The other side of the fat debate -- Obesity is complicated

[Mistame]

It's pretty simple, actually. Stop fucking fat people and there'll be less fat people.

[TheImperios]

That does not mean people who are predisposed towards losing weight do not have to lose weight for health problems. They find it harder, of course, but that is still possible. What we should not do is shame them, we need to encourage them positively instead.

[crakerjack]

Mmmmm if you are talking about the thrifty gene than your explanation isnt valid here. All eating disorders are the "nurture" part, that is society plays the role in eating disorders. Looking at obesity, one could say there is a predisposition in their genome that makes them get addicted to stuff easier, like food or drugs. While true, even then its probably 50/50 in terms of society or genes

I've read up and talked to old professors that have dug into that topic. From what I was told, there's an idea that we possess an allele that makes us retain mass easier than we shed it for the sake of survival. Since most easily accessible food is heavily processed and loaded with simple carbohydrates, it makes putting on the weight all that much easier. If presumed true, then we all have this gene and losing weight should be the same for all of us. In very rare scenarios it's true that people just can't lose weight. For the overwhelming rest of obese people, they're obese because of what they eat.

[Foosha]

One has to wonder what kind of education background someone would have to have to make such statements.

Things can influence how your body reacts to external stimuli, your genetics can predispose you to certain things, and society can indoctrinate you. But calories are simple math, and math can not be biased or influenced, or swayed because of PC culture. So what if your lights are in the blue spectrum that kills your sleep cycle, so what if your neurotransmitters are wonky, or if you have a certain gene. It doesnt change the fact that if you dont eat you starve, and if you eat too much you gain weight. Now that last sentence is key. Your max calorie intake is a variable that depends on many different things, as stated above. What this DOESNT mean is that it's impossible to lose weight because of them. You just have to figure out your max calorie intake to sustain or lose weight. IF IT WERE EASY EVERYONE COULD DO IT. You are making excuse for these people when the answer is right in front of them. Do the hard work, figure out how much you need to eat to lose weight depending on your many variables and stick to it. SIMPLE

[Deleted]

It's pretty simple, actually. Stop fucking fat people and there'll be less fat people.

So you're of the opinion that being overweight has something to do with one's genes, then?

[Foosha]

I've read up and talked to old professors that have dug into that topic. From what I was told, there's an idea that we possess an allele that makes us retain mass easier than we shed it for the sake of survival. Since most easily accessible food is heavily processed and loaded with simple carbohydrates, it makes putting on the weight all that much easier. If presumed true, then we all have this gene and losing weight should be the same for all of us. In very rare scenarios it's true that people just can't lose weight. For the overwhelming rest of obese people, they're obese because of what they eat.

I get that, it may be harder for some, but the fact still lies that if you eat below your bodies needs, you will lose weight. It's simple math/physics. Thermodynamics.

[Deleted]

Things can influence how your body reacts to external stimuli, your genetics can predispose you to certain things, and society can indoctrinate you. But calories are simple math, and math can not be biased or influenced, or swayed because of PC culture. So what if your lights are in the blue spectrum that kills your sleep cycle, so what if your neurotransmitters are wonky, or if you have a certain gene. It doesnt change the fact that if you dont eat you starve, and if you eat too much you gain weight. Now that last sentence is key. Your max calorie intake is a variable that depends on many different things, as stated above. What this DOESNT mean is that it's impossible to lose weight because of them. You just have to figure out your max calorie intake to sustain or lose weight. IF IT WERE EASY EVERYONE COULD DO IT. You are making excuse for these people when the answer is right in front of them. Do the hard work, figure out how much you need to eat to lose weight depending on your many variables and stick to it. SIMPLE

You're backpedaling an awful lot to make what you claimed earlier to be an extremely simple, black and white thing, with no complexity at all, to seem like it's actually a quite complex issue, with a lot of factors that need to be accounted for, and thus you've basically just done a complete 180 and are now agreeing with the rest of us. Good job.

[Mistame]

So you're of the opinion that being overweight has something to do with one's genes, then?

Um, no. I'm saying deny them lovin' so they've a reason to slim down.

[Deleted]

Um, no. I'm saying deny them lovin' so they've a reason to slim down.

Or, a reason to fall even deeper into depression, causing even more self-medication via eating.

[shadowmouse]

As expected, it seems few actually examined the articles and several might benefit from taking time to wonder why the CDC, for example, finds the situation less simple than you do.

Obesity is a complex health issue to address. Obesity results from a combination of causes and contributing factors, including individual factors such as behavior and genetics. Behaviors can include dietary patterns, physical activity, inactivity, medication use, and other exposures. Additional contributing factors in our society include the food and physical activity environment, education and skills, and food marketing and promotion.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html

[Foosha]

You're backpedaling an awful lot to make what you claimed earlier to be an extremely simple, black and white thing, with no complexity at all, to seem like it's actually a quite complex issue, with a lot of factors that need to be accounted for, and thus you've basically just done a complete 180 and are now agreeing with the rest of us. Good job.

I'll keep it simple. Let's say im in a coma, and my BMR is 1.7kcal. If the doctors feed me 2.5kcal worth of food, what would happen to me? What if they feed me exactly 1.7kcal. What would happen if they feed me below my BMR?

[Deleted]

I'll keep it simple. Let's say im in a coma, and my BMR is 1.7kcal. If the doctors feed me 2.5kcal worth of food, what would happen to me? What if they feed me exactly 1.7kcal. What would happen if they feed me below my BMR?

Well, if you were fed 2.5kcal per day, you'd die, seeing as though kcal is the actual denomination for a single food calorie, so whenever someone says they're eating "2000 calories", they're actually eating 2000kcal.

I'm falling back again to investigating the source of a claim here, and since you're the only source you're providing, I'm questioning your credentials when it comes to all of this.

[Foosha]

Well, if you were fed 2.5kcal per day, you'd die, seeing as though kcal is the actual denomination for a single food calorie, so whenever someone says they're eating "2000 calories", they're actually eating 2000kcal.

I'm falling back again to investigating the source of a claim here, and since you're the only source you're providing, I'm questioning your credentials when it comes to all of this.

Here we go again with the fallacies. "Looks like you made a typo...heh-heh, tough luck, now I dont have to argue logically". All im getting here sydanyo

Again, you are debating the laws of thermodynamics here with this "societal obesity shit lalala". The amount of calories you need to maintain, lose, or gain may vary on a TON of things. But it all boils down to simple math. If you eat below it, you lose weight, above, you gain weight, yada yada. And in that regard, it's simple as fuck

[Ahovv]

Some people in this thread seem unwilling to admit that you can lose weight by consuming fewer calories.

Sure, it may be hard. But it's possible.

[Deleted]

Here we go again with the fallacies. "Looks like you made a typo...heh-heh, tough luck, now I dont have to argue logically". All im getting here sydanyo

Again, you are debating the laws of thermodynamics here with this "societal obesity shit lalala". The amount of calories you need to maintain, lose, or gain may vary on a TON of things. But it all boils down to simple math. If you eat below it, you lose weight, above, you gain weight, yada yada. And in that regard, it's simple as fuck

I'm not going to debate human biology (and, to be honest, psychology and anthropology), with someone who simply equates it with physics and leaves it at that. That's pointless.

[Notshauna]

No, what is going on here is not science. It's bullshit social science that is looking to part the blame on corporations or other entities rather than the individual. The body is fucking simple. Calories in, calories out. There is no debate that if you eat less, you lose weight (unless you have that .01% pituitary disease/cancer). There is no fact basis, just random theories, random "blames".

It's true that some drugs may make you more hungry, or that some drugs may inhibit metabolism, but that doesnt mean it's impossible to lose weight. All that means is you have fuckin willpower if the former, or you adjust your calories. The body is not some magical thing, we have been studying it since the dawn of man. You dont eat, you die. You eat to much, you get fat. Pretty fuckin simple

Let me stop you on the first statement, yes this is science. It's not "fake science" because it's wrong, no the only problem is that it disagrees with your dogmatic preconceived notions. You don't have to agree with every study or experiment, but if you're going to disagree you need to challenge it's methodology or the conclusions drawn not just argue against it with your own axioms. To ignore data that disagrees with you and failing to challenge it on it's level all you are presenting is willful ignorance.

[OrcsRLame]

As someone that used to be obese, for me, it wasn't quite as simple as eating less. Ultimately that's what it came down to, but changing what I ate changed how I ate over time. If I binged on pasta a few days, for weeks afterward I would get hungry much faster. If I stuffed myself with vegetables for a few days, I would slowly lose most of my appetite over the course of a few weeks.

For me losing weight was more about figuring out how my appetite would react to various kinds of foods and then just eating whenever I felt hungry. What I learned is that for me, pasta bad, chicken bad, red meat good, vegetables good, fruit is weird. Unfortunate since I love chicken and pasta.

[Stelio Kontos]

Going to McDonalds is fine, going to McDonalds and consuming 2000 calories is NOT.

What if someone hasn't eaten all day while driving and his first and only meal is a stop at McDonalds before getting a motel room for the night? He'd still only be consuming 2000 calories. Does that pass your judgment, o great one who gets to decide what's okay for others?

It's not McDonalds fault the obese shithead thinks it's "ok" to get 4 hamburgers, ice cream and a soda drink.

It might not be okay for his health, but neither is smoking, unprotected sex with strangers, or extreme sports. Folks have the right to do with their bodies as they please, so yes, it is "ok" for him to get those 4 burgers, ice cream, and a soda.

[Deleted]

One of my friend was overweight, he lost weight cuz he started playing video games and forgot to eat.

[Stelio Kontos]

Let me stop you on the first statement, yes this is science. It's not "fake science" because it's wrong, no the only problem is that it disagrees with your dogmatic preconceived notions. You don't have to agree with every study or experiment, but if you're going to disagree you need to challenge it's methodology or the conclusions drawn not just argue against it with your own axioms. To ignore data that disagrees with you and failing to challenge it on it's level all you are presenting is willful ignorance.

But but, his truthiness says the studies must be wrong!