Fat Logic

[cosmicaug]

Yes, I am denying that it is the ONLY way.

It is the most effective... but it's also true that a person can stop eating carbohydrates completely, and NOT create a caloric deficit, and they will lose weight.

That's simply nonsense.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html/

 

[The Atheist]

Here's a fat logic fact for ya:

American three-year old weighing 35 kg* has become the youngest person ever diagnosed with type II diabetes.

*My 6 yo son, who is of average size, weighs 21 kg, less than 2/3 of a kid half his age.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes, I am denying that it is the ONLY way.

It is the most effective... but it's also true that a person can stop eating carbohydrates completely, and NOT create a caloric deficit, and they will lose weight.

No. Evidence?

Hold on a moment - are you saying that "worth a read" is false? Or are you saying that "not all calories are equal" is false?

Because I don't actually know who Taubes is, I just found his article when looking for another one that I can't seem to find. There is, however, quite a bit of actual science involved in diets. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss an entire field because you think one guy is a crank.

For consideration:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

Which of these are isocaloric studies?

From the website you cited:

8. Calories Don’t Matter
Apple And Calculator
There is a misunderstanding among some low-carbers that calories don’t matter.

Calories are a measure of energy and body fat is simply stored energy.

If our bodies take in more energy than we can burn off, we store it (usually as body fat).

If our bodies expend more energy than we take in, we use stored body fat for energy.

One of the reasons low-carb diets work so well, is that they reduce appetite. They make people eat less calories automatically, so there is no need for calorie counting or portion control (12, 13).

Of course, these diets also optimize the function of important metabolic hormones like insulin, but one of the key reasons they work so well is that people start to eat less calories without trying.

Calories count, but counting them or even being consciously aware of them is not necessary in many cases.

Linky.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because it's not JUST moderation and self control. Yes, that's a large part of it... but reducing your caloric intake and still having adequate nutrition requires eating a balanced meal - lots of vegetables and lean meats.

That takes planning ahead, and it takes prep-time. It's virtually impossible to adequately reduce your intake while eating out - you really have to prepare your own meals. Not everyone has the time to do that. It takes access to the right kind of foods that also fit the budget.

All it takes to have a positive cash flow is moderation and self control, sure. As well as enough cash to cover costs, and many other factors that come in to play.

Myths, the lot of them. You are adding lots of assumptions for what a caloric deficit requires.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

"I don't hate babies, I just won't hire them."

Or, for a more nuanced approach:

"I don't hate women, I just won't hire them to do gay porn."

"I don't hate the blind, I just won't hire them to officiate baseball games."

"I don't hate paraplegics, I just won't hire them to be firefighters."

"I don't hate people with chronic vertigo, I just won't hire them to be jet airplane pilots."

"I don't hate morbidly obese people, I just won't hire them for any job that requires statistically better health outcomes."

Where is your god now?

Under the table, laughing at your straw man.

It's not that overweight people can't do the job (like blind people officiating baseball games). TheAtheist just thinks they will cost more to employ. The overweight person could do the job. In fact, they might be able to do it far better than any of their skinnier rivals, but they'll never get the position because of their weight.

This reminds me of those anti-Semites who carp about having to pay that extra fraction of a cent for getting food kosher-certified. This is their argument: "I shouldn't have to pay more for my food, just so it can be kosher! I'm not Jewish!" Meanwhile, anybody who isn't a racist doesn't care.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

They might can do the job, but statistically they won't show up to do the job as someone who doesn't have the weight problem..

There are two candidates who are equally qualified, and one is obese. Guess which one gets hired if the company is concerned about profitability?


Do you know a lot of anti-Semites who eat kosher food?

 

[theprestige]

Under the table, laughing at your straw man.

It's not that overweight people can't do the job (like blind people officiating baseball games). TheAtheist just thinks they will cost more to employ. The overweight person could do the job. In fact, they might be able to do it far better than any of their skinnier rivals, but they'll never get the position because of their weight.

A result that can be, and has been, readily explained without requiring a hatred of fat people.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Do you know a lot of anti-Semites who eat kosher food?

Well, they're forced to. That's the point. It's called the "Kosher tax".

 

[Emily's Cat]

What was your point in pointing out that discriminating against a group of people can lead to litigation?

I kind of thought that was pretty obvious - that discriminating against a group of people in such an overt fashion (regardless of whether it's silent or not) is a bad idea, and that the group being discriminated against is likely to seek redress for unfair treatment at some point.

Or in short form: In my opinion it is wrong of him to discriminate against fat people in such a way. At the very least, it's not intelligent of him to admit that he actively discriminates against them.

TheAtheist was observing that obesity can lead to problems in finding employment..

Do you disagree?

I disagree that that's what TheAtheist was doing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Myths, the lot of them. You are adding lots of assumptions for what a caloric deficit requires.

Hmm. Do you believe that a person can eat say, 5000 calories a day in nothing but protein and gain weight?

Given the same caloric intake, will a person's weight loss or gain be the same if those calories are ALL from carbohydrates or ALL from fat?

 

[Emily's Cat]

They might can do the job, but statistically they won't show up to do the job as someone who doesn't have the weight problem..

There are two candidates who are equally qualified, and one is obese. Guess which one gets hired if the company is concerned about profitability?

Statistically speaking, women show up less for work than men. If two candidates are equally qualified for the job, but one of them is a woman, do you support hiring the man solely on the basis of the woman *maybe* taking more time off?

 

[casebro]

Where most of us are overweight, where would you draw the line at not hiring the "obese"?

 

[marplots]

Statistically speaking, women show up less for work than men. If two candidates are equally qualified for the job, but one of them is a woman, do you support hiring the man solely on the basis of the woman *maybe* taking more time off?

If one of the qualifications is showing up, then they wouldn't be equally qualified.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hmm. Do you believe that a person can eat say, 5000 calories a day in nothing but protein and gain weight?

If they are burning less than 5000 calories a day, yes..

Given the same caloric intake, will a person's weight loss or gain be the same if those calories are ALL from carbohydrates or ALL from fat?

Your question is still meaningless without a number for how many calories they are metabolizing.

Carbohydrates take more energy to convert to fat, than fat does, but fat provides more calories per gram than carbs do.. Eating excess calories in fat will lead to more weight gain than eating the same amount of calories in carbs.

The bottom line is still the fact that you have to eat more calories than you burn to gain weight and vice versa ....


Why are the basics of metabolism and weight maintenance for most people such a problem for you?

Why do you seek confuse the issue with absurdities ( for most people ) like eating 5000 calories of protein ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, they're forced to. That's the point. It's called the "Kosher tax".

They're forced to? Where is this happening?

 

[theprestige]

Statistically speaking, women show up less for work than men. If two candidates are equally qualified for the job, but one of them is a woman, do you support hiring the man solely on the basis of the woman *maybe* taking more time off?

It probably makes statiscal sense, but gender is a protected class. Do you support making obesity a protected class?

 

[mike3]

(rm)

 

[mike3]

Used to be every time I heard that myth my blood boiled, because it tells those people who spend their money on the processed vomit served by fast food joints that they're doing the right thing.

I proved beyond doubt that it's much cheaper to live on homemade food than ready-made food and sent the results and recipe books to every charity that deals with "helping people in poverty".

In a gigantic lack of surprise, not one of them thought the idea was worth trying. There was no cost attached as everything was being provided for free.

That's when I gave up.

Go eat MacDonalds and Burger King and throw in a side order of KFC.

So can you get, say, 2500 calories/day on less than $120 per month per single individual? If so, how?

 

[Cain]

Statistically speaking, women show up less for work than men. If two candidates are equally qualified for the job, but one of them is a woman, do you support hiring the man solely on the basis of the woman *maybe* taking more time off?

Absolutely not; there are other factors in play, such as attractiveness.

 

[GlennB]

So can you get, say, 2500 calories/day on less than $120 per month per single individual? If so, how?

Around $4 per day per person, long-term? Easy, though many might find it dull unless they're making an effort with herbs and spices and preparation.

This is usually the point where someone says "but a small jar of paprika is $2!" and someone else says "you just buy it once and it last months" and the reply is "how can you afford to stock your larder with such things *and* eat when you only have $4 per day" then we get "but in reality nobody hands you $4 each day for groceries, there are times when you get paid and have a stash of money" and so on.

eta: in a cupboard we have a 500gm bag of 'name' rice bought from a local minimarket, which is far from the cheapest way to buy rice. That's 2000 kcal for €1.50, about the same in US$. Now for some beans and veg ....