Science explains much, but the other thread ignores the role of choice and will power with regards putting on weight. How real is the notion of gluttony?

Define gluttony.

felltoearth wrote:Define gluttony.

Quick Google, best to say I started this thread on whimsy rather than a precise definition of terms..

Gluttony is defined as intemperate eating. The Catholic Church considers it the fifth of the seven cardinal sins. In the Middle Ages, theologians and moralists condemned it and advocated moderation. The pleasures of eating were safe within the bounds of codified, convivial meals.

Well sins aren’t real so I believe that’s your answer.

ETA However immoderate eating is real. So, hope that helps.

felltoearth wrote:Well sins aren’t real so I believe that’s your answer.

ETA However immoderate eating is real. So, hope that helps.

sins are real, my calculator has them.

aufbahrung wrote:Science explains much, but the other thread ignores the role of choice and will power with regards putting on weight. How real is the notion of gluttony?

You bothered me away from my meal to ask such silly question? off with you !

The role of ‘choice and willpower’ is not as important as you possibly think. Choice is rarely free, willpower is a short term band aid, not a solution.

Fallible wrote:The role of ‘choice and willpower’ is not as important as you possibly think. Choice is rarely free, willpower is a short term band aid, not a solution.

Perhaps, then all it takes not to eat a cheeseburger is not to eat the cheeseburger. Actual choice in the real world is plenty straightforward. Willpower might be a unnecessary adjunct to that only added in to amplify the premise? My bad poetry side.

Choice is not straightforward at all. You can say it all you like, it still isn’t true. That’s what octogenarians who agree with capital punishment think. This view is severely ignorant, and if it’s one you espouse, you should probably know you are missing at least one giant factor in your calculations.

Your question has already been answered. Immoderate eating is obviously real. What is it you’re really trying to say?

Fallible wrote:Choice is not straightforward at all. You can say it all you like, it still isn’t true. That’s what octogenarians who agree with capital punishment think. This view is severely ignorant, and if it’s one you espouse, you should probably know you are missing at least one giant factor in your calculations.

Your question has already been answered. Immoderate eating is obviously real. What is it you’re really trying to say?

A year from now food might be a topical subject here and there given how global trade is melting down, beyond that I am not smart enough to know morality, religious or secular, except it will be a factor...

Global trade isn’t melting down. Capitalism makes sure it continues unabated despite the risks to workers.

felltoearth wrote:Global trade isn’t melting down. Capitalism makes sure it continues unabated despite the risks to workers.

After 2008 the bulk cargo was put on super-container ships. We'll see...

https://splash247.com/survey-suggests-s ... territory/

Ok well I just discovered I have no interest in this conversation.

All I'm saying is global trade could be easily in irretrievable meltdown. These big container ships can only stay in business by being completely full. That won't be happening. Different from the thread title. I know it is.

To eat the cheeseburger, or not to eat the cheeseburger, that is the question...

aufbahrung wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Global trade isn’t melting down. Capitalism makes sure it continues unabated despite the risks to workers.

After 2008 the bulk cargo was put on super-container ships. We'll see...

https://splash247.com/survey-suggests-s ... territory/

Those are two separate issues. People not buying stuff of course means less shipping but that doesn’t mean goods aren’t or at threat of not being shipped.

Seabass wrote:To eat the cheeseburger, or not to eat the cheeseburger, that is the question...

To grok the cheeseburger one must first meld with the cheeseburger.

Gluttony is eating more than the priest does. If the priest eats a whole sheep three times a day, he's not a glutton. If he eats two crusts of bread, and you eat three, you're a glutton.

aufbahrung wrote:

Fallible wrote:The role of ‘choice and willpower’ is not as important as you possibly think. Choice is rarely free, willpower is a short term band aid, not a solution.

Perhaps, then all it takes not to eat a cheeseburger is not to eat the cheeseburger.

If your only strategy is willpower. And if you are, likely you're going to fail. Not putting yourself in the position of having to choose to not eat the burger is more likely to succeed. That is, if success is the goal rather than looking for ways to wag your finger at people.

Actual choice in the real world is plenty straightforward.

It appears plenty straightforward. But y'know, so was the idea that the Earth was flat.

Willpower might be a unnecessary adjunct to that only added in to amplify the premise? My bad poetry side.

Willpower is useful, but if you're depending entirely on it then you're already screwed.

As stated, excessive eating observably exists and the reasons for it beyond insufficient willpower are many.

I cut calories to about 1500/day, down from eating about 2500/day, and lost 17 kg(from 87kg to 70kg) over 8 months. I had been slowly gaining weight for a bout 2½ years before I reversed the trend.

I did this by using my willpower to stop eating high calorie meals such as fast-food, potato chips, cake, and chocolate. It's been almost 2 years since I reached 70kg and I still maintain my weight at 70kg (it usually fluctuates between 68.5 and 71.4) by counting the calories of what I eat(I aim for about 1700/day, this seems to keep me at a stable weight).

I some times allow myself some unhealthy snacks like potato chips or chocolate, but I still count the calories and simply subtract however many calories they contain from the 1700 I aim for.

Is eating more calories than you use Gluttony? I don't give a shit. But reducing my caloric intake made me lose weight. You know those people who say calories in-calories out doesn't work? They're full of shit.