4 ms·

Or, you know, just stop eating so much. It isn't hard and you can do it for free. Even if you have the genetics of a plant, you are not going to defy the laws o

Or, you know, just stop eating so much. It isn't hard and you can do it for free. Even if you have the genetics of a plant, you are not going to defy the laws of thermodynamics and gain weight while eating below maintenance. What is more common than genetic abnormalities causing excessive weight gain is eating calories in secret, as well as an extremely inaccurate sense of the caloric content of food.

spokeonawheel 3y ago
generally true, but if you have a hormone imbalance this approach will not work.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Both of the following things can be true: 1.There are certain genetic factors where, giving the same amount of calories to one person, will have a different metabolic result than giving the same amount of calories to a different person 2.Giving either person too many calories will result in a net weight gain Given what we know about the food supply, including food deserts, education, or lack thereof, around nutrition etc. as well as average physical activity levels of modern humans, —- it is morally bankrupt to continue to try to push this idea that the majority of people who are obese is anything other than latter environmental and behavioral shaping over the last hundred years. Until the literal aisles of disgracefully cheap liters of sugar syrup and literal pounds of salted fried potatoes become a relic we will 100% continue have an obesity crisis
arp242 3y ago
There are some people who claim some pretty questionable things, but that's a different matter altogether, and a real understanding of the differences between people is pretty important because there really are differences. I can eat pretty much anything and not gain too much weight, without paying attention to anything, while another people can't. People really do process excess calories different: some turn more of it in to fat, whereas others just excrete it or turn it in to muscle tissue. I'm also the kind of person who can not eat anything all day and basically just be fine (I don't really get hungry fast). I play the game on easy mode, whereas others play it on hard or even nightmare mode.
- quags 3y ago
  I do think this is true on some cases others are an mis judging of calories that are being eaten. The calories on menus have been great in this case. Going to order a salad at say cheese cake factory - some push to nearly 2000 calories. Add that second patty on burger with fries 1500 calories. These come close to a full days calorie needs on a single meal.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    And of course another big one is drinks. I don't think people really appreciate what things like soft drinks do to the body. A single 20oz bottle of Coke has 240 calories. If somebody naturally burns 2000 calories a day then having just one bottle of Coke per day would equal out to the equivalent adding 1.5 months of extra 2000 calorie 'feedings' onto your diet. And the zero calorie versions are even worse. All studies are now demonstrating just an endless slew of health related problems driven by sugar substitutes, in general, but especially aspartame [1]. [1] - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345#Aspartame-blocks-enzyme-that-prevents-obesity https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345#Aspartame-b...
    - quags 3y ago
      I lost weight cutting out sugar soda. I did move initially to zero calorie but have cut down on that and moved to seltzer. I didn’t experience being hungrier drinking the artificially sweetened stuff but would lean towards it better to have it in moderation. Alcohol is another big one. Some people don’t have to count calories but as someone growing up in America I think I can speak to this - some of y’all are eating full meals when cooking with taste testing or having what would be considered 3 serving of pasta or cereal in a sitting. Serving sizes might be significantly smaller than you imagine.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > I do think this is true on some cases others are an mis judging of calories that are being eaten. I'm sure that is the case, but my point was that I don't even need to pay attention to calories on menus, or anywhere else for that matter.
DangitBobby 3y ago
> Or, you know, just stop eating so much. It isn't hard and you can do it for free. So funny to hear people who have never struggled with food saying "it's not hard" in the comment section of an article telling you in no uncertain terms that for some people it _is_ hard. It's like straight people sating "it's easy, just don't be gay!" I lost weight and keep it off but my body constantly lies to me about my nutritional needs. I'm not sure I'll ever have a healthy relationship with food.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  You have to understand what people mean when they say it's not hard. That doesn't mean it's something that can be done effortlessly. Your body isn't lying to you. Our bodies are designed for survival in the wild. They want to not only accumulate as many calories as they can, but then to be extra greedy - using them as sparingly as possible, and tucking away as much as possible for a rainy day when food's not so abundant. It's an incredibly efficient machine, driven by millennia of evolution and refinement. The point of this is that if you eat when your body tells you it wants to eat, you're going to be fat. Everybody who's fit has to deal with this. And this becomes even more true as you get older when your metabolism is going to fall off a cliff while your desire for food will, at most, slightly decline.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    That's all true, but there's also research that suggests [1] that there is a gene responsible for for the mechanisms that result in satiety, and there are mutations for thia gene that either mean you are always satiated or never are (and probably a spectrum of people in between). There are people who think legitimately think it's easy because it's easy for them, even going so far as to attribute failure to regulate appetite as a moral one. 1. https://archive.is/20190419065429/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/health/genetics-weight-obesity.html https://archive.is/20190419065429/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Absolutely, there are several severe genetic disorders that can completely change the game here. But the issue is that we live in society that went from about 15% obesity rates to > 40% obesity rates in 30 years - and we're on track to sail right on over the majority market soon enough, while these genetic disorders affect a very small percentage of people. Yet now look at the environmental side of things where we've dramatically shifted our view on obesity and its acceptability. There are not only endless mass media articles, like the one you linked, implicitly suggesting to people that their fitness might be out of their control, but there's been a rise in things like 'fit at any size' type models (who have a habit of dying prematurely of cardiac issues), and more. And of course the ever-creeping plate, drink, and everything size, and even an FDA who recommends a 2400 calorie diet for a sedentary mid-aged male [1], which is just crazy out of touch with reality. To say nothing of their decision to do absolutely nothing about the increasingly overwhelming evidence of the dangers of sugar substitutes, the least of which being the increased probability of weight gain from consumption. By contrast one of the only countries to have actually taken major social action against obesity (once they saw it also starting to rise) is Japan. In Japan both employers and local governments are fined for the presence of overweight employees/residents, under a "metabo" law. And they're now the country with the 7th lowest rate of obesity in the world. [1] - https://www.fda.gov/media/112972/download https://www.fda.gov/media/112972/download

spokeonawheel 3y ago

generally true, but if you have a hormone imbalance this approach will not work.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Both of the following things can be true: 1.There are certain genetic factors where, giving the same amount of calories to one person, will have a different metabolic result than giving the same amount of calories to a different person 2.Giving either person too many calories will result in a net weight gain Given what we know about the food supply, including food deserts, education, or lack thereof, around nutrition etc. as well as average physical activity levels of modern humans, —- it is morally bankrupt to continue to try to push this idea that the majority of people who are obese is anything other than latter environmental and behavioral shaping over the last hundred years. Until the literal aisles of disgracefully cheap liters of sugar syrup and literal pounds of salted fried potatoes become a relic we will 100% continue have an obesity crisis

arp242 3y ago

There are some people who claim some pretty questionable things, but that's a different matter altogether, and a real understanding of the differences between people is pretty important because there really are differences. I can eat pretty much anything and not gain too much weight, without paying attention to anything, while another people can't. People really do process excess calories different: some turn more of it in to fat, whereas others just excrete it or turn it in to muscle tissue. I'm also the kind of person who can not eat anything all day and basically just be fine (I don't really get hungry fast). I play the game on easy mode, whereas others play it on hard or even nightmare mode.

quags 3y ago
I do think this is true on some cases others are an mis judging of calories that are being eaten. The calories on menus have been great in this case. Going to order a salad at say cheese cake factory - some push to nearly 2000 calories. Add that second patty on burger with fries 1500 calories. These come close to a full days calorie needs on a single meal.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  And of course another big one is drinks. I don't think people really appreciate what things like soft drinks do to the body. A single 20oz bottle of Coke has 240 calories. If somebody naturally burns 2000 calories a day then having just one bottle of Coke per day would equal out to the equivalent adding 1.5 months of extra 2000 calorie 'feedings' onto your diet. And the zero calorie versions are even worse. All studies are now demonstrating just an endless slew of health related problems driven by sugar substitutes, in general, but especially aspartame [1]. [1] - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345#Aspartame-blocks-enzyme-that-prevents-obesity https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345#Aspartame-b...
  - quags 3y ago
    I lost weight cutting out sugar soda. I did move initially to zero calorie but have cut down on that and moved to seltzer. I didn’t experience being hungrier drinking the artificially sweetened stuff but would lean towards it better to have it in moderation. Alcohol is another big one. Some people don’t have to count calories but as someone growing up in America I think I can speak to this - some of y’all are eating full meals when cooking with taste testing or having what would be considered 3 serving of pasta or cereal in a sitting. Serving sizes might be significantly smaller than you imagine.
- arp242 3y ago
  > I do think this is true on some cases others are an mis judging of calories that are being eaten. I'm sure that is the case, but my point was that I don't even need to pay attention to calories on menus, or anywhere else for that matter.

DangitBobby 3y ago

> Or, you know, just stop eating so much. It isn't hard and you can do it for free. So funny to hear people who have never struggled with food saying "it's not hard" in the comment section of an article telling you in no uncertain terms that for some people it _is_ hard. It's like straight people sating "it's easy, just don't be gay!" I lost weight and keep it off but my body constantly lies to me about my nutritional needs. I'm not sure I'll ever have a healthy relationship with food.

somenameforme 3y ago
You have to understand what people mean when they say it's not hard. That doesn't mean it's something that can be done effortlessly. Your body isn't lying to you. Our bodies are designed for survival in the wild. They want to not only accumulate as many calories as they can, but then to be extra greedy - using them as sparingly as possible, and tucking away as much as possible for a rainy day when food's not so abundant. It's an incredibly efficient machine, driven by millennia of evolution and refinement. The point of this is that if you eat when your body tells you it wants to eat, you're going to be fat. Everybody who's fit has to deal with this. And this becomes even more true as you get older when your metabolism is going to fall off a cliff while your desire for food will, at most, slightly decline.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  That's all true, but there's also research that suggests [1] that there is a gene responsible for for the mechanisms that result in satiety, and there are mutations for thia gene that either mean you are always satiated or never are (and probably a spectrum of people in between). There are people who think legitimately think it's easy because it's easy for them, even going so far as to attribute failure to regulate appetite as a moral one. 1. https://archive.is/20190419065429/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/health/genetics-weight-obesity.html https://archive.is/20190419065429/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Absolutely, there are several severe genetic disorders that can completely change the game here. But the issue is that we live in society that went from about 15% obesity rates to > 40% obesity rates in 30 years - and we're on track to sail right on over the majority market soon enough, while these genetic disorders affect a very small percentage of people. Yet now look at the environmental side of things where we've dramatically shifted our view on obesity and its acceptability. There are not only endless mass media articles, like the one you linked, implicitly suggesting to people that their fitness might be out of their control, but there's been a rise in things like 'fit at any size' type models (who have a habit of dying prematurely of cardiac issues), and more. And of course the ever-creeping plate, drink, and everything size, and even an FDA who recommends a 2400 calorie diet for a sedentary mid-aged male [1], which is just crazy out of touch with reality. To say nothing of their decision to do absolutely nothing about the increasingly overwhelming evidence of the dangers of sugar substitutes, the least of which being the increased probability of weight gain from consumption. By contrast one of the only countries to have actually taken major social action against obesity (once they saw it also starting to rise) is Japan. In Japan both employers and local governments are fined for the presence of overweight employees/residents, under a "metabo" law. And they're now the country with the 7th lowest rate of obesity in the world. [1] - https://www.fda.gov/media/112972/download https://www.fda.gov/media/112972/download