand people with a mental illness not being able to cure their mental illness. I am not so convinced that being fat is akin to having a mental illness unless one equates eating too much a kind of addiction. I suppose that might be the case for some people. But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
I think that lifestyle is one way of framing it, but if we are looking at it as as social phenomenon I think food infrastructure and other social structures are more relevant things to consider.
If the observation is "look at how North Americans have gotten way fatter" then "it's the lifestyle" is not an explanation but simply a restating of the observation - North American lifestyles exist in a very different context now than in the past. So what are the things that affect the North American lifestyle that results in the expanding waistline?
If we approach any given individual case - so-and-so is really fat because of their lifestyle - the answer there (assuming they want to lose weight) is how can that individual restructure their lifestyle such that they lose weight, which once again touches on the social structures that inform said lifestyle.
Sure. I am not sure you are disagreeing with me. The preponderance of poor food choices makes it much easier to have a poor lifestyle. Just as the sedentary work most of us do (not to mention the sedentary leisure time on top of that) exacerbates the problem. But I am not sure why all of that isn't a question of lifestyle rather than the addiction/mental illness paradigm Malthus was using.
Is it harder to be fit now than before. Perhaps. But for most it is a choice being made - step away from the screen and get some exercise and also eat less. Not that complicated. But it might be a hard lifestyle change for people to make.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Sure. I am not sure you are disagreeing with me. The preponderance of poor food choices makes it much easier to have a poor lifestyle. Just as the sedentary work most of us do (not to mention the sedentary leisure time on top of that) exacerbates the problem. But I am not sure why all of that isn't a question of lifestyle rather than the addiction/mental illness paradigm Malthus was using.
Is it harder to be fit now than before. Perhaps. But for most it is a choice being made - step away from the screen and get some exercise and also eat less. Not that complicated. But it might be a hard lifestyle change for people to make.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you either :hug:
I think the underlying dynamic is that maintaining a healthy weight is now a question of lifestyle.
At one point in time, not too distant, almost everyone got more physical activity than they do now merely by virtue of living their daily life. For many, hard or medium physical labour was ever present. Similarly, while the diet of most people were not necessarily strictly healthy by modern standards easy access to multiples of daily necessary calories were limited by distribution, social pressure, and economics.
Today for a large majority of people exercise is an additional activity that requires resources - some combination of free time and money and focus beyond the needs of day to day experience. Similarly, the path of least resistance - economically and in terms of commitment - tends towards over-consumption of calories. Eating relatively healthy requires a combination of additional effort, knowledge, and money compared to eating unhealthy.
On an individual case will power and lifestyle changes can make people healthier, sure. Systemically, however, the population is not set up for success.
Basically, I don't think it's some sort of decrease in the population's willpower or desire to be healthy that's behind the ever increasing waistlines in the West. Those things are pretty constant, I reckon. Rather economic and social conditions have changed such that it takes more willpower and desire to be healthy to maintain bodyweights that were previously default.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 08:41:51 AM
But given the expansion of waist lines in North America I think it more likely it has more to do with life style.
partly true.
often, something happens. you stop exercising. or you never started and were obese at 4yo because your parents thought it was cool. and you eat. not a lot, but just like you're used too. and you start gaining weight. and you know you need to cut on your drinking too, but damn, that beer, outside, when it's 30C, it feels good.
then you take weight and you try gym, but you simply hurt yourself. or you start working just a little too much because you need money to pay for the gym you don't go to anymore. so you take even more weight. and then you have an accident or you get sick, and no one can really fix you, so sports isn't an option.
so you gain more weight. and you start cutting on your calories. but then, no one told you calories isn't the end all. you eat and drink food without calories (diet coke, diet lemonade), but you still gain weight. you don't eat desert but you gain weight. you don't drink anymore but you gain weight. you eat less than the nutrionist you see, but you aren't losing weight.
No, it's not that easy losing weight. It requires both a constant healthy diet and intense exercising. it's not just about calories, it's about drinking water and nothing else, it's about having 100g of meat and veggies, it's about finding the right stuff that fits with you (no allergies, no stomach pains, sufficient protein for you daily routine, etc).
And that's fucking stuff. People who have studies in this field are themselves lost and they often give contradictory advices.
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2017, 06:48:11 PM
No, it's not that easy losing weight. It requires both a constant healthy diet and intense exercising. it's not just about calories, it's about drinking water and nothing else, it's about having 100g of meat and veggies, it's about finding the right stuff that fits with you (no allergies, no stomach pains, sufficient protein for you daily routine, etc).
wut
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2017, 08:25:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2017, 06:48:11 PM
No, it's not that easy losing weight. It requires both a constant healthy diet and intense exercising. it's not just about calories, it's about drinking water and nothing else, it's about having 100g of meat and veggies, it's about finding the right stuff that fits with you (no allergies, no stomach pains, sufficient protein for you daily routine, etc).
wut
Oy vey
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
You can level with us, you're a porker aren't you? :P
Diet soft drinks are suit too.
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
I don't get it. What does control of wants have to do with it?
It's OK to be fat and not thinking that losing weight is worth the effort. If you don't want to lose weight then it's not a problem.
I don't understand what people think is great about telling fatties that the fate of their fat is not in their greasy little hands. Mine is a message of hope! You don't have to wait for sugar bans or changes to society or whatever. You can just lose your fat, should you want to. Because you are an adult, and if I respect you then I don't assume that you can't handle simple things. And if you don't think the effort to lose weight is worth it, then that's fine too. I don't hate fat people. Some of my best friends are fat.
Everybody *wants* to be thin and healthy, but that desire doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 15, 2017, 01:29:42 AM
Everybody *wants* to be thin and healthy, but that desire doesn't exist in a vacuum.
No they don't.
I think it would be super nice to know Japanese, but that doesn't mean I want to learn it.
I don't want to work. Doesn't mean I don't want money.
I don't think we will ever agree on this.
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
What you want is imposed on you? You are not in Russia anymore :P
This is both a strange and interesting thread.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2017, 12:11:10 PM
This is both a strange and interesting thread.
Apparently it IS rocket science.
:P
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2017, 08:25:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2017, 06:48:11 PM
No, it's not that easy losing weight. It requires both a constant healthy diet and intense exercising. it's not just about calories, it's about drinking water and nothing else, it's about having 100g of meat and veggies, it's about finding the right stuff that fits with you (no allergies, no stomach pains, sufficient protein for you daily routine, etc).
wut
the human body is made to stock fat. as soon as you eat, the body tries to stock as much fat as you can. It takes a lot of energy to burn just a few calories. You kinda need to run an hour to spend a can of coke. And if your metabolism has slown down, "jumpstarting it" requires tremendous efforts. Probably more so than a fat person can sustain.
The article says diet don't work, and that's been studied, for like, the last 30 years. You lose weight immediatly, then you regain it. A diet is not about eating healthy, it's about some kind of voodoo magic that someone found: do not eat potatoes, pastas or bread; eat only proteins and nothing else; eat barely nothing during week-days and give yourself a freepass un sundays where you can eat just about anything you want; stuff like that. That's all bullshit.
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2017, 08:25:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2017, 06:48:11 PM
No, it's not that easy losing weight. It requires both a constant healthy diet and intense exercising. it's not just about calories, it's about drinking water and nothing else, it's about having 100g of meat and veggies, it's about finding the right stuff that fits with you (no allergies, no stomach pains, sufficient protein for you daily routine, etc).
wut
the human body is made to stock fat. as soon as you eat, the body tries to stock as much fat as you can. It takes a lot of energy to burn just a few calories. You kinda need to run an hour to spend a can of coke. And if your metabolism has slown down, "jumpstarting it" requires tremendous efforts. Probably more so than a fat person can sustain.
:huh: I know for a fact that you can lose a lot of weight in a sustainable fashion without working out. You just eat a little less than you need to maintain your fat reserves. The "you need to do X to burn a can of coke" thing is a complete red herring.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2017, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
I don't get it. What does control of wants have to do with it?
It's simple--people in general want to have a healthy weight. But having a healthy weight doesn't just happen (well, it does for some people, who are usually despised for it), it takes work. People don't want to do the work, and their desire to not do the work usually overrides their desire to have a healthy weight.
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
the human body is made to stock fat. as soon as you eat, the body tries to stock as much fat as you can. It takes a lot of energy to burn just a few calories. You kinda need to run an hour to spend a can of coke. And if your metabolism has slown down, "jumpstarting it" requires tremendous efforts. Probably more so than a fat person can sustain.
The article says diet don't work, and that's been studied, for like, the last 30 years. You lose weight immediatly, then you regain it. A diet is not about eating healthy, it's about some kind of voodoo magic that someone found: do not eat potatoes, pastas or bread; eat only proteins and nothing else; eat barely nothing during week-days and give yourself a freepass un sundays where you can eat just about anything you want; stuff like that. That's all bullshit.
Yeah, the human body's been specifically designed the way it is for the last 10,000 years, and the cult of modern living is going to lose against physiological evolution.
Quote from: dps on July 16, 2017, 05:06:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2017, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
I don't get it. What does control of wants have to do with it?
It's simple--people in general want to have a healthy weight. But having a healthy weight doesn't just happen (well, it does for some people, who are usually despised for it), it takes work. People don't want to do the work, and their desire to not do the work usually overrides their desire to have a healthy weight.
Actually, it doesn't actually take work. It just takes eating less which ironically is less work than eating as much as most now do. But if one insists on continuing to eat as much as they did to get fat, then yes, it does take work.
Of course, there is also a significant psychological/chemical factor in overeating as well (even if just a gradual amount over a long period of time). Even if it may take more work to eat to more food...there is certainly something in the brain that responds to certain kinds of food (sweets, etc) with pleasure/satisfaction. And a similar feeling just for feeling "satiated", which for many, may only come after intaking a caloric level higher than their metabolism would burn.
Not even to mention the habitual or situational (e.g. one must have dessert after dinner, or eating out of boredom).
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2017, 07:31:46 PM
Of course, there is also a significant psychological/chemical factor in overeating as well (even if just a gradual amount over a long period of time). Even if it may take more work to eat to more food...there is certainly something in the brain that responds to certain kinds of food (sweets, etc) with pleasure/satisfaction. And a similar feeling just for feeling "satiated", which for many, may only come after intaking a caloric level higher than their metabolism would burn.
Not even to mention the habitual or situational (e.g. one must have dessert after dinner, or eating out of boredom).
Sure, but "work" is the exercise part. If one is not able to do enough exercise to balance the food intake, the answer is pretty obvious.
Quote from: mongers on July 14, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
You can level with us, you're a porker aren't you? :P
Not at all, I'm marginally overweight at worst, I weigh 190 pounds at 6'2". I'm just astute enough to understand that simple solutions that empirically don't work on the whole are maybe not that simple. My point was that it's very hard to make yourself want something, wants are emotional and not intellectual things. Wanting to do something that is good for you is a stroke of luck.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2017, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 14, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
You can level with us, you're a porker aren't you? :P
Not at all, I'm marginally overweight at worst, I weigh 190 pounds at 6'2". I'm just astute enough to understand that simple solutions that empirically don't work on the whole are maybe not that simple. My point was that it's very hard to make yourself want something, wants are emotional and not intellectual things. Wanting to do something that is good for you is a stroke of luck.
I wouldn't have thought at all, I'm 3 inches shorter than you and I think an ideal weight for me would be 175lbs*, don't know ifthat was based on BMI or govt.charts, so you're well within the normal band. Though guess you could be a 'bean poll' with a pot belly. :P
I get the rest of your points, I suppose the issue I have is, sometime people have to take some responsibility for a few of the their action, particularly when it directly affects their own wellbeing.
* annoyingly I'm probably a stone less than that, say160lbs and ideally would like to put some weight on, but being reasonable active, I find that next to impossible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Not an illness, but not a simple cure either - even though everyone knows what the cure is (eat less, exercise more).
While depression is classified as a mental illness, 'situational' depression isn't simply a chemical imbalance - more like a bad cycle of behaviors and thoughts.
The "cure" in both cases is indeed a mental one. It is similar to the "cure" for smoking (which is of course to ... stop smoking).
All three (overeating, smoking, depression) are similar to each other in this way - that how to stop the problem is, on the surface "obvious", but in practice some find it hard to do. In all three cases, those without those particular problems often have scant sympathy - the solution is so obvious, so why the overweight, smoking or chronically sad person can't just successfully pull themselves out of it by a simple exercise of willpower must be because they are weak.
You are again equating over eating to an addiction (smoking) or a mental illness (depression) and then you say they are similar because it they are hard to "cure". I grant you that addictions and mental illness are difficult to cure. I also grant you that some people are fat because they suffer from addictions or mental illness or both. But why do you think that all people who are fat will have the same difficulty exercising or eating less as a person who suffers from an addiction or a mental illness?
[/quote]
Well, obviously I don't think everyone has the same difficulty doing anything. :hmm: Where are you getting that from? People have different difficulties doing all sorts of things, because individuals vary a lot.
However,
on average, "trying to lose weight" is typically
less successful that "trying to quit a serious addiction". There is plenty of evidence for this.
http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2014/11/weight-regain-after-diets-is-it-that-bad/
Speaking generally my impression is that complete infantilization isn't the answer to humanity's ills.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2017, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 14, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2017, 10:32:51 PM
I'm always confused by the "doing X is easy if you truly want to" arguments. They strike me as self-contradictory. Wants are not easy, you have little control over what you want to do, wants are imposed on you.
It's like saying that math is easy if you're supremely intelligent. Yes, I can confirm that it is easy in that case, but that's not a very useful statement to those who are struggling with math.
You can level with us, you're a porker aren't you? :P
Not at all, I'm marginally overweight at worst, I weigh 190 pounds at 6'2".
How much did you weigh when you got mugged?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 17, 2017, 11:19:44 PM
How much did you weigh when you got mugged?
Depends. About 192 right before, about 188 right after.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2017, 12:16:40 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 17, 2017, 11:19:44 PM
How much did you weigh when you got mugged?
Depends. About 192 right before, about 188 right after.
Damn, pretty brutal of them to hack your john thomas off like that. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2017, 12:16:40 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 17, 2017, 11:19:44 PM
How much did you weigh when you got mugged?
Depends. About 192 right before, about 188 right after.
For some reason I had the impression you were around 150 then. :hmm: