ThassodarIt's all SO simple!
blujan
Boomer Humor DoomergodThis is a joke but I lost 20 pounds so far just by eating half as much as I normally would.
That’s the way it works, you’re no joke homie
Thermodynamics is a cruel but fair mistress
She gives but she takes, equally.
Reminder to readers thay there is a stark difference between “cutting back” and starving yourself.
Smaller portions and less calorie-dense options make a huge difference over time.
It’s also much more sustainable. Make small tweaks as you go versus making big, drastic swings at your eating habits.
This might sound weird, but after a point it’s easier to just forego eating. It can be kind of dangerous how effective it is, but anyone who has gone a long time without food probably recognizes how their body stops bothering them with hunger.
AniviaIt is, the trick is it’s easier said than done for people.
It’s tricky to require your brain and overhaul your habits.
I say this as someone who also has lost 25 lbs. there’s a reason people refer to it as a journey.
I say this less to diminish your point and more for support of others who are going through this thinking “man this is impossible but everyone makes it sound easy”. It’s not. It’s a marathon not a sprint.
Lots of things are easy to do once, but doing them continuously for as long as necessary is extremely hard.
That being said I was starving for like two weeks but eventually I found I can’t eat that much anymore and it got easier.
The one that gets me is switching from full sugar to diet sodas. Having a full sugar soda now tastes like I’m being face fucked with syrup. That one’s hard to go back.
I gave up soda entirely and now I can’t drink any of it. It tastes like fizzy battery acid to me.
TrackinDaKrakenDo you think that’s something you’ll be able to keep doing for the long term? Or, do you expect that you’ll put the weight back on when you inevitably give up and start eating more?
Now that I’m used to eating less I’ve found that I simply can’t eat like I used to without discomfort.
Case in point: last night I got an Italian sub and was full after half of it, while previously I would have housed the entire thing.
Not the same person, but I’ll add my 2 cents.
Eating less of what you always eat is HARD, because you eat that much to stay full. Feeling hungry 24/7 is super fucking hard, and I don’t think anyone can maintain that for long.
But it’s amazing how not-filling most processed foods are. Swapping out high-calorie, unfilling food for low-calorie filling foods made it pretty much effortless.
I didn’t feel hungry, I didn’t need to eat that much. But dieting is still hard, because I also ate out of habit. A bag of snacks in front of the tv, a snack with a drink after lunch, etc etc. Not because I was hungry just because it’s tasty.
Breaking that habit was also pretty easy. See, you don’t need to diet 24/7. I only need to focus on dieting half an hour every other day, when I’m buying food at the supermarket. If I don’t buy snacks, I can’t eat snacks, it’s really simple. Anyone can be strong for 30 minutes every other day, that’s easy.
So yeah, dieting is done first your head, and then in the supermarket!
Step 1: admit your obesity is your own fault, and thus within your control Step 2: buy better food, buy less crap. Step 3: keep doing step 2 forever.
It’s simple math, consume more than what goes in.
Yep. And the last time I did this I helped by keeping my house around 50 degrees all the time. I figure if we spend most of our energy keeping warm then making that harder would burn more calories.
FudgyMcTubbsWhy’d they keep it a secret? Someone tell the fat people, quick!
Unfortunately, common rhetoric among boomers and their cattle is that we shouldn’t skip meals if we want to lose weight.
So many people proudly spread that bullshit, and it’s caused so much damage they don’t have to deal with.
I mean…yes?
I get that this is supposed to be a joke, but, I don’t get the joke. This is literally how weight loss works.
Eat less.
Eat healthier.
Exercise.
Weight loss is hard because it’s hard to stick to it. But the concepts aren’t complicated. Caleries in minus caleries burned equals caleries stored as fat.
Less caleries means less unburned caleries means less fat.
BurgerBaronJust don’t have an eating disorder / addiction is what these posts suggest you know. The entire problem is they struggle with saying no. Like a heroin addict.
It’s not fat people hate to acknowledge that eating less is how you lose weight.
Your take or stance about capitalism and addiction is true also, but yeah addicts are addicts if it’s heroin or food or sex or alcohol.
Some addictions / pleasures aren’t super unhealthy and some are.
Either way, the trick to it is to eat less. Same as the “trick” to getting off opiates is to stop using them.
Do you also tell smokers that smoking causes cancer? Like yeah no shit buddy.
If they pretend it doesn’t, yeah.
bdonvr
matelt“Depression? Just do more fun things and watch silly TV shows.”
rivvvverthis “common knowledge” “weight loss” stuff typically neglects how dieting will affect ur caloric rate. if u just starve urself, ur muscles will grow smaller and u will need fewer calories to maintain ur normal functioning body, meaning u need to eat even less again to not put on fat. but if u train ur muscles directly, they will beg for more calories so they can grow, and the calories needed to maintain them will also increase.
for anyone interested, i suggest reading a physical education by casey johnston.
As most things about the human body, it actually is more complicated. Caloric restriction also causes biological responses in our bodies, influencing hormones such as ghrelin and leptin which physiologically alter hunger and satiety. Some people can even be resistant to leptin for example, meaning that they struggle with a lack of satiety. Our bodies have also been shown to reduce their energy requirements by about 200 calories per day when intake is restricted.
So even if we disregard the problems the claim it’s just a matter of willpower, there are other, biological things to consider.
All this to say, it is undoubtedly good to have more fiber, around 1.2-1.6g protein per kg of bodyweight, 120minutes of excercise a week and strength training, or just whatever we can implement into our routines.
Oh, and one more thing, fatness isn’t a ubiquitous measure of healthiness or virtue, and thinness isn’t either. We have to challenge our assumptions and biases, a lot of which come from our cultures and media.
Appetite Hormones - Today's Dietitian Magazine
Today’s DietitianVol. 17 No. 7 P. 26 Brain and gut hormones impact eating behavior and weight loss efforts. Many people who have struggled to lose weight and keep it off suspect there’s more to it than simply eating less and resist the notion that failure is simply a matter of not trying hard enough. The
Oh, and one more thing, fatness isn’t a ubiquitous measure of healthiness or virtue, and thinness isn’t either. We have to challenge our assumptions and biases, a lot of which come from our cultures and media.
I’ve discovered this more and more playing pickleball, of all things. People who “look” out of shape have handed my ass to me, MANY times, because their knowledge, range of motion, and discipline have gotten them to where they were, without being traditionally “skinny”.
If anything I’ve learned not to discount “older” players, because they hold up with me, sometimes 20 years younger, fantastically. I hope to have the same drive in the future.
Oh, and one more thing, fatness isn’t a ubiquitous measure of healthiness or virtue, and thinness isn’t either. We have to challenge our assumptions and biases, a lot of which come from our cultures and media.
It kinda is… obesity is not healthy. Period. It’s bad for your joints, your organs, it’s a driver for cancers and other illnesses. The HAES movement is partially to blame for this massive spike in obesity we’re seeing. All of those links you post, are not causing the majority of people to be obese. The epidemic is not something that happened in the past, it’s quite recent.
I work in participation sports, and agree with OP. I’ve seen people running in a long distance triathlon (which means they’ve already swum and biked a long distance) who, if I saw them in a different context, I’d not have thought them fit. Usually women, not men. Fat and cardiovascularly fit >skinny and idle. And I’ve seen really strong fat guys, maybe that’s not as perfect as lean & strong but is it worse than thin and weak?
It’s not the usual arrangement (fit and fat) but skinny and unfit is pretty common.
I don’t make fitness assumptions anymore, about people within some range, obviously there is a point where this isn’t true. I haven’t ever been fat and do not think I’d be one of those people (if I am in shape it shows in my visual shape) but plump fit people do exist.
Sure, look at the WSM guys, they look fat and are fit, but even they know what they’re doing isn’t healthy…but let’s stop trying to suggest that the norm is fit people who look obese. You know exactly what I’m talking about, the mass majority are not fit and look obese, the mass majority are obese. There is a reason cancers and diseases are spiking, and it’s not from fit people.
You know they tube feed patients in comas, right? The patient presumably didn’t give consent, and yet I’m pretty sure that’s legal. Doesn’t even have to be a “too much junk food” coma.
The patient can deny consent in advance, though.
Fasting is a real thing
Ramadan
Lent
And just straight up fasting or intermittent fasting
It’s healthy too. Just dont, if youre pregnant, a child, under nourished, under weight, sick etc etc
And during a fast… feel bad? Just eat.
People should be wary of voluntarily fasting for more than a day or two. Can be fine, but can also lead to lasting complications, may be too late by the time you feel bad. Ramadan/etc usually only involve intermittent fasting spread out over a period of time.
It’s weird to me how drastically Lenten fasting has decreased in modern day catholicism. If I hadn’t left the religion and already become a pescatarian I’d be doing it old school with pescatarian all season and full fasts on Fridays.
This but unironically. It’s a way more efficient way to lose weight than exercise. And it doesn’t come with the Ozempic side effects
ObiI lost 35kg within 8 months by going hardcore on controlling my diet. I did have to eat more once I started exercising, which I needed to because all the muscle was melting away right along the fat. It definitely works, but I did “fall off the wagon” once I stopped counting the calories. Now I’m trying to find that long term balance of sport and diet I can maintain in the long run.
Intermittent fasting/OMAD and light exercise (walking, a bit of cycling) is in my opinion a way easier to drop massive amounts of weight in a short time. Light exercise keeps your body healthy while operating at a caloric defecit
gerryflapYeah moving doesn’t seem to lose weight (unless you’re very overweight). It’s very good for you, but muscle isn’t lighter than fat. At some point I went from not running to running half marathons and I went from like 86 to 82 kg average, but that only really happened after I also changed my diet. Currently I stopped running temporarily because of some health reasons and I haven’t really gained much weight either, I just feel weaker.
The big two things exercise does for weight loss is it expends calories to build new muscles, and then those muscles increase your base calorie burn because they’re body mass. Weight loss without exercise can consume muscle as well as fat as the body treats excess muscles as a calorie store. At the end of the day, for most people in most circumstances, losing weight as a goal really means losing fat. If someone’s 110 kg and trying to lose weight, many wouldn’t mind being 110 kg with a somewhat thin waist and just being ripped (ok, a lot of women would hate looking like that, but actually doing that is an incredible feat)
It can definitely have side effects. Psychological (eating disorders, persistent) and physical (unbalanced diet, or fatigue because the body gets in the “oh fuck must conserve energy” mode).
There is no one size fits all solution. A random 50 year old IT worker with a sedentary lifestyle and a Big Mac diet does not need the same help as a physically active 25 year old with severe hormonal imbalances. Using Ozempic is bad in the former case, but so is shaming the latter person for relying on it.