weight loss and its issues

Post Reply New Topic

Pretty much everything is in your control if you want it in your control bad enough.

not really, no. that is extremely reductionistic.

i suppose you ignored the study with rodents that demonstrated that messing with their hormones makes them incapable of losing weight, even to the degree that they did of malnutrition when obese. or what about people who take medicines where a large percentage will gain weight because it actually lowers their metabolism. there are many many factors beyond a person's control, and you simply can't get into anyone else's head or body to judge them with a yardstick like that.

and anyway, why should they lose weight? there is a good chance they don't have any health problems at all. we already established that.

Your hormones are in your control if you use drugs/supplements/nutrition to make them in your control. As a human, it's our job to make everything in our control to benefit us. It's a never ending cycle, it's been this way since Adam and Eve, we must constantly adapt and overcome and force things to be the way we want them to be, regardless of how fair or unfair it is. Doing anything else is simply failure.

Now, though, we must adapt not to overcome nature, but to things we ourselves have caused in our race to force our environment to our wishes.

Such is the cruelty of life.

Don't mention Adam and Eve on a site full of literal thinkers unless you want a rush of hostile backlash.

Absolutely awesome and fascinating thread!

Among several very interesting posts, I thought that Janissy's points about "eating because feel hungry but a combination of food and hormones makes body store the food as fat rather than use as energy, so that feel hungry ... etc etc etc" was great. And hyperlexian pointing out how fatness may be perfectly healthy, ( not obesity perhaps because I get the impression that obesity is sort of by definition a "disease" label ), in as many as 17 out of 43 fat people, and that fatness may be caused by many different factors, ( including poverty ) and that fatness need not be an ugly or unattractive state at all ... etc.

BUT most of all what this awesome thread had me thinking was "Thank god that I no longer believe in contra-causal freewill", because it seems to me that the main aggro/hassle/conflict here is caused by belief in that thing, which has no concrete existence, just like god, but has a massive impact on self-esteem, and how one feels and thinks about almost everything, ( incl oneself and others ), especially when it comes to the fine and much-fought-over line that "we"/our culture draws at any given moment ( and its position changes all the time ) between what is seen as being under our own individual and/or society's control and that which is not ...

eg. I remember some very heated threads in General Discussion about whether autism is entirely genetic, or mostly but with some epigenetic factors etc, or even, in a certain significant percentage of cases if it might be "merely" a genetic predisposition which is environmentally triggered, etc ... heated, IMHO, because many people did not want autism to be something which might be ( even if only to *some* extent ) under "anyone's" control ... as if it would not be the same thing in some important way ... I think that a somewhat similar debate continues in the gay/queer/LGBT community ...

Since I stopped believing in the social-construct ( or value judgment ) of contra-causal freewill I am much less inclined to look up to/feel inferior to some people or look down on/feel superior to others for whatever they seem to have "achieved" or "failed to achieve/control", etc ... and I think that a lot of the "heat" in this fatness/obesity discussion is the result of belief in cc-freewill.

NB. I'm def a fan of Gary Taubes' analysis, of a mainly paleo but some rice and cooked veg, and gluten-free diet for keeping weight off and in good health, but despite having only ever been at most 15kg or about 2 stone over my "happiest" weight, with a very low BMI, and generally considered "slim" I now seem to be suffering from some early aspects of heart-failure/disease as a result of my nearly lifelong sugar-addiction, and little or no exercise over the last 6 years, such that for first time in my life I'm having to cut out saturated fat and salt.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Jul 2012, 2:28 pm, edited 5 times in total.

drugs and supplements are unnatural can be quite dangerous, and all of those options have to be taken for life (which is untested for safety).

fairness is subjective, and fairness is not an issue at the heart of any of my arguments.

you didn't answer as to WHY people should want to lose weight? i haven't seen a compelling argument yet.

why are you bringing up Adam and Eve? they are fictional.

i think you have a key point here. i tried googling contra-causal free will and i don't really understand it, though. what does it mean?

This is a good site about it, ( which was recommended to me by someone here on WP a couple of years ago now ).

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

The reason why I used the term "contra-causal freewill" rather than simply "freewill" is that it makes clear what is actually implied, however automatically and unthinkingly, by many people when they talk about "simple" freewill, ie. something which is mysteriously independent of all physical laws, of environmental influence, social conditioning, genetic programming etc, in which it is possible for someone to "simply" exert willpower, take control of their life, etc and is often behind the attitude that if you tell someone the facts about some issue they will be able to act on that, and if they don't they must be lacking in the "virtues" of self-discipline, backbone etc.

Obviously data can and often does act as another form of environmental influence on a person's behaviour, but everyone is at all times the product of the entire universe in a sense, including genes, childhood experience, society etc, as well as the electromagnetic poles and the pull of the moon, ( without getting even more mystical about it! :lol ), and their behaviour is a sum total of that ( plus quantum effects!? :lol ) ... and if someone does not do what seems logical, obviously sensible/desirable, etc to you it is because they are "obeying" programming which seems "logical" to their body and brain at some level, however exasperating it seems to someone else. ... Which is why I love the sort of data which Janissy provided etc because it explains why what can look like total stupidity or lack of willpower etc is actually completely "logical"/explicable.

The simple term "freewill" can be used, quite reasonably, in a more modest sense, referring to one's civilian/citizen's freedom to choose ... but my belief is that the freedom involved in that exercise of freewill is totally "causal", either determined, ( by genes, chemicals, environment, social conditioning etc etc etc ... ultimately the universe ), or undetermined/quantum in which case "we"'re not in control of it either.

I think that belief in cc-freewill has deeply pernicious effects in many ways, not least being the tendency among many to look down on others and almost equally dangerously to look up to people, but also to look down on oneself.

I read a couple of articles in the last year or two about "decision fatigue" by the way, which among other things seem to suggest that it is actually the belief that one is "freely" deciding that can make self-control/"good-choices" so dreadfully exhausting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magaz ... d=fb-share

http://www.alternet.org/health/156037/i ... age=entire

.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Jul 2012, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So, after some research, I have come to a new conclusion:

I should encourage as many people as possible to get obese and start smoking and drinking, because this will result in my paycheck getting taxed a whole lot less when those people die much earlier, because dead people incur no health costs.

Oh reality, you so funny!

Now THAT is interesting. Thanks for this. The concept of free will has often been a barrier to me in exerting my will. The times when I've really been able to exert my will are the times when I've ignored free will and let myself be drawn to exertion, by whatever stimulus is compelling it. I think this is why structure is so important for some people, too.

Absolutely. I am currently trying, and so far failing, to come up with the "right" structure" to support an exercise routine. I used to loathe structure, rebel against it. Now I long for it, for it to be "given" to me, because it turns out to be so precious. ... I think that most people need support structures, for many if not most "healthy"/sound/constructive activities and behaviours ... ( What activities/behaviour is society currently supporting? ). ... I have been beating myself up for my "failure" to keep to an exercise routine ... except when I remember that my "failure" is the result of a sum total of all factors/influences/the universe, ie. I need to find some new/different influences! :lol Trying to simply observe what I actually *do*, because that "feedback" can be illuminating data, but again even that activity is not under "my"/"I"'s control but that of the universe. :lol

To return to thread topic slightly more again, another thing: I think that it would be a good idea in these discussions to distinguish between "fatness" ( a physical appearance" not necessarily associated with ill-health eg. in 17 perfectly healthy out of 43 fat people, and not inherently unattractive either ) and "obesity", where the fatness is probably a symptom of ill-health or involves discomfort, etc. Like most people have learned to distinguish between sex and gender perhaps?
.

if your ultimate goal is to save taxpayers money, then yes. also, promote dieting as it is likely to result in greater weight gain.

Article today at the Daily Mail ( I know I know! :lol ):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eight.html

This would also apply to fruit juice I imagine. I didn't realise that fructose might be as bad for health as "sugar"/sucrose until about a year ago. I think that may be why my heart is showing signs of wear/disease; whereas until about 13 years ago I couldn't afford to buy fruit juice on a regular basis, ( and never really liked coca-cola etc type drinks ), since living with the father of my son I've been able to buy, and easily transport ( he has a car ) large amounts of fruit juice ( apple and red grape in particular ) on a regular basis to drink several times a day, despite being diluted with water.

And this article/study says that the effects are permanent.


.

What conditions? That one must be alive to receive healthcare?

If you cast your mind back, when I was demonstrating that there are costs associated with obesity alone, which you still seem to be denying, I also gave examples of costs associated with dead obese individuals. Obviously, these are not healthcare costs! As I said before, crematoria have had to make structural modifications and purchase equipment to accomodate, move and cremate obese corpses.





You're talking about issues not raised by me, but by the man whose article you linked to. The guy who called obese people "lardbuckets", remember?





You have your bias and I have my mine.

It could be argued that the selective posting of studies which seek to show that weight gain is not attributable to choices made in relation to diet and exercise promotes abdication of personal responsibility.



Yes, the Youtube video. I watched that and found it very interesting. It's also interesting that you focussed only on what he had to say about factors outwith a person's control. Clearly, our different biases affected the message we took from it.

He starts off by emphasising that you can't lose weight by eating what you want and not exercising and is, quite rightly, scathing of quick-fix diets.

Then goes on to say that the US and the developed world is getting fat and getting fatter at a really fast rate - which is pretty much what I've been saying. He also points out that this is "actually really bad for us. Carrying around a lot of extra body weight can kill you in many really unpleasant ways, including our two favourite ways to die - heart disease and cancer, but also the new epidemic of type 2 diabetes. So being fat is objectively bad for you."

Looking at how and why he goes on to say that "conventional wisdom and scientific rationality tells us that this is a numbers game. It's calories in versus calories out. It's the first friggin' law of thermodynamics, people!"

He points out that "our doctors never shut up about having us eat right and exercise and they're basically right. If we do that we should be able to maintain a normal, healthy body shape. Whereas a quick persusal of the contents of your average grocery store will tell you that we do not eat right and ... we don't exercise very often."

So what I take from the video so far is that people know, as they are repeated told, how not to gain and how to lose weight, but chose, for whatever reason, not to do it. And we continue to get fat and get fatter.

He then talks about the study with the schoolchildren, the results of which are hardly surprising as the researchers had limited control over the children's diet and exercise habits.

As he goes on to outline the possible outwith our control causes you listed earlier, he says, tongue in cheek, that "maybe we won't have to blame ourselves any more!" Back to that abdication of responsibility thing that I have a bit of a problem with - that I have a problem with in all aspects of life, I should point out.

Ok, so the other potential contributing factors - notice I don't see them as causes, although that's what he said in the video.

Regulated indoor temperatures - yes, I agree that this will be a factor as we use less energy if we don't have to keep ourselves warm or cool. In addition, urban environments are increasingly designed and built so that we spend less time outside than before. Shopping centres have covered car park which lead directly to the temperature controlled shopping area, office blocks and residential buildings often have underground car parks, and other facilities contained within the same building or linked with covered, temperature controlled access ways. However, if we use less energy, then we need to consume less energy. It's a matter of being more aware of your body and finding a balance of energy and energy out, which is back to the numbers game he spoke about earlier.

Lack of sleep - as he said, this is a difficult one to demonstrate, not least because obese people tend to have sleep problems. I find this one less convincing.

High rates of smoking cessation - Well, smoking does affect your metabolism, but not enough that giving up alone would cause you to be obese if you were previously of a normal, healthy weight. It is recognised that many people do gain some weight when they give up smoking but that is because they substitute eating for smoking, and this is why smoking cessation campaigns in this country include advice about diet and how to avoid weight gain. So, I'm not convinced by this one either. The effect is minimal and mostly due to compensatory eating.

Industrial chemicals - possible. I couldn't access the links for his sources, so can't really comment on this.

Overweight people tend to pick overweight partners, leading to larger kids. My granny, who was a medical doctor used to refer to this phenomenon as "eating out the same frying pan". I am more inclined to believe that this is more about diet and exercise, than anything else.

Age of mother during pregnancy - no one knows why this should be.

Epigenetics - yes, it does seem that the choices made by parents may have an effect on their children, which is all the more reason to encourage healthier lifestyles.

Differences in gut bacteria - which the man in the video pointed out, can be treated effectively.

And he concludes by saying, "and yes, it's probably also a good idea to eat better and exercise more"!

Much earlier in this thread I mentioned changes to the way we live which I believe are linked to the rising obesity rates. I don't have time to go over them again in detail, but basically our built environment, work patterns and the increasingly sedentary nature of many jobs, increased car ownership and use, the introduction of microwaves and ready meals, the increase in fast food outlets, and a culture of instant rather than delayed gratification are, I believe all contributary factors.

These changes have happened rapidly over the past 2 - 3 decades, the same time frame during which obesity rates have risen sharply and all have an effect on how and what we eat and the amount of exercise we get. We need to get to grips with how to live differently within this changed environment.

That is why the weight loss industry in fitness is a growing industry? That's why programs like P90X made $420 million in one year? There are thousands of people who are getting in shape and making the change for themselves every year.

If someone has a great physique and has put in a great amount of effort and countless hours, do you not respect that something as such as that requires a great amount of dedication and discipline?

no, they make money because it doesn't really work, so people have to sink their money into the next best thing. there is a 95 to 98% failure rate for diets in the 5 year mark, and even worse at the 20 year mark. that is a lot of money to be gained, as people become repeat customers.

i respect dedication and discipline for anything, including winning video games, creating Z-scale model trains, memorising the roadmaps of the UK, etc. i don't put weightlifting and such above that.

i don't actually consider muscles to be a "great physique"; i can take that or leave it. definitely if someone is super-vain about how their body looks, it would be a turn-off though.