Fat Logic

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Like a lot of controversial subjects, there are dog whistles and there is legitimate discussion. Fat people lack will power is a dog whistle, not a discussion.

A discussion would be about how one addresses the fact the drive to eat is a real biological drive. A useless discussion is about how it boils down to will power and calorie math.

So far you are the only one bringing up and focusing on will power.

It is not useless to caloric math because without a proper framework, and instead one based on popular myths, people will make decisions that will lead to incorrect outcomes.

 

[Checkmite]

Wasn't there a recently-banned subreddit based mostly around making fun of fat people, that shared a name with this thread? I seem to recall having seen something in the news.

 

[Modified]

Which supports my point.

Not based on an inability to keep holding my breath, based on fear that I would pass out underwater and drown.

But what could possibly make me breathe? As I said, diaphragm contractions become unstoppable, but that does not require breathing. Will these become strong enough so that I can no longer block air from coming out or water going in? It's possible, since a sneeze is strong enough to do so, but the contractions I've felt are not nearly so strong, and increase more in urgency and frequency than strength as breath-holding goes on. Will I lose control of my soft palette and tongue before passing out and that, combined with diaphragm contractions will force me to breathe? I don't see any evidence of that happening, as I've never felt any involuntary movements there that need resisting while holding breath.

There are also plenty of YouTube videos of people holding their breath until they pass out. Most use added tricks such as holding breath bent over then going upright quickly or having someone push on your chest or diaphragm, but many are just simply holding their breath (and a few, frighteningly, underwater).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wasn't there a recently-banned subreddit based mostly around making fun of fat people, that shared a name with this thread? I seem to recall having seen something in the news.

Nope, that's FatPeopleHate. Fat Logic, which is indeed where the name is from, is a different subreddit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not based on an inability to keep holding my breath, based on fear that I would pass out underwater and drown.

So on land can you hold your breath until you pass out?

I doubt it.

I've never felt any involuntary movements there that need resisting while holding breath.

You are confusing an irresistible drive to breathe with an involuntary reflex.

There are also plenty of YouTube videos of people holding their breath until they pass out. Most use added tricks such as holding breath bent over then going upright quickly or having someone push on your chest or diaphragm, but many are just simply holding their breath (and a few, frighteningly, underwater).

So post the links and evidence they aren't faking it as well as evidence they aren't rare exceptions.

 

[The Atheist]

This, just in!

The answer could be as simple as smaller portions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34246119

A review of 61 studies.

Who'd have thought the answer was simply eating less food?

 

[Modified]

So on land can you hold your breath until you pass out?

I doubt it.

What would be different on land?

You are confusing an irresistible drive to breathe with an involuntary reflex.

"Involuntary" is a tricky word when it comes to breathing.

What do you mean by "irresistible drive"? What will cause me to breathe? Do you just mean that it will feel so horrible not to that I'll have to? Do you mean that my tongue and soft palette will move involuntarily? Or do you mean that my diaphragm will contract hard enough to force air out (possible) or air/water in (unlikely) despite the efforts of my soft palette, tongue, and lips to prevent it? What will actually cause me to breath? If I was breathing into a bag held to my lips, would I have an irresistible urge to remove the bag at some point? If not, can my cheeks not serve the same purpose as the bag?

So post the links and evidence they aren't faking it as well as evidence they aren't rare exceptions.

News links of deaths from probable breath holding:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shallow-water-blackout-warning-issued-breath-holding-pool/story?id=31457519

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/shallow_water_blackout_eyed_water_polo_players_death_20140402

http://clubindustry.com/nonprofits/long-island-ymca-settles-suit-over-lifeguard-drowning

http://sofrep.com/41093/seal-team-2-operators-drown-underwater-kettle-bell-training/

Youtube videos of people holding their breath until they pass out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgQvsh1Dc6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOXHr_AgHXM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWdDeNo54o

These articles indicate that with sufficient hyperventilation, you can pass out before experiencing any significant urge to breathe at all:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_water_blackout

NDPA: http://ndpa.org/loss-of-consciousness-in-breath-holding-swimmers/

I suspect that most people could do it even without hyperventilating, with sufficient motivation. Just like holding your hand over a candle until it burns, you can do it but it feels horrible and you'd need a really good reason. I wouldn't want to experiment with breath holding to the point of passing out intentionally since there are many warnings of possible brain damage. Whether those are exaggerated or not, I don't know.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I find the focus people have on my posting style to be hilarious. If I didn't want people to read the data, Dr. Squeegee, what was my motivation? Does it have to do with my obese mother?

I have no idea what your motivation was. I can only react to the fact that when it was pointed out to you that none of your links worked your only reaction was to express complete indifference, and to note that this doesn't seem like the actions of someone who was particularly concerned about people being able to follow those links.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's another thing that's been bugging me, purely from a conservation-laws standpoint:

I forget if it was this thread, or one of the other current weight loss threads, but a member claimed that they had gained a lot of weight rapidly, without changing their diet and exercise. Something around 2500 calories/day of weight gain. They attributed this to medication.

So I've been trying to figure out what could be going on there. My first thought was, if they were previously burning that 2500 calories, and now they're storing it, then their overall energy level must have gone down significantly. They must have gone from bouncing off the walls to being a lethargic couch potato. Maybe not that extreme, but you can't start banking calories you were previously burning, without losing steam.

Well, it's worth pointing out that no matter how many calories you burn by exercising, the majority of them will still be burnt by things like breathing, making your heart beat, thinking, etc. In other words, autonomic processes. I don't know the science, but it doesn't seem incredible that somoene's autonomic processes could start to burn fewer calories while they remained as active as previously.

2,500 calories a day seems like an unrealistic amount (especially as I assume that's 2,500kCal, rather than simply 2.5kCal), but the principle doesn't seem outwith the realms of possibility to me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It would be silly if you claimed it would be equally easy for everyone to find the same motivation.

It would not be silly if you claimed that the mechanism and outcomes of quitting smoking were equally simple for anyone motivated to quit.

Wouldn't it? Do you really think that someone with no chemical dependency giving up a substance is as simple as someone with a chemical dependency giving up that substance? I would have thought that that was a perfect example of it being more complicated than a simple matter of willpower. Then there's potential psychological issues. Would you claim that overcoming anorexia was as simple as eating more?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I have no idea what your motivation was. I can only react to the fact that when it was pointed out to you that none of your links worked your only reaction was to express complete indifference, and to note that this doesn't seem like the actions of someone who was particularly concerned about people being able to follow those links.

Uh huh. Well if you ever want to discuss the issue at hand...

As I noted with my "indifference", the links were there, people just needed to delete the trailing " . A terrible burden, I am sure, given that most people don't seem to want to read the snippets.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This, just in!

The answer could be as simple as smaller portions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34246119

A review of 61 studies.

Who'd have thought the answer was simply eating less food?

I am offended on behalf of poor people who can't afford less food.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Uh huh. Well if you ever want to discuss the issue at hand...

I have been discussing the issue at hand. I have made many posts in this thread on the subject. I don't know why you're pretending I haven't.

As I noted with my "indifference", the links were there, people just needed to delete the trailing " . A terrible burden, I am sure, given that most people don't seem to want to read the snippets.

And you just had to re-post the links. A terrible burden, I am sure, given that you don't seem to mind people not reading what you've linked to.

 

[casebro]

I already gave you an answer in #132. If you prefer to ad hom and not read anything I post that is fine with me. There is no evidence of such a thing as "natural slimness". And in any event discussing scientific fact is never horse **** and gun smoke.

I missed your one underlined word. A simple "20# in three months" would have sufficed. Though I see your spreadsheet stopped a couple months ago. Was that your target? How are you doing lately? I suspect still losing, or maintaining, or you would not have started this thread.

Now tell us please, did you have to do all the logic as incentive, or were your studies post hoc?

My current motivation is that the pain meds for a bad knee made the effects of sleep apnea worse- not merely waking up gasping, but mental imagery and thoughts. Quit the pain pills, and try cutting calories without much exercise. I'm down a couple pounds. I'll do better after the arthroscopic procedure, but how long will that take my HMO?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What would be different on land?

The claim was made that one wouldn't do this underwater given one needed time to surface before going unconscious.

"Involuntary" is a tricky word when it comes to breathing.

It's not tricky. Breathing is under both involuntary and voluntary control.

What do you mean by "irresistible drive"? What will cause me to breathe? Do you just mean that it will feel so horrible not to that I'll have to? Do you mean that my tongue and soft palette will move involuntarily? Or do you mean that my diaphragm will contract hard enough to force air out (possible) or air/water in (unlikely) despite the efforts of my soft palette, tongue, and lips to prevent it? What will actually cause me to breath? If I was breathing into a bag held to my lips, would I have an irresistible urge to remove the bag at some point? If not, can my cheeks not serve the same purpose as the bag?

News links of deaths from probable breath holding:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shallow-water-blackout-warning-issued-breath-holding-pool/story?id=31457519

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/shallow_water_blackout_eyed_water_polo_players_death_20140402

http://clubindustry.com/nonprofits/long-island-ymca-settles-suit-over-lifeguard-drowning

http://sofrep.com/41093/seal-team-2-operators-drown-underwater-kettle-bell-training/

These articles indicate that with sufficient hyperventilation, you can pass out before experiencing any significant urge to breathe at all:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_water_blackout

NDPA: http://ndpa.org/loss-of-consciousness-in-breath-holding-swimmers/

I suspect that most people could do it even without hyperventilating, with sufficient motivation. Just like holding your hand over a candle until it burns, you can do it but it feels horrible and you'd need a really good reason. I wouldn't want to experiment with breath holding to the point of passing out intentionally since there are many warnings of possible brain damage. Whether those are exaggerated or not, I don't know.

What is the point of this ramble? It has nothing to do with the analogy.

Youtube videos of people holding their breath until they pass out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgQvsh1Dc6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOXHr_AgHXM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWdDeNo54o

Three people is your idea of proof it can commonly be done?

What are you even arguing here?

Appetite is a biological drive. Breathing is a biological drive. Are you claiming we just need will power to stop breathing? People who can't hold their breath until they go unconscious are just weak-willed?

Just because you can temporarily override a biological drives does not mean everyone is able to simply override the drive to eat.

Claiming obesity is no more than weak willpower grossly underestimates the role that biological appetite drive plays. And whether you recognize that or not, a lot of people completely dismiss the biological drive to eat as if it is unimportant.

 

[marplots]

This, just in!

The answer could be as simple as smaller portions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34246119

A review of 61 studies.

Who'd have thought the answer was simply eating less food?

That can't be right because eating excess calories is an irresistible biologic drive on par with breathing. Or so I've heard recently.

 

[rustypouch]

That can't be right because eating excess calories is an irresistible biologic drive on par with breathing. Or so I've heard recently.

Of course. Going without ranch dressing to dip your pizza in is the same as going without air. >.>

 

[cosmicaug]

What would be different on land?

No mammalian diving reflex^WP on land.

I suspect that most people could do it even without hyperventilating, with sufficient motivation.

Maybe, maybe not. In fact, probably not. Hyperventilating works by partially decoupling oxygen levels from CO₂ levels. While it minimally increases oxygenation (hemoglobin leaving the alveoli is already nearly saturated with normal breathing so there's only minimal improvement that can be achieved with more air exchange), its major effect consists in dumping accumulated carbon dioxide and reducing blood concentrations to levels below normal physiological concentrations. As our physiology is tuned to respond to CO₂ levels as a proxy for oxygenation, our hypoxic response is delayed.

When you normally feel acute distress and diaphragmatic contractions you are not that hypoxic (particularly if you have not trained yourself). Hyperventilating can delay the point at which this happens because the chemistry being sensed as a proxy for hypoxia is associated with lower levels of CO₂ in the hyperventilating condition than in the non-hyperventilating condition. This is how the threshold of approaching unconsciousness can creep up on someone hyperventilating to extend breath holding.

 

[cosmicaug]

This, just in!

The answer could be as simple as smaller portions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34246119

A review of 61 studies.

Who'd have thought the answer was simply eating less food?

Don't trust anything claiming to be "the key" to weight loss.

The article is sound (nothing new --it talks about a review of studies with already well known findings). The title, as is often the case, overstates the claims.

The article doesn't really address how eating less food results in weight loss. That is assumed*. It addresses one factor that has been consistently found in various studies to be associated with overeating.


* Almost no one seriously questions that --except maybe some overly zealous ketogenic diet advocates who posit some sort of a never demonstrated "metabolic advantage" that is alleged to be associated with the ketogenic state).

 

[theprestige]

Wouldn't it? Do you really think that someone with no chemical dependency giving up a substance is as simple as someone with a chemical dependency giving up that substance?

Simple? Yes. Easy? No. And probably the method and mechanism in the second case (chemical dependency) will be different from those in the first case.

By 'simple' I mean that the method and mechanism is well known, scrutable to a reasonable adult without any special effort of mentation, and not requiring complex calculations, caveats, hidden factors, or other complications. Cold turkey is simple, but gradual weaning is also simple. But they are not easy.

I would have thought that that was a perfect example of it being more complicated than a simple matter of willpower.

I am, and always have been throughout this thread, making a distinction between simplicity of methods and mechanisms, and simplicity of motivation.

My thesis is that while weight-loss motivation is a complicated thing, the methods and mechanisms of weight loss are relatively simple: Eat less, exercise more. I am in disagreement with those who argue that the mechanisms and methods of weight loss themselves are complicated, or that a motivated person cannot make progress by implementing the two simple principles in their daily life.

If you are saying that the methods and mechanisms of weight loss are simple (but not necessarily easy), and that the problem of weight loss motivation is complex, then you and I are in perfect agreement.

I have no problem with your characterization of it being "a simple matter of willpower". Simple but not easy. And willpower itself is a complicated thing. So. The methods and mechanisms are simple. Identifying the real problem as being one of willpower is simple enough. Solving the problem of willpower is where the complexity arises.

But I am essentially arguing against the idea that we should tell people who have solved the problem of willpower, or who are trying to solve the problem of willpower, that they should not bother eating less and exercising more on account of how the methods and mechanisms of weight loss are too complicated for their motivation to make a difference in such a simple way.

Then there's potential psychological issues.

Which I have explicitly and repeatedly decoupled from my discussion of the complexity of methods and mechanisms.

Would you claim that overcoming anorexia was as simple as eating more?

No, but I would say that overcoming an underweight condition due to anorexia was as simple as eating more. Possibly as complicated as ramping up food intake over time, and perhaps choosing specific kinds of food during the early phases. That's method and mechanism.

The psychological issue of anorexia itself, is motivation.

I'm imagining a rather absurd conversation:

"My anorexia is cured. I'm once again motivated to eat. Can I get back up to a healthy weight by eating more?"

"No, weight management is more complicated than that. Don't bother trying to change your weight by changing your diet. It doesn't work that way."