Fat shaming

[MrDudeMan]

Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.

There is no mutual exclusivity between those two statements at all. One calorie could convert to x mass while the other converts to 1.1x. It makes no difference which one you consume as long as you eat few enough calories to be under what you burn in a day [edit: or under the threshold of how much mass you can absorb to equal the mass you lose through energy conversion]. There are all kinds of secondary effects that you may experience based on which calorie you choose to eat, but what I said is still true. Needing to know what happens as a result of consuming a single calorie of a certain type is probably necessary, so I'll concede that.

Lets just start out with conservation of MASS. (Mass in) - (Mass out) = (Mass gained or lost). That's really all there is to it. Not calories; science 101 states that. All scientists think that is true until you talk about food; then basic science goes out the window and people think (Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Mass gained or lost).

None of this refutes what I said. I also stated this in my post, but not explicitly. This conversation is decidedly not scientific, so I kept it at that level. With that said, I agree with you here.

Now, mass in is easy to understand but it is extremely difficult to control long term for most people. Mass out is where the differences lie. Some food is easily digested, some isn't. Food types (high fiber is almost the polar opposite of high sugar; high protein helps with controlling mass in, and so on), exercise, gut bacteria, quantities above your ability to digest, general health level, etc. all affect the mass out portion.

I accounted for this when I said "you know this because when you shit, there's shit." As in, something comes out instead of all of it being converted and absorbed. How much comes out and how much you absorbed is accounted for in terms of feed conversion efficiency. I don't know the term for human conversion efficiency, but that term is used for livestock and it's the same principal regardless.

 

[Carson Dyle]

remember those commercials of people eating fried chicken and bbq while taking a supplement and supposedly none of the fat gets digested? what happened to that?

They had a very difficult time keeping their underwear clean.

 

[louis redfoot]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The human body is not nearly as simple a machine as some people would like to think it is, where fuel in = work out + storage.

the assumption, which might be true in the general case, is that people consistently burn the same amount of calories every day. obviously exercise increases that amount, but there have been books theorizing that certain diets can also do that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Eh...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

Notably missing from that article was his pre-twinkie diet caloric intake. If he cut from a metabolically stable (for him) 4000cal/day to a metabolically starvation (for him) 1800cal/day, I have no doubt he'd drop some weight. I worked with a gentleman (34ish? yrs old) who ate, literally, entire pizzas at a time, two foot long subs.. truly enormous quantities of food. He was around 6'4''? about 200lbs, and didn't look in any way overweight. He just had an absolutely absurd metabolism.

He also died of a heart attack at 35, so there's that.

 

[MrDudeMan]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The human body is not nearly as simple a machine as some people would like to think it is, where fuel in = work out + storage.

You may think this is what you're talking about (and no one is refuting the point Dullard is making), but it's not what you're saying at all. Your hypothesized experiment to eat doughnuts was disproven and you seem to be immune to the effect of that information.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is no mutual exclusivity between those two statements at all. One calorie could convert to x mass while the other converts to 1.1x. It makes no difference which one you consume as long as you eat few enough calories to be under what you burn in a day. There are all kinds of secondary effects that you may experience based on which calorie you choose to eat, but what I said is still true. Needing to know what happens as a result of consuming a single calorie of a certain type is probably necessary, so I'll concede that.

So not knowing what the result of consuming a single calorie of specific types could be, you'd still maintain that within the human body, there's some kind of equivalency between a calorie and a quantity of mass? What if there's no equivalency at all, and it's on a rising curve (increased mass gained from calories until a certain point, then reduced gain beyond that point with more going to waste)? What if the body has different effects on energy usage based on calories absorbed?

the assumption, which might be true in the general case, is that people consistently burn the same amount of calories every day. obviously exercise increases that amount, but there have been books theorizing that certain diets can also do that.

And those generalizations may hold true from a flow-chart perspective, but anyone who's worked with people knows that there is no 'average human'. My GF and I are perfect examples, about 5 years ago we almost exclusively ate the same things with the same activity levels, yet she maintained a weight more around 160 whereas I struggled to stay below 220. Had to start exercising alone to keep pace.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You may think this is what you're talking about (and no one is refuting the point Dullard is making), but it's not what you're saying at all. Your hypothesized experiment to eat doughnuts was disproven and you seem to be immune to the effect of that information.

That post is just as much anecdotal as my posts, and was missing data points that mine included (notably differences between initial caloric intake and 'diet' caloric intake). In addition, a single person does not a 'relevant to everyone' make.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Notably missing from that article was his pre-twinkie diet caloric intake. If he cut from a metabolically stable (for him) 4000cal/day to a metabolically starvation (for him) 1800cal/day, I have no doubt he'd drop some weight. I worked with a gentleman (34ish? yrs old) who ate, literally, entire pizzas at a time, two foot long subs.. truly enormous quantities of food. He was around 6'4''? about 200lbs, and didn't look in any way overweight. He just had an absolutely absurd metabolism.

He also died of a heart attack at 35, so there's that.

It's stated multiple times in that article that he reduced his caloric intake while replacing the food in his diet with the exact food you said would cause weight gain no matter what. It doesn't matter what his previous caloric intake was because that's the entire point: he reduced it and he lost weight regardless of what he ate. No one here is claiming that's the right way to become healthy. Your assertion that you will gain weight if you eat a certain type of food is what's under discussion and it has been disproven repeatedly.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That post is just as much anecdotal as my posts, and was missing data points that mine included (notably differences between initial caloric intake and 'diet' caloric intake). In addition, a single person does not a 'relevant to everyone' make.

His post isn't anecdotal at all. Yours are almost entirely anecdotal while Dullard's is scientific. Scientific inquiry doesn't require data when the abstraction is at a high enough level. Data also isn't required when you can interpret outcomes and make simple inferences based on sound scientific principles. This is clearly not your cup of tea.

 

[nakedfrog]

I am making a different argument, but it's related to tynopik's. Good for you that you can read I guess?



It wasn't an off-the-cuff example. It was defended over and over while also being refined, restated, and re-asserted in the above post. I take it back - I guess you can't read.

Wow, way to dick it up. The argument started from the example I'm referencing.

Yes, I know, because he included it in his range. It's equally impossible at 2,100, but it's patently absurd at 1,200. This isn't an audience failure; this is a logic failure on your part.

No, isn't, I'm not participating in this argument, I'm pointing out that you guys are blind men describing an elephant.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The human body is not nearly as simple a machine as some people would like to think it is, where fuel in = work out + storage.

Yes.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Wow, way to dick it up. The argument started from the example I'm referencing.

It's interesting that the quote keeps the original word, but filters it in the actual post. Anyway, I read and referenced the entire chain of posts leading up and and subsequently derived from the pizza theorem posited by Osiris. I'm fully aware of what started it and where we are now.

No, isn't, I'm not participating in this argument, I'm pointing out that you guys are blind men describing an elephant.

By responding, you are, in fact, participating. The assertions being made by Osiris are physically impossible regardless of if calories come from potatoes or magic fairy dust. He said he'd get fat by eating a small amount of bad food and the point is that's impossible. We're men with fully functioning vision trying to describe an elephant to a deaf person.

Yes.

No.

 

[dullard]

There is no mutual exclusivity between those two statements at all. One calorie could convert to x mass while the other converts to 1.1x. It makes no difference which one you consume as long as you eat few enough calories to be under what you burn in a day

Lets use your own numbers.

Suppose calorie A gives you 1.0 X mass and calorie B gives you 1.1 X mass. Suppose you ate 1000 of calorie A and 1000 of calorie B (2000 total calories). Then, according to your own numbers, that would lead to 1000 * 1.0 X + 1000 * 1.1 X = 2100 X mass.

Now, suppose your statement was true that all you need to do is eat less calories. 1950 of calorie B is less than the 2000 total calories above. What does that give us? 1950 * 1.1 X = 2145 X mass. So more mass with less calories? How can it be, you just told me that all that mattered was less calories.

Using your own numbers (albeit clearly made up numbers) disproves your own statement. If calorie types are different, then no you can't only focus on fewer calories. You would also have to focus on calorie type.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's stated multiple times in that article that he reduced his caloric intake while replacing the food in his diet with the exact food you said would cause weight gain no matter what. It doesn't matter what his previous caloric intake was because that's the entire point: he reduced it and he lost weight regardless of what he ate. No one here is claiming that's the right way to become healthy. Your assertion that you will gain weight if you eat a certain type of food is what's under discussion and it has been disproven repeatedly.

No, my assertion was that *I* gain weight while eating a relatively lean caloric intake (1200-2100/day), and that others who have issues maintaining weight levels might experience different results if they tear out the carbs and eat a bunch of protein and fat. I don't believe I ever said that every person on the planet will gain weight eating 1200cal/day of krispy kremes, just that eating an equivalent caloric density (within reason, no 600/day and no 6000/day) of primarily carb food will have a different effect than the same density of carbless food. These sweeping generalizations about what I stated affecting every person on the planet came from you, not me. In addition, the sweeping generalizations about how to lose weight also came from you (everyone should eat less).

His post isn't anecdotal at all. Yours are almost entirely anecdotal while Dullard's is scientific. Scientific inquiry doesn't require data when the abstraction is at a high enough level. Data also isn't required when you can interpret outcomes and make simple inferences based on sound scientific principles. This is clearly not your cup of tea.

I meant the links I posted, not my personal posts (which are entirely anecdotal, other than numbers I retained in memory). Here they are again:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/10/17/sam-felthams-second-overeating-experiment/
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

EDIT: Oh, and you're making assumptions that we're abstracted at a high enough level, that your interpretations are infallible, and that your interpretations at all match the inquiry for which you would need said data. I'm arguing those are false.

 

[nakedfrog]

TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.

 

[purbeast0]

This thread is exactly why there is an H&F forum here, because you get all of this incorrect and misinformation when asking a buncha fat nerds in ATOT.

 

[Carson Dyle]

This thread is exactly why there is an H&F forum here, because you get all of this incorrect and misinformation when asking a buncha fat nerds in ATOT.

Most of the bro-science in H&F is every bit as bad. Worse, even.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This thread is exactly why there is an H&F forum here, because you get all of this incorrect and misinformation when asking a buncha fat nerds in ATOT.

Started as a fat shaming thread, followed by me trying to help out a fellow poster, followed by a dizzying array of posts by people who insist they know better (which ironically loops us back to the fat shaming theme).

 

[1sikbITCH]

Fat shaming needs to be intensified on a national level. All fatties need to be taunted relentlessly. There's no excuse for it especially when it raises my healthcare costs.

Also black men over 50 are more prone to prostate issues, raising up all the white man's costs. Shame! It's an outrage!

 

[louis redfoot]

TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.

tell that to the fasting monk who just crapped black pellets

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Most of the bro-science in H&F is every bit as bad. Worse, even.

Yeah, AT H&F is hardly where all the great minds in fitness science hang out

All kidding aside, some great stuff in there though.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

tell that to the fasting monk who just crapped black pellets

 

[1sikbITCH]

Yeah, my #1 parking criteria is ease of egress. I'd rather walk a bit than have driving away be a pain in the ass.

Me too. I take every opportunity I can to exercise trying to make up for my desk job and that includes taking stairs and also parking at the back of the lot. Plus then I get to feel superior to all the idiots circling and clogging up the front.

The sign was not offensive or "fat shaming". It was truthful and trying to be helpful.

 

[MrSquished]

I see we have a lot of nutritionists here

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I see we have a lot of nutritionists here

It's the internet, everyone's an expert in their field (and any other field they wish!)

 

[nakedfrog]

I don't know shit, I'm just a talking monkey.


Er, frog. Whatever.