3 ms·

> overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, y

> overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, you're the extreme outlier, and it doesn't change the data. Assuming you can do those things, you're almost certainly still in your 20s, and the health effects of your weight haven't really caught up with your body yet I'm 37, and 6'5". and if you're calling me a liar, you can fuck right off. >within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. I was not trying to indicate that the actual metabolic burn rate of humans varies by huge factors, "metabolism" is a colloquial term that encompasses a poorly defined set of features. The physical, psychological, and emotional components of your experience of a calorie deficit are what causes the experiential variance I'm describing. Of course if I could eat a 2000 calorie diet consistently for a long period of time I would lose weight! I've performed that process numerous times, with various caloric deficits (my basal is a bit past 3k, so 2k is a pretty serious deficit - I wasn't able to hold that one past three weeks). This is when most thin people start rambling about "willpower", but maybe just skip that part this time? It's not useful to any of us actual fat people.

rich-cartwright 5y ago
Agreed about the willpower rambling and the usefulness. This is the crux for me.
evol262 5y ago
I said that you may be an extreme outlier. You're also larger than every NFL player in history, everyone in World's Strongest Man, etc. A 10 mile jog (let's say 80-100 minutes of uninterrupted running) is the sort of "I could eat 50 eggs" number people pull out. At 6'5", you are an outlier. 2kcal is too low, much as it's too high for the average woman. This doesn't mean that metabolism is a "colloquial" term. It means that "the physical, psychological, and emotional components" is a long way of saying "it's hard", and "the experiential variance I'm describing" is "the payoff did not seem to be worth the cost". In general, my post wasn't intended to be an attack on you. It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. The anecdote, if any, is "I'm larger than the largest professional athletes and I can still perform". Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. A holistic approach which addresses trauma, reasons for emotional eating, lifestyle replacements, recalibration of palate, satiation even at a deficit, and all the rest should be explored alongside drugs so "I cut calories and I lost weight" is easier to stick with.
- luckylion 5y ago
  > It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. It simplifies the problem though, because for many, that approach has side-effects that seriously affect quality of life, like sleep, concentration, mood swings, depression etc. Speaking of depression, I often get a similar vibe in those threads, where undoubtedly someone will jump in and say "all you have to do is lift heavy weights and change your diet a bit". It feels like they haven't experienced what other people have, so their advice sounds tone-deaf, a version of "let them eat cake". > Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. If it works, it's great. Because obviously the "just change your life to be like me and hope for the best" approach doesn't work for most people, or they'd do it.
  - rich-cartwright 5y ago
    Really nicely put. I've wanted to bring up how physicians treatment of depression has radically changed in the last few decades (to have a much greater appreciation of the medication-assistance), but I didn't want to bring it up myself as I thought it may be too confusion/controversial.
  - kec 5y ago
    If calorie restriction is causing those side effects, it is an indicator that the person is "doing it wrong" by either restricting their intake far more than is healthy or more likely their diet is very sub optimal (eg, 100% carbs causing blood sugar to spike and then crash when they "run out" of calories). These are problems of application which are easy to fix with a food journal and perhaps a bit of research, not really a great argument against calorie restrictions effectiveness.
    - rich-cartwright 5y ago
      I feel like this is a pretty bold statement, and I'm not sure how much evidence there is behind this.
- rich-cartwright 5y ago

rich-cartwright 5y ago

Agreed about the willpower rambling and the usefulness. This is the crux for me.

evol262 5y ago

I said that you may be an extreme outlier. You're also larger than every NFL player in history, everyone in World's Strongest Man, etc. A 10 mile jog (let's say 80-100 minutes of uninterrupted running) is the sort of "I could eat 50 eggs" number people pull out. At 6'5", you are an outlier. 2kcal is too low, much as it's too high for the average woman. This doesn't mean that metabolism is a "colloquial" term. It means that "the physical, psychological, and emotional components" is a long way of saying "it's hard", and "the experiential variance I'm describing" is "the payoff did not seem to be worth the cost". In general, my post wasn't intended to be an attack on you. It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. The anecdote, if any, is "I'm larger than the largest professional athletes and I can still perform". Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. A holistic approach which addresses trauma, reasons for emotional eating, lifestyle replacements, recalibration of palate, satiation even at a deficit, and all the rest should be explored alongside drugs so "I cut calories and I lost weight" is easier to stick with.

luckylion 5y ago
> It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. It simplifies the problem though, because for many, that approach has side-effects that seriously affect quality of life, like sleep, concentration, mood swings, depression etc. Speaking of depression, I often get a similar vibe in those threads, where undoubtedly someone will jump in and say "all you have to do is lift heavy weights and change your diet a bit". It feels like they haven't experienced what other people have, so their advice sounds tone-deaf, a version of "let them eat cake". > Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. If it works, it's great. Because obviously the "just change your life to be like me and hope for the best" approach doesn't work for most people, or they'd do it.
- rich-cartwright 5y ago
  Really nicely put. I've wanted to bring up how physicians treatment of depression has radically changed in the last few decades (to have a much greater appreciation of the medication-assistance), but I didn't want to bring it up myself as I thought it may be too confusion/controversial.
- kec 5y ago
  If calorie restriction is causing those side effects, it is an indicator that the person is "doing it wrong" by either restricting their intake far more than is healthy or more likely their diet is very sub optimal (eg, 100% carbs causing blood sugar to spike and then crash when they "run out" of calories). These are problems of application which are easy to fix with a food journal and perhaps a bit of research, not really a great argument against calorie restrictions effectiveness.
  - rich-cartwright 5y ago
    I feel like this is a pretty bold statement, and I'm not sure how much evidence there is behind this.
rich-cartwright 5y ago