by VazScep wrote:It is a stupid "well, duh" solution. The fact that other proposals are stupid doesn't change that.horacerumpole wrote:What doesn't help an overweight person is give them gimmicks, like "don't eat after 6pm" or "don't eat bread" and you'll lose weight.
It doesn't help to sell people a concept that is "it's not that you're not eating too much, it's that you're not eating the right foods in the right combination!"
Do you think it is better to tell people "oh, just cut out all the carbohydrates? (which coincidentally eliminates all the ice cream, cake, Doritos, potato chips, tacos, big macs, french fries, bread and mashed potatos)" -- that is somehow more thoughtful and helpful than saying "eat a balanced diet in roughly the amount your body needs in a day, and adopt a reasonable, sustainable exercise regimen?"
I mean - to imply that I'm the one offering a "well, duh, just stop eating" solution in this conversation is just plain stupid. I'm the one offering a sensible, reasonable, doable solution to someone who is overweight and wants to lose.
Well, it isn't. If it is, then suggesting any solution to the problem is a "well, duh" solution, if it's not an easy solution.
Making bogus anti-scientific claims about sugar addictions and high fructose corn syrup doesn't become "the real solution." It may shift responsibility from the person who is trying to lose weight to external factors, and that may give a false impression of being a "deep" or more thoughtful approach to the question -- but, really it's just another bottle of snake oil.
VazScep wrote:Yes, yes, the problem is thermodynamics (which, btw, doesn't require that anyone get exercise).The problem is eating too much and not getting a reasonable amount of exercise.
Never said it did. Exercise has more than one function. The fact is, what many people do is make the mistake of trying to go on strict diets and unsustainable workout regimens to get fast results. These cannot be maintained for long and whatever results tend to pile back on when the people can't sustain the program. What I've suggested is for people to make small changes, which are far more sustainable. And, it is much easier to cut out a few hundred calories of food and add a few hundred calories-worth of exercise, then to do it all with calorie reduction. Certainly, folks can do it any way they like, but what I've suggested is that more reasonable modifications in diet which does not operate as a deprivation of entire swaths of foodstuffs.
I mean - to say no or very low carbs means to, basically, "just don't eat" carb based snacks, no treats, no breads, no rice, no potatos. I mean -- come on -- all this "no sugar - no fruit" nonsense is precisely what you're accusing me of. Saying "well, duh, just don't eat it..."
That's precisely what I'm NOT doing, however. I'm NOT telling overweight people to "just stop eating, fatty." I'm suggesting that they make small, reasonable, sustainable changes, and NOT deprive themselves of foods on the premise that if they just refrain from eating bread and french fries the pounds will just melt off and they'll be able to whatever else they want.
I find it really ridiculous that you opted for me to go after with this shit. Why didn't you pipe up against the "don't eat carbs" crowd who think you can eat thousands of calories of beef and pork with wild abandon but if you'll just not eat any carbs the weight will just go away?
VazScep wrote:
A core argument of this programme, again, is that there are other issues, such as aggressive marketing by subsidised food industries with a lot of lobbying power. And when the government in the UK is taking aggressive measures to prevent me from drinking, such as by banning multibuy deals on alcohol and limiting licenses, I get personally quite pissed off that the same government is shit scared of instituting measures to stop people eating themselves to death.
The weight gain over the the last few decades directly correlates to a couple of things:
1. Increased per day average calorie intake.
2. Increased sedentary activities such as television and computer time, and concomitant reduction in other active activities.
These two facts more than anything else have increased markedly, and correspond exactly to the average weight gain. The first item is to a fair degree influenced by the second factor, because those sedentary activities are widely accompanied by additional eating.
A third factor is the dramatic increase in eating outside the home, and restaurant eating involves, generally speaking, more eating.
Regardless of aggressive marketing campaigns, if a person acknowledges that it is eating too much relative to what one's body needs is what causes weight gain, then one can take the step to shut off the t.v./computer and engage in calorie burning activities, and one can be slightly more mindful of portions eaten. That combination alone goes a long way to weight loss.
What absolutely DOESN'T help is convincing people that their amount of food intake and lack of exercise isn't what is causing them to be fat, but rather it's because McDonalds or other such companies are allowed to advertise, or that coke has high fructose corn syrup in it. What that sort of thing does is actually inhibit people from losing weight because it tells them that what is actually causing them to gain weight, well, isn't, and that it's some external factor beyond their control.
) used by the food industry in Italy. 
