5 ms·

Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-los

by tgb 13y ago

Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...

revelation 13y ago
That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine. Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Physical exercise is largely irrelevant when it comes to losing weight. In the grand scheme of wellbeing it's a crucial element, but strictly for weight loss it's of little importance. It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
  - revelation 13y ago
    If you want to go into theory, of course it's an overall inefficient way compared to just cutting your energy intake dramatically. But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.
  - revelation 13y ago
    I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win. It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.
- beagle3 13y ago
  > we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. We know of one simple principle (eat less, to the point of losing weight), that's extremely hard to practice. Turns out that no other principle works consistently for all the population (usually around 80%), and this one simple principle (doctors hate it!) leads some people (I heard estimates range from 5-20%) to significantly worse quality of line (including depression, sleep problems, anxiety, concentration problems). It is easy to change your routine in many ways - e.g., a lot of people have no problem adding a couple of jelly donuts per day. Or to stop going to the gym even if you've done it for years. It is possible that such a change of routine is possible for overweight, but it hasn't yet become popular (or discovered). From all the anecdata I've been able to collect, Soylent seems to leave people satisfied for long, compared to foods with similar caloric content (Not comparing to other meal replacements here - to your random everyday food). So does fat in general, if consumed sufficiently far away from carbs (Bullet proof coffee) or flavour (shangri-la "diet"). None of these seem to work for everyone, but e.g. 80% of people on shangri-la self-report an immediate, considerable, appetite suppression affect. The accepted body of knowledge with respect to nutrition, appetite and hunger seems to be all wrong; nutrition "science" is not. There's actual science to be done here, but it is not done in academic institutes - mostly by individuals, so it's taking longer than you expect to get quality results (and even longer to take them seriously when they are found).

by tgb 13y ago

Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...

revelation 13y ago

That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine. Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Physical exercise is largely irrelevant when it comes to losing weight. In the grand scheme of wellbeing it's a crucial element, but strictly for weight loss it's of little importance. It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
- revelation 13y ago
  If you want to go into theory, of course it's an overall inefficient way compared to just cutting your energy intake dramatically. But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.
- revelation 13y ago
  I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win. It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.
beagle3 13y ago
> we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. We know of one simple principle (eat less, to the point of losing weight), that's extremely hard to practice. Turns out that no other principle works consistently for all the population (usually around 80%), and this one simple principle (doctors hate it!) leads some people (I heard estimates range from 5-20%) to significantly worse quality of line (including depression, sleep problems, anxiety, concentration problems). It is easy to change your routine in many ways - e.g., a lot of people have no problem adding a couple of jelly donuts per day. Or to stop going to the gym even if you've done it for years. It is possible that such a change of routine is possible for overweight, but it hasn't yet become popular (or discovered). From all the anecdata I've been able to collect, Soylent seems to leave people satisfied for long, compared to foods with similar caloric content (Not comparing to other meal replacements here - to your random everyday food). So does fat in general, if consumed sufficiently far away from carbs (Bullet proof coffee) or flavour (shangri-la "diet"). None of these seem to work for everyone, but e.g. 80% of people on shangri-la self-report an immediate, considerable, appetite suppression affect. The accepted body of knowledge with respect to nutrition, appetite and hunger seems to be all wrong; nutrition "science" is not. There's actual science to be done here, but it is not done in academic institutes - mostly by individuals, so it's taking longer than you expect to get quality results (and even longer to take them seriously when they are found).