• southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Dude, go talk to a bariatric specialist. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    You ever even look into the advances in bariatric medicine the last decade? Ever help treat a bariatric patient? 99% behaviorial is utter bullshit, and does not match currer best information.

    Genetics didn’t likely change, but epigenetics is how our systems respond to conditions in and around us. And that absolutely can and has changed in the last fifty years, and was changing before that.

    How our food is process impacts the entire endocrine system, our microbiota in not only the gut, but the entire body. We’ve got massive increases in environmental contamination over the same kind of timeline, which can not only directly effect systemic function, it can change epigenetics in the womb, and the actual genes themselves.

    99% behaviorial my hairy ass.

    Even that part is influenced by how food is processed, since there’s enough shit in anything you grow, even when you’re growing it yourself to play a factor. Actual processed foods are literally designed to trigger our brains and kick off addictions to the added fats and sugars.

    That kind of bullshit is the same kind of brainless thing that leads to people thinking vaccines cause autism. There’s a metric buttload of data pointing to both weight gain and difficulty in weight loss being heavily influenced by external factors, but you’re in here like “nuh-uh, my data set of two fat kids in school says no”

    • lurklurk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s both a behavioural issue and a complex bodily disorder with many external factors…

      Biologically, weight is pretty much an effect of calories in and calories out. If you lock someone up and give them too little food, they’ll generally get thin. The body can’t create fat if you don’t feed it and it can’t work without burning energy. Physics.

      But losing weight when you’re not locked in a cell with someone else controlling your food availability is really hard. Not eating when you’re hungry is hard. The facility of getting healthy food that makes it easier is socio-economical. etc

      It’s like running a marathon is “just” about starting to run and not stopping until you reach the finish line. It’s trivial on one level, really hard on another. It’s simple physics AND a complex web of genetic factors, motivation, knowledge, upbringing, etc

      So most people are technically and biologically capable of losing weight, but most people are also practically and statistically not very successful at it.

      Most popular diets work under controlled conditions, for the people who adhere to them; but most popular diets also don’t work in practice, as it’s too hard for people to diet for the rest of their life.

      Behavioural ≠ easy

    • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 day ago

      Former fatty. It was 100% behavioral. CICO. Physics. Some people need help, no denying that. But rigorously limiting and counting my intake, and estimating my output from added activity with fitness trackers, while also altering my diet to include more volume, less caloric density to stop feeling so hungry, 100% worked. And I learned to be hungry and that the world wasn’t going to end if I was hungry for a little while until it was meal time. I had plenty of caloric surplus and my body was being a little bitch.

      Anyhow, anecdata of one that supports the control what goes in your facehole camp.

      • southsamurai
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Dude, you don’t get it at all.

        You can scream until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t contradict massive amounts of data and research done by people that have actual training in human physiology.

        You, as one person, are just one data point. And that’s not how science works. It isn’t, and never will be.

        IDGAF what you believe, you can believe your farts are magic and grant wishes for all that. But it doesn’t matter when it comes to reproducible data. And it is reproducible. The research on it all has been covered in multiple ways by multiple studies.

        So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

        • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Nah, I get it. Not screaming or whatever either. You are correct that human physiology is complicated. There are indeed many factors that go into nutrient absorbsion, etc. However, no one that has stopped eating for a significant amount of time stays fat. Not eating isn’t comfortable. The constant dopamine hit of always putting something into your mouth and having your taste buds light up your brain is super addicting. Feeling hunger is uncomfortable. No one denies any of this. But ultimately, it is up to you, what you choose to put into your mouth and what level of activity to perform to expend energy. If you need psychological help and coaching (think life style changes, CBT, etc), I’m 100% in support. But the responsibility for being fat is on the person for the vast majority of the cases. Modern, car-focused society is not very supportive of fitness endeavors. Weaponized food science (high calorie, low nutrient shit designed to addict you) and weaponized psychology (I bet you can sing at least three jingles for some company if you live in the US) is not supportive of healthy diets.

          The research and me are both correct. You can have metabolism issues and still be responsible for your fatness. Thermodynamics ultimately decides your fatness. Without a source of surplus calories, you will lose weight, period. If you don’t, it is a measurement error or some adjustment in metabolic output estimation needs to be made. And if you’ve somehow magically measured, perfect, all of your input and output and are still not losing weight, get yourself a Nobel for perpetual motion. You just broke physics.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          To be clear, i’m asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

          when you say :

          So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

          Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has “nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.”

          or was that just poor phrasing ?

        • moonlight@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          There is variability in the human metabolism, for sure, but CICO is thermodynamics. There’s not a person on the planet who can gain weight without eating.

          • slackassassin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            The extent to which the CI is absorbed and utilized can vary to some degree. That seems to be the point. Physics doesn’t stop at a catchy saying.

          • southsamurai
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yet another person missing the entire fucking point.

            • moonlight@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              My point is that all these factors are real, and they do tip the scale, but at the end of the day, how much you eat determines whether you gain or lose weight.

              I’m not saying other factors can’t make a significant difference. (genetics and epigenetics play a role.) I’m also not saying that it’s easy. (food, especially fast food can light up people’s brains in a way that mirrors drug addiction.)

              But if you eat less while burning the same number of calories, you WILL lose weight. That’s not an opinion, it’s a law of physics.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                I hate to agree with southsamurai, they downvote nearly every post i make, but… they have some truth here.

                https://hackertalks.com/post/4875937/5471544

                If you want to lose 1 lb in a month, or gain 1 lb, you need to consume or burn 3,500 calories. Or 116 calories a day. Or 38 calories per meal… Easy right? … In the US, calorie estimates are allowed to be off by as much as 25%, and that’s just packaged food, forget any restaurant or line cook being exactly precise with portions… So for 2,500 average daily diet, over three meals, the margin of error is 208 calories. Your target is 38 calories. You’re trying to do something within the margin of error of all of your estimates. Calorie counting is a very difficult game to do! The deck is stacked against you. This is why it’s important to allow the homeostasis machinery in your body to handle all of this through satiation. It’s going to do the right thing if you let it

                • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  This is not in support at all. In fact, it further supports moonlight’s and others’ position. You cannot escape physics. That the numbers on the back of cereal box lie to you is not a get-out-responsibility card. You adjust your intake until you start losing. It is stupid simple. You body is a PID controller. And you need you learn how to operate it.

                  Does it make it more difficult to accomplish goal? Yep. Does it prevent you from actually doing it? Nah.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    15 hours ago

                    The thermodynamics doesn’t change, its true.

                    But the body is an amazing homeostasis machine, letting the body function properly will let it self regulate with all of its internal feedback loops.

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Former porkchop here as well. It’s all behavioral.

        Yes there are external factors that can influence behavior, but at the end of the day it can’t be reduced further than that.

        I am exhausted by the collective delusion and endless disavowing of any form of personal responsibility for one’s own dietary intake. Focus on the external factors, always, never look at choices because then it becomes a “they” problem not a “me” problem.

        • Squiddick17@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m sorry you guys are getting so much pushback here, lol. I was hoping Lemmy would have less… “Reddit” problems, but the number of dislikes and comments here tells me there’s still a LOT of pedantic, self-deluded, minimally educated, credential-worshiping fatties in denial within our community. It’s too bad so many give in to their emotions without practicing REAL rationality these days, it sounds like both Lemmy AND these people could really benefit from that ability.

          • Senal@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Describe “real” rationality ?

            I genuinely can’t infer what you mean from that statement.

              • Senal@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                You probably want to keep to DM’s if you don’t want conversation on a public message board.

                Though I suppose a demonstrated lack of understanding of how public message boards work gives me my answer so, thanks.