6 ms·

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food

by erfgh 3y ago

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation. Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't buy the high-in-sugar stuff. If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether. You don't need to work out (although you should for other health reasons); you also don't need to diet; the vast majority of dieters gain all of the weight they lost during the diet and then some.

XorNot 3y ago
We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide. What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2]. Your entire list is just a list of your perception of "virtuous" activities, and has nothing at all to do with whether or not you'll gain or lose weight. It's lies, judgement and irrelevancy to push an agenda about how people should live, rather then sticking to the observable facts of the matter. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profe... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdonalds-diet-took-weight-flna1c9441428 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdona...
- berkes 3y ago
  Nonsense. There is a clear and proven correlation and causation between those "virtuous activities" and health. From my country, where "everyone" cycles to work, two random papers: https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longer https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longe... https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2021/03/11/het-verband-tussen-gezondheid-en-actief-reizen/The+relationship+between+health+and+active+travel_def.pdf https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...
- erfgh 3y ago
  Saying "you need to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight" is like saying "to win in chess just mate your opponent's king". It's just saying the same thing in different words. The fact of the matter is that people that don't do those virtuous activities have a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight and people that do do those virtuous activities have a much easier time.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    A home cooked meal is not "better" for you in terms of calories then anything else. Carbohydrates are incredibly energy dense, in ways people just don't expect. Milk is incredibly energy dense - so is bread. Now this is normally the point someone says "well obviously you have to cook things which don't..." - yeah. Exactly. Whether or not it's "home cooked" doesn't matter. What matters is you have a calorie budget per day and you need to not exceed it on average. Virtuous activities don't accomplish much of anything directly. Walking just plain doesn't burn that many extra calories.[1] The benefit of that whole list is basically "it's hard to eat while you're walking or not at home or at the shops". The benefit of the improved cardio-fitness is going to make you feel better, but you won't burn a lot of extra calories. That's what I mean about lies and judgement: "throw away the TV" - why? It's got nothing to do with anything. Sitting around reading a book is just as sedentary. Telling people they have to do a bunch of things which aren't associated with the core outcome is just setting them up to fail - or have unrealistic expectations because everyone has a different built-in sense of "correct" about food. To actually help people you start from the core facts, and give them the tools to figure out what habits are going to work for them. Try counting calories for a week and get a sense for what healthy portion sizes and meal composition actually looks like (this is where nutrition labels help a lot). The conclusion of "do home cooked meals" is one which follows - maybe - from that exercise, but it's absolute fiction to think that it's impossible to gain weight if you only cook at home. [1] https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calories-burned-walking https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calorie...
berkes 3y ago
I fully agree. But I'm often flabbergasted at how unfathomable large something like "throw out the TV altogether" or "start walking/cycling to places" is for many. I guess it's part herd behaviour and part natural resistance to change, but what has made "us", the human species so entrenched, that we think we need cars, TVs, premade meals? Humans "never¹" had them, yet now, within one or two generations somehow believe we cannot do without it? All while the rational evidence is clear that it's hurting both individuals², all of humanity and in some cases all of nature? ¹ statistically seen, if we take the entire history of the human kind ² to clarify the difference with something like "health care" that the human kind also statistically "never" had.
- Tade0 3y ago
  I have an answer to that: because it's more comfortable that way and people naturally seek comfort. Whenever I stop at a fueling station I see the same picture: a young, somewhat overweight man wearing tracksuit pants picking up junk food. He chose comfort. Can you honestly blame him for that? Of course as a species we thrive in discomfort, but the benefits come with a delay - there's usually no incentive to start.
  - berkes 3y ago
    > Can you honestly blame him for that? Why, yes, off course. I don't judge him for that, but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that. One might argue that marketeers, big-food, TV, influencers, politicians, and whatnot also may hold blame here, e.g. by "making this man believe he wants this", but that's a whole different debate.
    - Tade0 3y ago
      > but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that. Do you believe he values this over being comfortable? > "making this man believe he wants this", I don't think it takes much convincing - after all being comfortable is great. It's deciding to be uncomfortable - so walking/cycling instead of driving, eating less overall etc. that goes against our basic instincts - I'm surprised that you're surprised that not that many people do it when out of the two lifestyles it's the one that requires more effort.
throwawaylinux 3y ago
> If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether. This all seems pretty strange and won't make you lose weight. What will is just eating fewer calories. That's it. You don't have to change anything at all if you don't want to. You can drive to the store, you can eat in front the TV, you can eat your hamburgers and drink coke. Just eat less of it, and you'll lose weight. The idea that people have to be "educated" to know this is ludicrous, such a typical "government" / "expert" notion. Eat too much = get fat has been known and understood for centuries. People knew this when they were illiterate peasants. School children tease each other about this. The obesity problem is not caused by lack of education, it's caused by lack of self-control (exacerbated by the refinement of food composition, improved cost and convenience, and marketing).
orwin 3y ago
From an ex-obese, it's simple : do you know how much my ankle hurts? I had a cyclop eye that blocked ankle movement, the surgical operation wasn't fully reimbursed (only 70%) and I had basically no money. I couldn't do my usual job because my ankle was hurting, tried to become a youth camp director, took CS classes for a month because summer camp with computers was the future, liked it, studied for 3 years, sitting in front of a cumputer all day (away from the were the only sport I could do with my ankle, kayaking, was), became even more obese, but richer, and operated my ankle. As that time, I was so fat my thighs rubbed on each other with each movement, walking more than 15 minutes wasn't possible without scarring them (I also had a bad case of HPV at the time, which didn't help). I ate healthy food, but too much. A coworker told me about 'learning to accept the hunger' by fasting (under supervision). I did that. The second day was the worst, but after the 5 days fast I understood that being hungry is just a state, it doesn't mean that you need food. I'm constantly hungry after my meals nowadays, but my BMI is 25-26, and my waist to hip ration < 1 (not healthy yet, but still). I couldn't really do any decent walking before my BMI was under 28, but now I'm hiking regularly (still have ankle braces on my left foot though). If I wasn't lucky enough to have a good pre-college education, I wouldn't have learned CS, and without money and contacts outside my family (I was ashamed of what I became), pretty sure I would have stayed obese. It was 90% luck, 10% effort. [edit] for the 'obese should just walk crowd' : did you ever walk so much, blood soaked up your boxers and pants? My ankle was hurting so much man, but the worst was the dampness caused by the blood. Twice a week, for a month. Lost 200g. My inner thighs are reddish-brown because if the scar tissues. Only solution is eating less, but when you've learned all your life to eat till you aren't hungry, what can you do?

by erfgh 3y ago

XorNot 3y ago

We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide. What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2]. Your entire list is just a list of your perception of "virtuous" activities, and has nothing at all to do with whether or not you'll gain or lose weight. It's lies, judgement and irrelevancy to push an agenda about how people should live, rather then sticking to the observable facts of the matter. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profe... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdonalds-diet-took-weight-flna1c9441428 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdona...

berkes 3y ago
Nonsense. There is a clear and proven correlation and causation between those "virtuous activities" and health. From my country, where "everyone" cycles to work, two random papers: https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longer https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longe... https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2021/03/11/het-verband-tussen-gezondheid-en-actief-reizen/The+relationship+between+health+and+active+travel_def.pdf https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...
erfgh 3y ago
Saying "you need to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight" is like saying "to win in chess just mate your opponent's king". It's just saying the same thing in different words. The fact of the matter is that people that don't do those virtuous activities have a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight and people that do do those virtuous activities have a much easier time.
- XorNot 3y ago
  A home cooked meal is not "better" for you in terms of calories then anything else. Carbohydrates are incredibly energy dense, in ways people just don't expect. Milk is incredibly energy dense - so is bread. Now this is normally the point someone says "well obviously you have to cook things which don't..." - yeah. Exactly. Whether or not it's "home cooked" doesn't matter. What matters is you have a calorie budget per day and you need to not exceed it on average. Virtuous activities don't accomplish much of anything directly. Walking just plain doesn't burn that many extra calories.[1] The benefit of that whole list is basically "it's hard to eat while you're walking or not at home or at the shops". The benefit of the improved cardio-fitness is going to make you feel better, but you won't burn a lot of extra calories. That's what I mean about lies and judgement: "throw away the TV" - why? It's got nothing to do with anything. Sitting around reading a book is just as sedentary. Telling people they have to do a bunch of things which aren't associated with the core outcome is just setting them up to fail - or have unrealistic expectations because everyone has a different built-in sense of "correct" about food. To actually help people you start from the core facts, and give them the tools to figure out what habits are going to work for them. Try counting calories for a week and get a sense for what healthy portion sizes and meal composition actually looks like (this is where nutrition labels help a lot). The conclusion of "do home cooked meals" is one which follows - maybe - from that exercise, but it's absolute fiction to think that it's impossible to gain weight if you only cook at home. [1] https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calories-burned-walking https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calorie...

berkes 3y ago

I fully agree. But I'm often flabbergasted at how unfathomable large something like "throw out the TV altogether" or "start walking/cycling to places" is for many. I guess it's part herd behaviour and part natural resistance to change, but what has made "us", the human species so entrenched, that we think we need cars, TVs, premade meals? Humans "never¹" had them, yet now, within one or two generations somehow believe we cannot do without it? All while the rational evidence is clear that it's hurting both individuals², all of humanity and in some cases all of nature? ¹ statistically seen, if we take the entire history of the human kind ² to clarify the difference with something like "health care" that the human kind also statistically "never" had.

Tade0 3y ago
I have an answer to that: because it's more comfortable that way and people naturally seek comfort. Whenever I stop at a fueling station I see the same picture: a young, somewhat overweight man wearing tracksuit pants picking up junk food. He chose comfort. Can you honestly blame him for that? Of course as a species we thrive in discomfort, but the benefits come with a delay - there's usually no incentive to start.
- berkes 3y ago
  > Can you honestly blame him for that? Why, yes, off course. I don't judge him for that, but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that. One might argue that marketeers, big-food, TV, influencers, politicians, and whatnot also may hold blame here, e.g. by "making this man believe he wants this", but that's a whole different debate.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    > but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that. Do you believe he values this over being comfortable? > "making this man believe he wants this", I don't think it takes much convincing - after all being comfortable is great. It's deciding to be uncomfortable - so walking/cycling instead of driving, eating less overall etc. that goes against our basic instincts - I'm surprised that you're surprised that not that many people do it when out of the two lifestyles it's the one that requires more effort.

throwawaylinux 3y ago

> If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether. This all seems pretty strange and won't make you lose weight. What will is just eating fewer calories. That's it. You don't have to change anything at all if you don't want to. You can drive to the store, you can eat in front the TV, you can eat your hamburgers and drink coke. Just eat less of it, and you'll lose weight. The idea that people have to be "educated" to know this is ludicrous, such a typical "government" / "expert" notion. Eat too much = get fat has been known and understood for centuries. People knew this when they were illiterate peasants. School children tease each other about this. The obesity problem is not caused by lack of education, it's caused by lack of self-control (exacerbated by the refinement of food composition, improved cost and convenience, and marketing).

orwin 3y ago

From an ex-obese, it's simple : do you know how much my ankle hurts? I had a cyclop eye that blocked ankle movement, the surgical operation wasn't fully reimbursed (only 70%) and I had basically no money. I couldn't do my usual job because my ankle was hurting, tried to become a youth camp director, took CS classes for a month because summer camp with computers was the future, liked it, studied for 3 years, sitting in front of a cumputer all day (away from the were the only sport I could do with my ankle, kayaking, was), became even more obese, but richer, and operated my ankle. As that time, I was so fat my thighs rubbed on each other with each movement, walking more than 15 minutes wasn't possible without scarring them (I also had a bad case of HPV at the time, which didn't help). I ate healthy food, but too much. A coworker told me about 'learning to accept the hunger' by fasting (under supervision). I did that. The second day was the worst, but after the 5 days fast I understood that being hungry is just a state, it doesn't mean that you need food. I'm constantly hungry after my meals nowadays, but my BMI is 25-26, and my waist to hip ration < 1 (not healthy yet, but still). I couldn't really do any decent walking before my BMI was under 28, but now I'm hiking regularly (still have ankle braces on my left foot though). If I wasn't lucky enough to have a good pre-college education, I wouldn't have learned CS, and without money and contacts outside my family (I was ashamed of what I became), pretty sure I would have stayed obese. It was 90% luck, 10% effort. [edit] for the 'obese should just walk crowd' : did you ever walk so much, blood soaked up your boxers and pants? My ankle was hurting so much man, but the worst was the dampness caused by the blood. Twice a week, for a month. Lost 200g. My inner thighs are reddish-brown because if the scar tissues. Only solution is eating less, but when you've learned all your life to eat till you aren't hungry, what can you do?