3 ms·

It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.

by DJBunnies 5y ago

jwdunne 5y ago
Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?
- gadders 5y ago
  It's value neutral. It's just a fact. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the earth is a sphere. How people react to that information is up to them. What other science would you like prevented to spare people's feelings?
  - jwdunne 5y ago
    So, really, you agree that science cannot justify the cruelty of fat shaming? As you said, it’s value neutral. Which part of my comment says I’d like science to spare people’s feelings? Show me the science that justifies fat shaming and inappropriate behaviour. Fat shaming somebody because “science” doesn’t make you any less of shit person. In fact, you can’t really use any science to excuse poor behaviour. So I think we might be in violent agreement? Do you talk to your mother like that when you misunderstand her? Wow.
    - gadders 5y ago
      I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.
      - jwdunne 5y ago
        Okay, which part of my comment says that fat shaming should be used to suppress science? Which part of my comment says that it’s wrong? It IS a simplified view and there ARE many more variables that influence the success of dietary change. And there are even more that influence the wider obesity problem. But that doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. As you said, the sky is blue. Is that wrong? No. Is it simplified? Yes, sometimes it’s grey. Sometimes it’s a deep blue. Sometimes it’s pretty much black. But, generally speaking, yeah it’s blue. Is CICO the solution to the obesity epidemic? No, because it’d have worked to reduce the epidemic by now. It’s clearly _not_ the only thing we need to solve the epidemic. There is a difference between the method to lose weight and the solution to the obesity epidemic. The latter has many more variables in play. Next time you contradict an obese person who “says CICO is wrong”, make sure they’re actually saying it’s wrong. I am, however, glad you wouldn’t run up to people and shout “calories in / calories out”. That‘s a relief.
        gadders 5y ago
        >>Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate? You literally said it here.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        > Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. What precisely do you mean by Calories in/Calories out? Do you mean the very basic observation that eating significantly more or less than you eat today will help increase or decrease your weight, all things being equal? This is clearly true, but doesn't explain why some people naturally overeat, while others naturally undereat, and why overeating has been significantly increasing all over the world. Or do you mean that people gain a pound for every 3.5k Cal that they eat? Because these sorts of numbers are pure gunk - there is huge variance between individuals in terms of how much overeating will cause how much weight gain. The relationship is also highly non-linear.
        gadders 5y ago
        The former. In animal farming, they measure "food conversion ratio" i.e. they want animals that will get as close as possible to turning 1kg of food into 1kg of body weight. Some animals within the same type can vary in this value. I've often wondered if something similar happens in humans. No-one said monitoring and reducing your calories is easy, but it is simple.
fredophile 5y ago
It's science but it doesn't give very useful actionable things you can do to change your weight. Generally people interpret it to mean you get two inputs you can change, food intake and exercise, and they're independent. Unfortunately, those two things are not independent. Increased exercise often leads to increased hunger which leads to increased eating for many people in the real world. Just saying "eat less" in this context is about as useful as telling someone to be better at their job. Many people will not have the willpower to sustain eating the diet they currently eat but eat less of it. Decreasing calories consumed can lower basal metabolic rate. You can easily google for data on this from the Biggest Loser contestants. There are also other ways to modify those two parameters that don't involve food and exercise. Are you a type 1 diabetic and want to lose weight? Just under dose your insulin and the pounds will fly off. Want to lose weight but you aren't diabetic? Take a little DNP. Want to lose weight faster? Take a little more DNP. Just don't take too much or instead of losing weight you'll die of hyperthermia. Taking DNP or under dosing insulin are not things I would ever recommend anyone do but they are both examples of non food and activity related ways to affect calories out.

It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.

jwdunne 5y ago

Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?

gadders 5y ago
It's value neutral. It's just a fact. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the earth is a sphere. How people react to that information is up to them. What other science would you like prevented to spare people's feelings?
- jwdunne 5y ago
  So, really, you agree that science cannot justify the cruelty of fat shaming? As you said, it’s value neutral. Which part of my comment says I’d like science to spare people’s feelings? Show me the science that justifies fat shaming and inappropriate behaviour. Fat shaming somebody because “science” doesn’t make you any less of shit person. In fact, you can’t really use any science to excuse poor behaviour. So I think we might be in violent agreement? Do you talk to your mother like that when you misunderstand her? Wow.
  - gadders 5y ago
    I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.
    - jwdunne 5y ago
      Okay, which part of my comment says that fat shaming should be used to suppress science? Which part of my comment says that it’s wrong? It IS a simplified view and there ARE many more variables that influence the success of dietary change. And there are even more that influence the wider obesity problem. But that doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. As you said, the sky is blue. Is that wrong? No. Is it simplified? Yes, sometimes it’s grey. Sometimes it’s a deep blue. Sometimes it’s pretty much black. But, generally speaking, yeah it’s blue. Is CICO the solution to the obesity epidemic? No, because it’d have worked to reduce the epidemic by now. It’s clearly _not_ the only thing we need to solve the epidemic. There is a difference between the method to lose weight and the solution to the obesity epidemic. The latter has many more variables in play. Next time you contradict an obese person who “says CICO is wrong”, make sure they’re actually saying it’s wrong. I am, however, glad you wouldn’t run up to people and shout “calories in / calories out”. That‘s a relief.
      - gadders 5y ago
        >>Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate? You literally said it here.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      > Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. What precisely do you mean by Calories in/Calories out? Do you mean the very basic observation that eating significantly more or less than you eat today will help increase or decrease your weight, all things being equal? This is clearly true, but doesn't explain why some people naturally overeat, while others naturally undereat, and why overeating has been significantly increasing all over the world. Or do you mean that people gain a pound for every 3.5k Cal that they eat? Because these sorts of numbers are pure gunk - there is huge variance between individuals in terms of how much overeating will cause how much weight gain. The relationship is also highly non-linear.
      - gadders 5y ago
        The former. In animal farming, they measure "food conversion ratio" i.e. they want animals that will get as close as possible to turning 1kg of food into 1kg of body weight. Some animals within the same type can vary in this value. I've often wondered if something similar happens in humans. No-one said monitoring and reducing your calories is easy, but it is simple.

fredophile 5y ago

It's science but it doesn't give very useful actionable things you can do to change your weight. Generally people interpret it to mean you get two inputs you can change, food intake and exercise, and they're independent. Unfortunately, those two things are not independent. Increased exercise often leads to increased hunger which leads to increased eating for many people in the real world. Just saying "eat less" in this context is about as useful as telling someone to be better at their job. Many people will not have the willpower to sustain eating the diet they currently eat but eat less of it. Decreasing calories consumed can lower basal metabolic rate. You can easily google for data on this from the Biggest Loser contestants. There are also other ways to modify those two parameters that don't involve food and exercise. Are you a type 1 diabetic and want to lose weight? Just under dose your insulin and the pounds will fly off. Want to lose weight but you aren't diabetic? Take a little DNP. Want to lose weight faster? Take a little more DNP. Just don't take too much or instead of losing weight you'll die of hyperthermia. Taking DNP or under dosing insulin are not things I would ever recommend anyone do but they are both examples of non food and activity related ways to affect calories out.