Fat Acceptance

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:40 am

Aww, are we done? This is fun, though, it reminds me of when I used to debate creationists.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:41 am

Yeah, it's kinda like that but you're playing the role of the creationists.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:49 am

Lol. Such wit.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:59 am

Because replying 'K' before, and also refusing to answer the one question that might give you credibility, makes you so much better. If you actually think you've got a high ground here you're delusional. Homeostatic mechanisms......

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:04 am

Sigh.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:47 am

Firstly, you still haven't answered the anorexia question. But whatever.

As for that study. They lost weight when their diets were controlled(that is, they were eating a calorie deficit). When they stopped that, and had no set meal plan, that's when over a much longer period of time, they gained back on average, roughly about a third of the weight they lost. There was no oversight on them and their eating habits at home, which is worrying, because probably the biggest reason diets fail is because people misreport what they've eaten or cheat on their diets. I see nothing in that study which proves otherwise in regards to them not being monitored. The study itself even states that in regards to exercise it's merely encouraged. So you can't use this study to prove that exercise doesn't work either because they were never mandated to do any.

Your study basically proves that over the course of 62 weeks, people in fact did lose weight overall, significantly. And the study was not controlled enough to prove anything else. It merely indicates that people might struggle with keeping the weight off. That's it. It does not prove diet and exercise does not work as it was not controlled enough to do so. Also, they had them on way too large a deficit in terms of calories in the first 10 weeks. An average male needs 2500 calories a day to maintain their size. It's not sustainable that level of deficit in the long run. Something like a 500, maybe 1000 calorie deficit is more realistic and sustainable. Also, that study is assuming the dietician got their estimated calorie intake correct. If they were off by even 100 a day, that actually accounts for about 5kg*. Which is roughly what most gained back. So this study essentially relied on the nutrionist to be extremely accurate about something it's not easy to be accurate with, and relied on the partipants to not lie or cheat on their diet. To gain 5kg you only need to overeat 100 calories a day for a year.

So basically your study isn't controlled enough to mean anything as there's two very easy potential reasons why the results came out the way they did. And they all lost a significant amount of weight over the 62 weeks anyway. Thanks for playing.

*(365 x 100 = 36500, 36500/7000 = 5.2. 7000 is the amount of calorie deficit required to lose 1kg, or amount of calorie surplus required to gain 1kg)

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:57 am

Whitey wrote:
Derived Absurdity wrote:Obesity is mostly out of peoples' control, though. It is highly heritable and studies suggest that it is mostly genetic. Even if it was not, what we commonly call "willpower" or "self-control" is mostly heritable, so people generally have little control over their own level of self-control. And the facts are both diet and exercise are completely ineffective in treating obesity, both for groups and individuals, both short-term and long-term. With all this in mind I don't see any problem with fat acceptance.

The rise in obesity over the past few decades, which may or may not be overstated, is purely a structural problem, whether the cause is mostly biological or social. So we need to deal with it on a systemic structural basis.
Just no.

It is not mostly genetic. At least, not to the extent that would explain the huge rise in obesity. Regarding genetics, yes, some people will have lower metabolisms than average, or might have PCOS or Hyperthyroidism. But they do not in themselves make a person fat. As a person can simply eat less, or do some exercise to burn more calories. (I realise that some people don't have the time, but that's not a genetics issue).

Fad diets are bad at controlling obesity because you become dependent on them and if you stray from them you gain weight. Any successful weight loss diet will follow the principle that calories in must be lower than calories out. That's it. Any diet that works is because of that. And it's not ineffective, it works. And if someone continues to keep that in mind, and they follow it accurately, they will lose weight. Exercise isn't the cure all for sure, but it helps. It burns more calories that you wouldn't have otherwise burned. Not a huge amount (playing Squash for an hour for example may earn you the equivalent of a couple of chocolate bars), but some. If someone is eating a large excess and thinks that going to the gym and doing some light work will even it out they're mistaken, but it can play a part.

While there are a lot of other issues that can lead to increased obesity rates, genetics is not one of them. Most of the 'genetic' causes, simply mean you have to eat a little less.

Saying it is or isn't mostly genetic is too reductive. Genes can be upregulated or downregulated depending on the environment. Leptin, for example, is a hormone that suppresses hunger. It is derived from adipose tissue, or fat, such that leptin levels are proportional to how much fat a person carries (i.e.- the gene that codes for leptin is gets upregulated the fatter you are). And obesity can actually result in leptin resistance (much like insulin resistance in people with type-ii diabetes). Leptin resistance results in people thinking they're still hungry when they shouldn't be, making it more difficult to lose weight.

Additionally, someone who is overweight will have a difficult time getting down to a normal weight, and then maintaining that weight, due to the role of adaptive thermogenesis. A formerly obese person who dropped about 10% of their weight will actually expend something like 20-25% fewer calories over a 24 hour period compared to a never-obese person of the same body weight. And this cannot be explained by activity levels - skeletal muscle efficiency increases in formerly-obese people, such that more exercise is required to burn the same number of calories as a never-obese person. Thus, a non-obese person can literally eat several hundred more calories to maintain his or her weight than a formerly-obese person of the same weight range. And this problem amplifies the more weight a person loses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then there are all kinds of other environmental factors that result in greater predisposition of obesity, known as obesogens. Exposure to obesogens causes mesenchymal stem cells to favor differentiation into fat cells (instead of bone or cartilage or muscle), further predisposing people to obesity. What's even crazier about these fucking chemicals (e.g. BPA) is that the effects are transgenerational - obesogens your grandmother was exposed to while developing in utero can cause you to be fatter.

So while it is accurate that the calories-in vs calories-out will ultimately decide whether or not you lose weight, there are all kinds of other factors that play a role in weight loss. Losing and maintaining that weight takes far more discipline for a formerly-obese person than a person who has always been thin. It's far easier, like pretty much every health issue, to prevent something from occurring than it is to treat it.

That being said, I agree that while we shouldn't be fat-shaming, we shouldn't be overly accepting of obesity. Being moderately overweight does not necessarily mean a person is unhealthy, though, and I think that's where a lot of people argue about fat acceptance. We also shouldn't be telling people that they need to lose weight - frankly, that's none of our business. We should be educating people, particularly children and adolescents, about appropriate diets and calorie consumption though.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:02 am

Mmmmm...juicy thread is juicy.

I'll be in my bunk.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:46 am

Yeah... I didn't link that study to "prove" diet and exercise don't work. There are multiple other studies for that. I linked it in direct response to your scoffing at the very idea that homeostatic mechanisms are implicated in the lack of effect of weight loss, a claim which you, unsurprisingly, did not acknowledge or follow up on.

I also kept ignoring your anorexia question because no one knows the cause of anorexia. Which is something I thought was well-known.

But whatever, I am beyond sick of this "conversation" in which you're wrong about basically everything and you're freaking out because I'm trying to correct you on certain things. I'm trying not to be an asshole, but you're severely testing me, so I'm out before things get more ridiculous.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:01 am

And just in case anyone's interested (I know you're not), here's an easy accessible article which goes into a bit more detail on certain homeostatic regulations implicated in weight which I just remembered:

http://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/seduce ... and-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:08 am

So firstly the one real question I was asking you was about anorexia. And then you link to a study which says nothing about it. Then you talk about homeopathic mechanisms. Which that study does not prove make a difference to weight loss. Yes they gained weight after the first 10 weeks but you literally have no way of proving that was because of homeostatic mechanisms. And after a year they were still significantly lighter, so again, you were wrong when in a previous post you said that such changes were minimal to non-existant. Your study does not prove that homeostatic mechanisms make it impossible for a majority of people to not lose weight over a large period of time. Your study is also worthless because it's based on self reporting. People are bad at that shit, people consistently under-report what they eat. Were those people monitored correctly they would likely have not put any weight back on.

You don't get to claim "Well this is why people can't keep the weight off, the body is resistant to change", then ignore a direct question which proves that wrong. While I don't know what causes someone to develop anorexia, eating at a large calorie deficiency completely explains why an anorexic person loses weight, and they will not put it back on till the person is better and able to eat properly. That was the point being made, I never asked the cause of anorexia. I was asking how homeopathic mechanisms explained that, as according to you, long term their weight should have gone back to their normal levels.

You're the one espousing complete pseudoscience which was then backed up by a study which didn't prove anything. I'm incredulous that someone can be so very wrong so hard. You're already an asshole, even before this thread existed, so this thread changes nothing. Calories in Calories out IS the accepted science on this, and it demonstrably works. There are plenty of studies for this, and they prove that it works and that if you follow it, you will lose weight (Or maintain if that is your goal). If someone lacks the willpower to continue such a diet, that is not a failure of the diet and it certainly doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that person doesn't have the willpower.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:43 am

What Monk said.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:31 am

Monk wrote:

Saying it is or isn't mostly genetic is too reductive. Genes can be upregulated or downregulated depending on the environment. Leptin, for example, is a hormone that suppresses hunger. It is derived from adipose tissue, or fat, such that leptin levels are proportional to how much fat a person carries (i.e.- the gene that codes for leptin is gets upregulated the fatter you are). And obesity can actually result in leptin resistance (much like insulin resistance in people with type-ii diabetes). Leptin resistance results in people thinking they're still hungry when they shouldn't be, making it more difficult to lose weight.

Additionally, someone who is overweight will have a difficult time getting down to a normal weight, and then maintaining that weight, due to the role of adaptive thermogenesis. A formerly obese person who dropped about 10% of their weight will actually expend something like 20-25% fewer calories over a 24 hour period compared to a never-obese person of the same body weight. And this cannot be explained by activity levels - skeletal muscle efficiency increases in formerly-obese people, such that more exercise is required to burn the same number of calories as a never-obese person. Thus, a non-obese person can literally eat several hundred more calories to maintain his or her weight than a formerly-obese person of the same weight range. And this problem amplifies the more weight a person loses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then there are all kinds of other environmental factors that result in greater predisposition of obesity, known as obesogens. Exposure to obesogens causes mesenchymal stem cells to favor differentiation into fat cells (instead of bone or cartilage or muscle), further predisposing people to obesity. What's even crazier about these fucking chemicals (e.g. BPA) is that the effects are transgenerational - obesogens your grandmother was exposed to while developing in utero can cause you to be fatter.

So while it is accurate that the calories-in vs calories-out will ultimately decide whether or not you lose weight, there are all kinds of other factors that play a role in weight loss. Losing and maintaining that weight takes far more discipline for a formerly-obese person than a person who has always been thin. It's far easier, like pretty much every health issue, to prevent something from occurring than it is to treat it.

That being said, I agree that while we shouldn't be fat-shaming, we shouldn't be overly accepting of obesity. Being moderately overweight does not necessarily mean a person is unhealthy, though, and I think that's where a lot of people argue about fat acceptance. We also shouldn't be telling people that they need to lose weight - frankly, that's none of our business. We should be educating people, particularly children and adolescents, about appropriate diets and calorie consumption though.

That's the thing, I've never said there weren't other factors.. I know it'll be harder for some to lose weight than others, and you've outlined several reasons why. My issue is with DA saying CI vs CO doesn't work long term. It does if you stick to it. That's my sticking point with DA. It can be harder for some, and for other willpower will be a sticking point, but he seems to be insinuating that if someone doesn't have the willpower to do it, that CI vs CO doesn't work, which is nonsense.

I agree we should be educating people, especially early in their life. The parents too, they should be offered nutrition classes as part of any pre or post natal care. It's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you grow up eating healthily.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:28 pm

Yeah, yet again, all I linked the study for was because it went into detail about homeostatic regulations of appetite, the very idea of which you scoffed at, and which you seem to think needs to work for anorexics in order to exist at all. It wasn't meant to prove or show anything else.

Also, again, I'm not denying basic thermodynamics. You''ll remember I specifically said "I'm not denying caloric restriction causes a loss of weight". Which would be something pretty stupid for me to deny, considering that I have been on diets multiple times when my weight gained, and along with exercise they mostly worked well enough for me. I'm saying that diets and exercise are almost never effective in the long-term, and that homeostatic mechanisms almost certainly have a part to play in explaining why. I would link to the studies I'm referring to, but since you are already referring to them as "complete pseudoscience" without even having seen them, I don't see the point. I might if anyone else (not you) asks nicely. I don't care at all if you think I'm an asshole, since I'm not the one who called you a fuckwit twice for no reason while strawmanning virtually everything you said, and I make zero apologies for being an asshole to people who consistently behave like assholes. I've been far nicer in this thread than I think is warranted.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:39 pm

The thing is, that study doesn't prove that homoeostatic mechanisms stop you keeping the weight off. And my point about anorexics is that if you think that people basically have a set weight and can't maintain a significant weight change, anorexia proves you wrong. Anorexics don't just lose a lot of weight then gradually put it back on. They will keep the weight off for as long as they're dealing with the effects of anorexia. If homeostatic mechanisms were responsible for people gradually returning to their previous weight, anorexics would not be able to keep the weight off.

Calorie restriction to someones goal weight, followed by eating a calorie equilibrium, will result in them keeping the weight off. That is how it works. There is nothing else to it in terms of how it works. Now, whether someone has the willpower to do it and how hard it may be for them to do it, I accept that that can be extremely difficult for some. But they will not start to gain weight back if they eat a calorie equilibrium or deficit, they will only gain it back when they stop sticking to that. It's that simple. Calorie restriction and exercise are completely effective if you stick to them properly.

If you could actually provide me with a study that shows that when people are made to stick to a strictly controlled calorie intake tailored by multiply dietary experts to their daily calorie maintenance rate, initially at a deficit, and then to maintain, where there is no possibility that they're lying about what they eat, that they will gain the weight due to homeostatic mechanisms, then I'll believe you. No such study exists. Nobody has done that study. So you wouldn't be able to provide it even if you wanted to.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:40 pm

I stayed up late reading about this crap now I have bags under my eyes and I don't wear make up, so I will look like a raccoon at my birthday event today.

I haven't paid much attention to this, mostly because this movement will only be successful in the first world. Part because we idealize thick bodies over thin, and also because we have people living under a dollar a day. "Oh liszt, but things are cheaper there." yes, but it's more expensive to live in the third world than in the first world, regardless of how cheap things are people can't afford anything with under a dollar a day anywhere. Also I do support anything that will challenge our beauty standards, since they are very westernized and made unreachable so they can be marketable. So I didn't care about it.

I think the real issue is this "We should be educating people, particularly children and adolescents, about appropriate diets and calorie consumption though." Which is very naive and wrong in my understanding and I think it's what DA is trying to get across.

The problem is when we separate Obesity and take it as a singe isolated problem. When I read about it, superficially this is how it comes across and many people pushing this movement also make this mistake, which makes it seem as a very privileged problem. A problem that will go away if people knew how to handle its resources and walk for a bit. (And yes, being poor in the U.S is very privileged.)

But it's not, it's a problem that connects with class, unethical corporatism, wage disparity, race, etc, etc. So when you start seeing it from this point of view it's not something that will wash away with simple education. You fall into the mistake of saying "black people could go to college if they just work harder." It's like.. no. Seeing education as a solution to everything is a very naive, white, privileged way to see things. And I believe this is the real issue of all our problems, disconnecting issues instead of seeing how our system intersects and traps us and without challenging the very structures that oppress us.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:41 pm

Pop quiz, hot shots:

I played basketball and lifted weights for about 4 hours today. And the only thing I've had to eat is a piece of sugar-free chocolate(though last night I ate like pig and drank four beers).

How much weight have I lost?

Post by **OpiateOfTheMasses** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:28 am

My two cents...

The "fat gene" does exist, but it's very rare - only about 1 in 10,000 have it. More commonly there are illnesses that people can acquire/develop - both physical and mental - which can cause them to gain or lose weight, either directly or because of the medication they take.

In all of these situations I have the very fullest sympathy for the individuals and wish them all the support, good luck coping with it and speedy recover if that's possible.

For the large (pun intended) number of grossly overweight people who are that fat because they just eat too much of the wrong sorts of food and/or make little to no effort to exercise then whilst I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them, I wouldn't shame or embarrass them.

If I'm really honest, because you don't know if someone is the size they are through no fault of their own, I don't judge them for it. But if I do meet someone who is grossly overweight and I discover there is no underlying medical reason for it then I do think a little less of them. And if I'm being really, really honest, I guess I'd probably be slightly less likely to offer them a job (for example) - that sort of thing. Just being honest.

I would certainly try to avoid sitting next to grossly overweight people in a cinema or a train (or the like).

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:47 pm

Whitey wrote:The thing is, that study doesn't prove that homoeostatic mechanisms stop you keeping the weight off. And my point about anorexics is that if you think that people basically have a set weight and can't maintain a significant weight change, anorexia proves you wrong. Anorexics don't just lose a lot of weight then gradually put it back on. They will keep the weight off for as long as they're dealing with the effects of anorexia. If homeostatic mechanisms were responsible for people gradually returning to their previous weight, anorexics would not be able to keep the weight off.

Calorie restriction to someones goal weight, followed by eating a calorie equilibrium, will result in them keeping the weight off. That is how it works. There is nothing else to it in terms of how it works. Now, whether someone has the willpower to do it and how hard it may be for them to do it, I accept that that can be extremely difficult for some. But they will not start to gain weight back if they eat a calorie equilibrium or deficit, they will only gain it back when they stop sticking to that. It's that simple. Calorie restriction and exercise are completely effective if you stick to them properly.

If you could actually provide me with a study that shows that when people are made to stick to a strictly controlled calorie intake tailored by multiply dietary experts to their daily calorie maintenance rate, initially at a deficit, and then to maintain, where there is no possibility that they're lying about what they eat, that they will gain the weight due to homeostatic mechanisms, then I'll believe you. No such study exists. Nobody has done that study. So you wouldn't be able to provide it even if you wanted to.

Anorexia has a different effect on the body. In regards to leptin, for example, they actually become more sensitive to the hormone. Therefore they feel sated when they should, in fact, be eating more.

And while it is true that calories-in vs. calories-out will help a person lose weight, something like 95% of people who are were formerly obese or very overweight were incapable of keeping their weight off. That 5% who did basically had to religious keep track of their caloric intake and expenditure, and potentially some other biological advantages in these people as well. This simply isn't possible for a lot of people, for a variety of reasons (poverty and other issues have been mentioned earlier). I think it's generally possible for people to lose weight within a set range (e.g. I've read within 10% or so), but more than it becomes too difficult as you lose more weight.

Not only that, there's actually not a lot of evidence that losing weight improves one's health. In fact, some studies have found that those who lost significant amount of weight are just as likely to die from heart attacks/strokes/etc as those who didn't lose any weight. Others have actually shown that losing weight is worse in many cases where patients have chronic diseases (type-II diabetes, high blood pressure, etc), though this applies more to people moderately overweight as opposed to being obese

But it's not, it's a problem that connects with class, unethical corporatism, wage disparity, race, etc, etc. So when you start seeing it from this point of view it's not something that will wash away with simple education. You fall into the mistake of saying "black people could go to college if they just work harder." It's like.. no. Seeing education as a solution to everything is a very naive, white, privileged way to see things. And I believe this is the real issue of all our problems, disconnecting issues instead of seeing how our system intersects and traps us and without challenging the very structures that oppress us.

Education is the bare minimum - I never claimed there weren't other issues that needed to be addressed, and at least a couple other people already spoke about other social issues.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:08 am

Thread summary:

Whitey hates overweight people

DA is overweight and lacks willpower

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:49 am

Cassius Clay wrote:Thread summary:

Whitey hates overweight people

DA is overweight and lacks willpower

^ that

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:39 am

On a more serious note, I too find the psychology of will power fascinating. It makes sense to me that there is a will power reserve that's limited, and people with harder lives are forced to use up more and tend to have less will power when it comes to things like eating healthy(it's also likely just not as much a priority when there are so many other immediate demands/pressures...that there isn't too much room for long-term thinking). But, I think will power is a lot more complex than that. I've also heard that people with overly-privileged lives have less will power and resilience because life has been so easy.

I think there is also a powerful, self-fulfilling aspect regarding how you think about will power. Like, if you think you have a very limited reserve, particularly when it's part of a superficial pleasure-seeking/pain-avoidance framework (which I speculate is a framework you're more likely to have when you believe your will power is very limited), you will probably have little will power. But if you feel you have a deeper purpose, where your pain/stress has a purpose, your pleasure has a purpose...where pain and pleasure are not merely things happening to you(being imposed on you), but are working with you(that your pain/stress/pleasure is real and legitimate, but have more meaning than things to be avoided or chased as an escape), I believe you'll have what seems like an unlimited reserve of will power. Because you'll feel like you're more in the "driver's seat"(while ironically giving up some control over your immediate experience....being less reactive to your immediate experience ironically gives you more of a deeper sense of control/purpose) .

I've mentioned this before, but I've done experiments with myself where I'm running or doing some sort of cardio for a while, and have noticed a shift in my mental framework and resilience from thinking I don't have anything left in the tank to suddenly feel a burst of will power and energy. I think that mentality is involved in a "runner's high".

tl; dr version:

I think the less you believe you're in the driver's seat of your life(the more you think that things just happen to you), the less will power reserve you'll likely have. And it has the potential danger of being a self-reinforcing viscous circle; where you think you have less will power/control, so you take less action in doing the meaningful things you should do or want to do(over things you actually have control over), which deeply reinforces the idea that you have no will power/control...and so on. Not sure, but I believe that's known as "learned helplessness".

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:49 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Thread summary:

Whitey hates overweight people

DA is overweight and lacks willpower

It does kind of sound like this.

The thing is, I don't think there's any actual disagreement or contradiction between what each of them are saying! It's quite possible that they are both completely correct.

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight." That could be completely true without invalidating what DA is saying.

"Studies show that diet and exercise isn't effective over the long-term, and that genetics play a role in this." That could be completely true without invalidating what Whitey is saying.

They're simply defining "effective" differently. Whitey is saying it's "effective" because if you do it, it will work. DA is saying it's not "effective" because various factors make it hard or even impossible for people to do it.

Also, this reminds me of discussions on abstinence-only education. Is abstinence effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy? Well, yes AND no! From the Whitey-stance here, of course it is! Anyone who remains abstinent will not get pregnant. FACT. From the DA-stance here, it's not effective, because studies show that people don't remain abstinent even if they are taught to or they try to.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:36 pm

Gendo is correct.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:57 pm

I think the less you believe you're in the driver's seat of your life(the more you think that things just happen to you), the less will power reserve you'll likely have. And it has the potential danger of being a self-reinforcing viscous circle; where you think you have less will power/control, so you take less action in doing the meaningful things you should do or want to do(over things you actually have control over), which deeply reinforces the idea that you have no will power/control...and so on. Not sure, but I believe that's known as "learned helplessness".

Probably true. Sounds like learned helplessness, almost, which is one of the few terms I remember from my intro pysch course in college.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:50 pm

Gendo wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:Thread summary:

Whitey hates overweight people

DA is overweight and lacks willpower
It does kind of sound like this.

The thing is, I don't think there's any actual disagreement or contradiction between what each of them are saying! It's quite possible that they are both completely correct.

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight." That could be completely true without invalidating what DA is saying.

"Studies show that diet and exercise isn't effective over the long-term, and that genetics play a role in this." That could be completely true without invalidating what Whitey is saying.

They're simply defining "effective" differently. Whitey is saying it's "effective" because if you do it, it will work. DA is saying it's not "effective" because various factors make it hard or even impossible for people to do it.

Also, this reminds me of discussions on abstinence-only education. Is abstinence effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy? Well, yes AND no! From the Whitey-stance here, of course it is! Anyone who remains abstinent will not get pregnant. FACT. From the DA-stance here, it's not effective, because studies show that people don't remain abstinent even if they are taught to or they try to.

Ikr? That's one of the points I've been making. My claims aren't contradicting his basic point. I've agreed with it multiple times.

And as an aside I'm not overweight, but I do lack willpower, and it is easy for me to gain weight. This gives me a lot of sympathy for overweight people/people who have low willpower.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:58 pm

Gendo wrote:The thing is, I don't think there's any actual disagreement or contradiction between what each of them are saying! It's quite possible that they are both completely correct.

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight." That could be completely true without invalidating what DA is saying.

"Studies show that diet and exercise isn't effective over the long-term, and that genetics play a role in this." That could be completely true without invalidating what Whitey is saying.

They're simply defining "effective" differently. Whitey is saying it's "effective" because if you do it, it will work. DA is saying it's not "effective" because various factors make it hard or even impossible for people to do it.

This is exactly what I was thinking reading this thread. I was all like, why are they fighting again?

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:55 pm

As a guy who has been working out for over a year but hasn't changed much in diet, I can confirm they are both right.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:56 pm

I don't have time to exercise. I just live on about 500 calories a day instead. It's cheaper and I did manage to lose half a stone

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:59 pm

I've lost 35 pounds over the last couple years. Combination of tracking calories and running.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:05 pm

My opinion: More important than BMI or whatever arbitrary definition of obesity is used is that people are happy.
So if people are happy while being overweight, let them be. If they are happy while being underweight, let them be.

And if obesity or anorexia are unhealthy in the long run: So what?
Today I heard a radio moderator comment on the news that vegetarians live longer on average: He'd rather live 10 years of happiness than 20 years of austerity. I tend to agree.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:37 pm

Gendo wrote:I've lost 35 pounds over the last couple years. Combination of tracking calories and running.

probably just got a hole in your pocket

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:37 pm

The other health aspect that I don't hear much in these conversations is regarding where fat is stored on the body. I believe the closer fat is to the heart the unhealthier it is. Like it's better to store fat in thighs/butt than at waist or stomach. And men tend to accumulate fat around the latter.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:38 pm

Monk wrote:
I think the less you believe you're in the driver's seat of your life(the more you think that things just happen to you), the less will power reserve you'll likely have. And it has the potential danger of being a self-reinforcing viscous circle; where you think you have less will power/control, so you take less action in doing the meaningful things you should do or want to do(over things you actually have control over), which deeply reinforces the idea that you have no will power/control...and so on. Not sure, but I believe that's known as "learned helplessness".
Probably true. Sounds like learned helplessness, almost, which is one of the few terms I remember from my intro pysch course in college.

I believe that's where I originally heard the term as well.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:57 pm

Gendo wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:Thread summary:

Whitey hates overweight people

DA is overweight and lacks willpower
It does kind of sound like this.

The thing is, I don't think there's any actual disagreement or contradiction between what each of them are saying! It's quite possible that they are both completely correct.

"If you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight." That could be completely true without invalidating what DA is saying.

"Studies show that diet and exercise isn't effective over the long-term, and that genetics play a role in this." That could be completely true without invalidating what Whitey is saying.

They're simply defining "effective" differently. Whitey is saying it's "effective" because if you do it, it will work. DA is saying it's not "effective" because various factors make it hard or even impossible for people to do it.

Also, this reminds me of discussions on abstinence-only education. Is abstinence effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy? Well, yes AND no! From the Whitey-stance here, of course it is! Anyone who remains abstinent will not get pregnant. FACT. From the DA-stance here, it's not effective, because studies show that people don't remain abstinent even if they are taught to or they try to.

This is why I was exasperated, I was even accepting that there are other factors which might make it harder for some, but just saying that calorie counting itself is effective. And when one of his initial comments was. " diet and exercise simply do not work", I don't think I was wrong for assuming he was denying that they work. It was only later he changed from that.

Post by **aels** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:33 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:On a more serious note, I too find the psychology of will power fascinating. It makes sense to me that there is a will power reserve that's limited, and people with harder lives are forced to use up more and tend to have less will power when it comes to things like eating healthy(it's also likely just not as much a priority when there are so many other immediate demands/pressures...that there isn't too much room for long-term thinking). But, I think will power is a lot more complex than that. I've also heard that people with overly-privileged lives have less will power and resilience because life has been so easy.

I think there is also a powerful, self-fulfilling aspect regarding how you think about will power. Like, if you think you have a very limited reserve, particularly when it's part of a superficial pleasure-seeking/pain-avoidance framework (which I speculate is a framework you're more likely to have when you believe your will power is very limited), you will probably have little will power. But if you feel you have a deeper purpose, where your pain/stress has a purpose, your pleasure has a purpose...where pain and pleasure are not merely things happening to you(being imposed on you), but are working with you(that your pain/stress/pleasure is real and legitimate, but have more meaning than things to be avoided or chased as an escape), I believe you'll have what seems like an unlimited reserve of will power. Because you'll feel like you're more in the "driver's seat"(while ironically giving up some control over your immediate experience....being less reactive to your immediate experience ironically gives you more of a deeper sense of control/purpose) .

I've mentioned this before, but I've done experiments with myself where I'm running or doing some sort of cardio for a while, and have noticed a shift in my mental framework and resilience from thinking I don't have anything left in the tank to suddenly feel a burst of will power and energy. I think that mentality is involved in a "runner's high".

tl; dr version:

I think the less you believe you're in the driver's seat of your life(the more you think that things just happen to you), the less will power reserve you'll likely have. And it has the potential danger of being a self-reinforcing viscous circle; where you think you have less will power/control, so you take less action in doing the meaningful things you should do or want to do(over things you actually have control over), which deeply reinforces the idea that you have no will power/control...and so on. Not sure, but I believe that's known as "learned helplessness".

I wish I could find (read: be bothered to look for) my dissertation now because it's such a fascinating topic and I wish I had more Interesting Science Facts to add. Literally all I can remember at present is that the good news for people like me with no willpower is that willpower is apparently like a muscle, in that frequently exercising it increases the store of willpower you have. I found it shmironic that when writing my project on willpower, I had to keep exercising a lot of willpower to not wander off and do literally anything else.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:42 pm

I think this is a fairly important point that seems to be forgotten or ignored by people like that chick who did an entire fat shaming youtube video that went viral. Liszt outlines the fallacy of fat shaming especially coming from privileged white men and women considering they have heavily influenced body shaming practices. I've nothing to add, she covered everything I think already.

I think the real issue is this "We should be educating people, particularly children and adolescents, about appropriate diets and calorie consumption though." Which is very naive and wrong in my understanding and I think it's what DA is trying to get across.

The problem is when we separate Obesity and take it as a singe isolated problem. When I read about it, superficially this is how it comes across and many people pushing this movement also make this mistake, which makes it seem as a very privileged problem. A problem that will go away if people knew how to handle its resources and walk for a bit. (And yes, being poor in the U.S is very privileged.)

But it's not, it's a problem that connects with class, unethical corporatism, wage disparity, race, etc, etc. So when you start seeing it from this point of view it's not something that will wash away with simple education. You fall into the mistake of saying "black people could go to college if they just work harder." It's like.. no. Seeing education as a solution to everything is a very naive, white, privileged way to see things. And I believe this is the real issue of all our problems, disconnecting issues instead of seeing how our system intersects and traps us and without challenging the very structures that oppress us.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:18 am

aels wrote:I wish I could find (read: be bothered to look for) my dissertation now because it's such a fascinating topic and I wish I had more Interesting Science Facts to add. Literally all I can remember at present is that the good news for people like me with no willpower is that willpower is apparently like a muscle, in that frequently exercising it increases the store of willpower you have. I found it shmironic that when writing my project on willpower, I had to keep exercising a lot of willpower to not wander off and do literally anything else.

There's a scientist named Kelly McGonigal that I hear has two interesting books on the subject. One is strictly about will power and the second is more about how stress avoidance is bad for your health and resilience/will power. From what I skipped, it looks good and she cites studies throughout. She has a twin sister that looks just like her but specializes in video games for some reason. Don't confuse them.

Also, check out Tai Lopez if you want some knaaawledge. Just kidding.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:36 pm

Interestingly a recent meta-analysis has apparently challenged the idea that willpower is a limited resource.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-26263-001/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if I believe this study, I won't believe willpower is limited and I'll have more willpower? Sounds good.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:16 pm

So I had a lot of free time yesterday and ended playing intense basketball for like 6 hours (I feel like a young man again

). Weird thing is the amount of weight my scale seems to claim I've lost. I was around 185 before playing, and I was at 177 when I got back. I know you lose a lot of "water weight" through sweat and what not when you're active for that long, but 8 pounds seems like a lot. I also noticed my face was a little more sunken in and abdominal muscles more visible. So, I figured if I eat and drink I'd probably be back to normal the next day. I weighed myself today and I'm 178. Ummm...do I have AIDS?

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:23 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:So I had a lot of free time yesterday and ended playing intense basketball for like 6 hours (I feel like a young man again ). Weird thing is the amount of weight my scale seems to claim I've lost. I was around 185 before playing, and I was at 177 when I got back. I know you lose a lot of "water weight" through sweat and what not when you're active for that long, but 8 pounds seems like a lot. I also noticed my face was a little more sunken in and abdominal muscles more visible. So, I figured if I eat and drink I'd probably be back to normal the next day. I weighed myself today and I'm 178. Ummm...do I have AIDS?

Yup. That's how it gets ya.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:35 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:So I had a lot of free time yesterday and ended playing intense basketball for like 6 hours (I feel like a young man again ). Weird thing is the amount of weight my scale seems to claim I've lost. I was around 185 before playing, and I was at 177 when I got back. I know you lose a lot of "water weight" through sweat and what not when you're active for that long, but 8 pounds seems like a lot. I also noticed my face was a little more sunken in and abdominal muscles more visible. So, I figured if I eat and drink I'd probably be back to normal the next day. I weighed myself today and I'm 178. Ummm...do I have AIDS?

My weight fluctuates up to 3kg a day with eating, water weight, etc. I only trust my scales first thing in the morning. That's when you get your true weight.

It sounds more like your normal weight was 177, and you'd basically eaten/drank, quite a lot before that.

Also in the interest of talking about fitness stuff I can now do muscle ups. Oddly enough they're easier when you're carrying 12kg less bodyweight. Wasn't going to try one again till I hit 95kg, but I felt in the mood today after the workout, and did it. I'm 100kg now.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:00 pm

Congrats, but what the hell are muscle ups?? You mean pull ups?

Yeah my weight can fluctuate a lot depending on how active I am and what I'm eating. But it's been around 185-186 on average....usually the lowest it's been when I finish a workout is 183, then it pops back up to 185 the next morning. I have broken into the 170s in years(even after an intense work out) and it's especially weird for me to still be around that weight the next day after eating/drinking.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:06 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Congrats, but what the hell are muscle ups?? You mean pull ups?

Yeah my weight can fluctuate a lot depending on how active I am and what I'm eating. But it's been around 185-186 on average....usually the lowest it's been when I finish a workout is 183, then it pops back up to 185 the next morning. I have broken into the 170s in years(even after an intense work out) and it's especially weird for me to still be around that weight the next day after eating/drinking.

They look more like dips.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:15 pm

Did you by chance take a large dump?

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:33 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Congrats, but what the hell are muscle ups?? You mean pull ups?

Yeah my weight can fluctuate a lot depending on how active I am and what I'm eating. But it's been around 185-186 on average....usually the lowest it's been when I finish a workout is 183, then it pops back up to 185 the next morning. I have broken into the 170s in years(even after an intense work out) and it's especially weird for me to still be around that weight the next day after eating/drinking.

Do a pullup but you go above the bar so your arms are locked out above the bar. You can swing a bit to get you up there though, strict muscle ups are a bit out of my reach at this point.

Hmm, that is interesting. I've never worked on maintaining my weight as the only time I've regularly weighed myself is recently while losing weight.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:42 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:Did you by chance take a large dump?

Lol nah. Ever weigh yourself before and after you take one? It typically accounts for about half a pound.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:46 pm

Whitey wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:Congrats, but what the hell are muscle ups?? You mean pull ups?

Yeah my weight can fluctuate a lot depending on how active I am and what I'm eating. But it's been around 185-186 on average....usually the lowest it's been when I finish a workout is 183, then it pops back up to 185 the next morning. I have broken into the 170s in years(even after an intense work out) and it's especially weird for me to still be around that weight the next day after eating/drinking.

Do a pullup but you go above the bar so your arms are locked out above the bar. You can swing a bit to get you up there though, strict muscle ups are a bit out of my reach at this point.

Hmm, that is interesting. I've never worked on maintaining my weight as the only time I've regularly weighed myself is recently while losing weight.

So you pull up to your chest then push yourself up. Kinda like what you might need to do if you were hanging off a cliff. I've never actually tried one before.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:18 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:
Whitey wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:Congrats, but what the hell are muscle ups?? You mean pull ups?

Yeah my weight can fluctuate a lot depending on how active I am and what I'm eating. But it's been around 185-186 on average....usually the lowest it's been when I finish a workout is 183, then it pops back up to 185 the next morning. I have broken into the 170s in years(even after an intense work out) and it's especially weird for me to still be around that weight the next day after eating/drinking.

Do a pullup but you go above the bar so your arms are locked out above the bar. You can swing a bit to get you up there though, strict muscle ups are a bit out of my reach at this point.

Hmm, that is interesting. I've never worked on maintaining my weight as the only time I've regularly weighed myself is recently while losing weight.

So you pull up to your chest then push yourself up. Kinda like what you might need to do if you were hanging off a cliff. I've never actually tried one before.

Essentially yes. If you're strong enough you can do it with no swing. I'm not at that stage yet(for my purposes swinging is acceptable). Even with swinging it's not easy.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:23 pm

Uh, no. But I brush my teeth while in the shower and people think I'm weird for it.