• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fat Logic

My reading is that it's saturated fat that gives the satiety signal.* But even that takes 15 minutes. So eat a mixed diet, stop at a reasonable amount,maintain willpower for 15 minutes. Apple pie easy.

*Hmmm, maybe fats ARE what makes us fat. Unsaturated fats that is? No satiation signal? While gobs of saturated fats are natural in our environment (hog fat, seal blubber, dairy), vegetable oils are not found in the amounts as in today's basket of fries.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Because there are factors unconnected to calories which go some of the way towards determining when you feel full.
Click to expand...

Obviously that is your position (a position I already said I'm sure is correct). I was curious what factors associated with snickers bars you had in mind.
 
The Atheist said:
It's actually very simple science, as has been stated a few times: calories in - calories spent = weight gain.
Click to expand...
You left out the entire biological drive that regulates appetite, as usual per the crowd that hasn't looked at the scientific evidence.

Also, there is a wealth of evidence documenting a weight conservation reflex that when a person cuts calories, the body's metabolism slows. In addition, there are a number of mechanisms involved in storage of calories as fat.

The Atheist said:
While you completely avoided the point - which was the multi-billion dollar diet industry proves that people would like to lose weight. Jenny Craig alone is worth almost a billion dollars. ...
Click to expand...
Which is why I asked the Buddha to summarize his data dump. It wasn't clear what the point was.
 
The Atheist said:
It's actually very simple science, as has been stated a few times: calories in - calories spent = weight gain.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
You left out the entire biological drive that regulates appetite, as usual per the crowd that hasn't looked at the scientific evidence.

Also, there is a wealth of evidence documenting a weight conservation reflex that when a person cuts calories, the body's metabolism slows. In addition, there are a number of mechanisms involved in storage of calories as fat.
Click to expand...

These two quotes are not at odds.
 
Pretty much all animals will over eat if given the chance. It's the same with people. Virtually anyone can lose weight by cutting calories, it's just a very hard thing to do for some people.
 
Telling fat people they can lose weight by eating less is like telling poor people they can become rich by making more money. True, but unhelpful.

Please don't reply snarkily to this post unless you are a self-made billionaire in perfect physical shape. Because those things are easy to do.
 
cornsail said:
Obviously that is your position (a position I already said I'm sure is correct). I was curious what factors associated with snickers bars you had in mind.
Click to expand...

Well, mass is one thing that's linked to feeling full. A Snickers bar will have less mass than the equivalent calories eaten in, say, celery.

The point, which I'm curious as to why you're still arguing as you keep insisting that you agree, is that being satiated is not purely a function of how many calories you consume.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's calories that make people fat, casebro.
Click to expand...

And it is appetite control that makes you skinny.

But I wasn't talking about weight gain, I was talking about feeling full. Which is a good thing for those who over eat.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Telling fat people they can lose weight by eating less is like telling poor people they can become rich by making more money. True, but unhelpful.

Please don't reply snarkily to this post unless you are a self-made billionaire in perfect physical shape. Because those things are easy to do.
Click to expand...

It's more helpful than telling them that eating less wont help them lose weight. You have to start with basic reality. Controlling one's diet is not comparable to becoming rich, but I suppose you could compare overeating to frivolous spending. As for people in great shape, most of them didn't get there without putting in a long and sustained effort. I have no problem acknowledging that if I had been going to the gym 3 days a week for the last 10 years I would be in much better shape. If I want to get in great shape, acknowledging that helps.
 
ThunderChunky said:
It's more helpful than telling them that eating less wont help them lose weight. You have to start with basic reality. Controlling one's diet is not comparable to becoming rich, but I suppose you could compare overeating to frivolous spending. As for people in great shape, most of them didn't get there without putting in a long and sustained effort. I have no problem acknowledging that if I had been going to the gym 3 days a week for the last 10 years I would be in much better shape. If I want to get in great shape, acknowledging that helps.
Click to expand...

If you want to get in shape you should exercise! Also: you can avoid drowning by not trying to breathe underwater, be free of burns by not exposing your skin to heat sources, and live to a very old age by not dying.
 
Some problems really do have simple solutions.
"I don't want to be fat." - Move more, eat less.
"I don't want to be poor." - Earn more, spend less.
"I don't want to be an alcoholic." - Stop drinking.

The difficulty arises when the answers don't fit my idea of what constitutes an enjoyable life. I want to eat too much and stay thin. I want to spend all my money and not be broke. I want to drink constantly without ill effects.

Which reminds me. Have I mentioned the amazing powers one can achieve with Scientology?
 
Last edited:
Modified said:
The low volume and lack of fiber, plus the high amount of raw sugar (which digests quickly and causes a blood sugar spike).
Click to expand...

Do you know of any studies on this by chance? I've tried to search for confirmation of these types of claims in the past, but was unsuccessful (possibly because I'm not adept enough at searching the health literature). It's not that I think they're wrong, I would just be very interested to learn more about the specifics of these relationships and get some sort of confirmation. In particular the relationships between volume and fiber, and satiety/appetite.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The point, which I'm curious as to why you're still arguing as you keep insisting that you agree, is that being satiated is not purely a function of how many calories you consume.
Click to expand...

I asked what factors you had in mind when you used snickers bars as an example and you answered. I didn't think I was "arguing". Maybe there is a tone thing that I'm unintentionally conveying or something.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Telling fat people they can lose weight by eating less is like telling poor people they can become rich by making more money. True, but unhelpful.

Please don't reply snarkily to this post unless you are a self-made billionaire in perfect physical shape. Because those things are easy to do.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Here's why. A person can control the calories they ingest, directly. Getting wealthy involves many factors out of control of most people.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Telling fat people they can lose weight by eating less is like telling poor people they can become rich by making more money. True, but unhelpful.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: You can stop procrastinating by stopping procrastinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom