Fat Logic

[theprestige]

Pressy, re-read my post. #171. I was asking Buddah.

Cassy, I conflated your request of Tsuksa Buddha with your request of me, here:

Up date us in a year. Let's see if you keep it off.

Am I mistaken in assuming that your intent in questioning Tsukasa Buddha is the same as your intent in questioning me?

No. The intent of my question was are you practicing what you're preaching, or lecturing from a high horse of natural slimness. How much weight has your logic lost FOR YOU? Or is it all horse **** and gun smoke as an intellectual exercise?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Agatha has fixed all the links in the OP. I look forward to your careful review of Tsukasa Buddha's citations, followed no doubt by your thoughtful and well-informed rebuttal of those citations.

I am also open to any indication from you that the strength of Tsukasa Buddha's argument lies not in the quality of his references, but in the quality of the hyperlink syntax of his citations. If it is your position that now that his links are good, his argument is good, I can go along with that, on the grounds that it makes no less sense than the position that his argument is bad because his links are bad. A steady state of senselessness is more agreeable to me than an increase in senselessness.

 

[cosmicaug]

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

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

Do you have any idea of what the context of that video is? The YouTube account associated with it seems to be related to the expression of Rule 34^WP. That is, it seems like a breath holding fetishist (I did not know there was such a thing).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

This is the typical willful distortion of what I said. Anytime someone mentions there is a biological appetite drive to consider, the straw man pops up that one is saying nothing can be done.

I suppose you think those weak-willed fat people just want excuses to be fat.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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 don't think it is that simple. The very fact that you have to suggest the possibility of weaning shows that there are factors that have to be taken into account beyond simple "willpower".

I suppose the question is whether or not your way of defining "simple" is in any way useful to anybody. You can say that the way to get over heroin addiction is by simply no longer taking heroin. I hope you would agree that even leaving the issue of motivation or willpower aside the either it's not quite that simple, or that any conversation which boiled the problem down to just that was itself too simplistic to be of any utility to anybody, or to contribute meaningfully to any conversation about heroin addiction.

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.

I think that perhaps there's some kind of sliding scale of "complicated" here. I don't think that how food is converted into fat is the most complicated thing in the universe, but nor do I think it's the simple "the calorific content of food is the only factor involved" mechanism that you seem to be portraying it as that. The human body is a complicated collection of systems which react to each other and external stimuli in mostly predictable but not necessarily entirely uncomplicated ways, and not all foods are equivalent to all other foods.

I think there's a middle ground somewhere between "too complicated for human brains to ken" and "the only factor is the number of calories consumed".

I have no problem with your characterization of it being "a simple matter of willpower".

That's your characterisation, not mine.

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.

So you're arguing against a straw man?

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.

Right, so again the question is - is what you're saying actually in any way useful to anybody? Anorexics can just eat more, heroin addicts can just stop taking heroin, and people suffering from depression can just cheer up. Problems solved!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No mammalian diving reflex^WP on land.

The diving reflex is irrelevant to the analogy.

But by all means, carry on this off topic side track.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Agatha has fixed all the links in the OP.

I know.

I look forward to your careful review of Tsukasa Buddha's citations, followed no doubt by your thoughtful and well-informed rebuttal of those citations.

What makes you believe that I am of a mind to rebut anything Tsukasa has linked to?

I am also open to any indication from you that the strength of Tsukasa Buddha's argument lies not in the quality of his references, but in the quality of the hyperlink syntax of his citations. If it is your position that now that his links are good, his argument is good, I can go along with that, on the grounds that it makes no less sense than the position that his argument is bad because his links are bad. A steady state of senselessness is more agreeable to me than an increase in senselessness.

What a bizarre straw man. Did it sound good in your head before you typed it?

 

[cosmicaug]

This is the typical willful distortion of what I said. Anytime someone mentions there is a biological appetite drive to consider, the straw man pops up that one is saying nothing can be done.

I suppose you think those weak-willed fat people just want excuses to be fat.

It is a willful distortion but you kind of invited it on upon yourself by means of using a rather poor analogy. It was inevitable that people would respond in this way to such an unhelpful analogy. You can't draw a proper analogy to overeating and undereating with overbreathing and underbreathing (apnea in divers, as brought up by Modified, doesn't count since the eating issues are long-term issues and apnea is short term underbreathing).

It is definitely possible to correct the results of long term overeating by long term undereating. There's no analogous situation with breathing. If you've been underbreathing for a couple of years (which is simply not possible, despite the yoga types perhaps telling you you are breathing wrong, unless you have something physically wrong with you) you don't make up for it by willing yourself to overbreath for a couple of years.

Is the whole issue more complex than many allow? Of course it is. Do we know how all the pieces work together? Of course we don't.

 

[cosmicaug]

The diving reflex is irrelevant to the analogy.

But by all means, carry on this off topic side track.

The analogy isn't even a proper analogy so pretty much anything is irrelevant to the analogy. Modified asked what is different on land and I gave an answer. The only other thing that is different on land is that people can drown in the water whereas on land they simply resume breathing (probably under full autonomic control) but this doesn't stop people from drowning in water by the simple mechanism of miscalculating the effects of voluntary apnea.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The diving reflex is irrelevant to the analogy.

But by all means, carry on this off topic side track.

Really, since you started the comparison of breathing to eating, as if it's really easier to hold your breath than it is to keep your mouth closed in the presence of food?

 

[The Atheist]

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

Love it!

And you're right, too. In lots of places it's cheaper to buy a combo burger/drink/fries than a plain burger & small fries.

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

I'd never thought about that. Maybe we could suggest tying their hands to the arms of a chair to stop the involuntary showing food in the face?

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

Except it's true - as I've been saying all along, fewer calories in than the body uses can only lead to weight loss.

Unless those damned breatharians are back!

 

[theprestige]

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.

You may be on to something here. A medication that causes, as one of its side effects, a substantial increase in efficiency of the body's autonomic processes, seems like it would be a license to print money for whatever Big Pharma entity stumbled across it.

Or maybe not. "Guess what?! You now need to eat even less bread, to stay alive. By an order of magnitude! You probably only need to eat a single loaf of bread per year! Isn't that great?!" Probably isn't going to be a successful marketing campaign.

 

[theprestige]

This is the typical willful distortion of what I said. Anytime someone mentions there is a biological appetite drive to consider, the straw man pops up that one is saying nothing can be done.

So what can be done, according to you? Can eating less and exercising more be done? Why or why not? Will eating less and exercising more, if done, result in weight loss? Why or why not?

 

[Modified]

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

Not sure what you mean here.

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

Exactly, which is why it's tricky to say "involuntary".

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

It has to do with your belief that such things are not possible.

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

People don't commonly attempt it, so I'm not sure what proof you expect. In what little searching I've done, I've not read anywhere that "most people can't do this."

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?

They are just unmotivated.

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

Can't they? How many obese people couldn't lose 50 lbs in one year and in a safe manner if offered a billion dollars to do so?

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.

Not at all. Motivation, will, and knowledge are balanced against that drive.

 

[Modified]

Do you have any idea of what the context of that video is? The YouTube account associated with it seems to be related to the expression of Rule 34^WP. That is, it seems like a breath holding fetishist (I did not know there was such a thing).

Sorry, I'm not making this my life's work obviously and just posted the first three videos that came up.

 

[casebro]

I don't know about you guys, but when I am underwater I have no problem stifling my appetite.

 

[cosmicaug]

Except it's true - as I've been saying all along, fewer calories in than the body uses can only lead to weight loss.

Hardly so. The article's title to which I am objecting is making no claims regarding Calories being consumed in total. The article itself is also making no such claim.

The article's body (which I think is relatively decent) is establishing a relationship between serving sizes and total Calories being consumed over the course of experimental trials as based on a review. Calories in vs. Calories out is simply not a question that it is addressing. It relates how we respond to various cues including visual cues (it is well known that humans are very poor at visually judging volume) and cognitive cues (what a serving is) as opposed to internal physiological cues. The noteworthiness of the finding would be in how in these laboratory settings we seem to give preference to these external cues rather than to physiological cues. If this was not so, we'd stop eating at the same Caloric intake level regardless of serving size or experimental setup trickery* by either consuming more small servings or by consuming less of larger servings. Perhaps it is not wholly unexpected, though.

* Such as covertly filling bowls.

 

[cosmicaug]

I don't know about you guys, but when I am underwater I have no problem stifling my appetite.

Likewise, when I am swallowing a piece of food I have no problem stifling my eating (which proves eating and breathing are analogous).

 

[marplots]

This is the typical willful distortion of what I said. Anytime someone mentions there is a biological appetite drive to consider, the straw man pops up that one is saying nothing can be done.

I suppose you think those weak-willed fat people just want excuses to be fat.

I think it is common to rationalize unwanted behavior. Especially when that behavior is perceived as a character flaw.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it is that simple. The very fact that you have to suggest the possibility of weaning shows that there are factors that have to be taken into account beyond simple "willpower"!

The more I think about it, the more I think you're probably right.

How would you describe the method and mechanism of weaning off of a chemical dependency to heroin, in its most complicated form?