Diet and exercise alone are no cure for obesity, experts say

[Humanoid]

Instead of diet and exercise, I occasionally practise diet versus exercise. The idea behind which is to have no food readily available at home, and therefore creating the situation of having to exercise (by means of a bike ride or a long walk) if I wanted to get food. I don't have a car, see.

 

I'm only being semi-facetious with it as a serious strategy. Most weekdays I have lunch at work and don't bother keeping my fridge and pantry stocked so when I get home that's it for the day.

[Rosbjerg]

Hmm, perhaps we could tone down the rhetoric a bit?

 

 

 

Truth is most women do not prefer bald men. Truth is most women do not prefer fat men. Key words here being 'most' and 'prefer'.

 

 

Indeedidlydo..

 

I gotten the "I don't like bald men" so many times - and I found the best respond tends to be ****y bordering the ridiculous and just reply "now you do..." - to which I can conclude, women like confidence and humor.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

No, I just said that people should act on what they think. If this is ""you'll never look like that, go die in a hole you fat pig"" then it's their choice of thinking not mine.

 

 

So basically you value your abstract principle of "people should act upon the things they're thinking" (which is weird in itself; I'm pretty sure we'd have an extremely dysfunctional society if people just acted on every idea that jumped into their minds) over people's lives, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[213374U]

Well now we have a dysfunctional society of people that don't act upon what they think and refuse to act even on the behalf of things they think are right. Some people even refuse to admit to the things they really think and just say and do the society dictates them. 

Why do you think people acting on their actual sincere believes would be dysfunctional? Most people are decent and people that have wacky ideas seems to have no problem with acting on their weird ideas regardless so they will be a problem now and then so it doesn't make a difference.

Right now we have government/media/etc. telling people what to do and what to think and this is very bad.

 

The problem I see with this outlook is that you aren't applying it to yourself. Either you are a perfect achiever who unfailingly sets for himself and accomplishes the right goals all the time no matter how titanic the task ahead, or you are just another internets windbag with ample amounts of hypocrisy filling in for empathy and experience dealing with actual, flesh and blood people. The classic closet social Darwinist.

 

Which one is it?

Edited February 20, 2015 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So basically you value your abstract principle of "people should act upon the things they're thinking" (which is weird in itself; I'm pretty sure we'd have an extremely dysfunctional society if people just acted on every idea that jumped into their minds) over people's lives, if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

Well now we have a dysfunctional society of people that don't act upon what they think and refuse to act even on the behalf of things they think are right. Some people even refuse to admit to the things they really think and just say and do the society dictates them. 

 

 

 

Examples?

 

 

 

Why do you think people acting on their actual sincere believes would be dysfunctional? 

 

 

 

Because history is full of examples where people acting on their actual, sincere beliefs and out of an honest effort to make the world a better place resulted in unspeakable atrocities?

 

But, to take less of a big-picture view, even on the micro scale, when somebody's actual, sincere belief is that it would be just better to die, acting on it results in them being dead, which is pretty much objectively worse than being fat and continuing to live.

 

 

 

Right now we have government/media/etc. telling people what to do and what to think and this is very bad.

 

 

...Very bad because? It's like you have some sort of an idea behind making sweeping statements like this, but no arguments to back it up.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For any of those interested in getting into (better) shape, I recommend trying a balanced diet and exercise first then seeing a professional if you're severely out of shape. I'd advise against listening to internet experts who are more full of **** than TN before he sits on the toilet.

[213374U]

And how do you came to this conclusion?

I may have been too hasty, if so, I apologize.

 

Perhaps you can prove my assumptions wrong about your coherence by explaining how you always act the way you think, and how you never fail at any endeavors. The italiziced part is critical because past failures count against your ability to try again and they also particularly invalidate your previous claims in this thread (you don't know how many people are thinking about how they should do something about their excess weight after having failed several times in the past). So pray tell, How many social advocacy issues are you actively involved with (and have succeeded at) to fix this dysfunctional society? How good are your personal marks at the sports of your choice? How much have you contributed to expanding the boundaries of human knowledge? Because if you can't say or you haven't, then you aren't really doing what you should be doing according to your own statements, and you are just "thinking without acting".

 

 

For any of those interested in getting into (better) shape, I recommend trying a balanced diet and exercise first then seeing a professional if you're severely out of shape. I'd advise against listening to internet experts who are more full of **** than TN before he sits on the toilet.

 

You can trust me when I say I'm really not full of it (I just went), and I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert, but safety rule #1 is to have at least a basic medical examination before starting any exercise regime, regardless of intensity, if you weren't exercising before. After that, finding someone who can give you the basic ability/mobility tests such as these would be highly recommendable as well. Sedentarism wrecks your body and you can exercise without noticing any problems for months or years until *crack*.

[Gorgon]

Depends on the diet now doesn't it.If you don't eat enough calories to gain weight you will not become obese.

[Gorgon]

Depends on the diet now doesn't it.If you don't eat enough calories to gain weight you will not become obese.

[Meshugger]

Everyone gets thinner by starvation. It's not fun, nice and can be dangerous. But it definately works.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

And how do you came to this conclusion?

 

I may have been too hasty, if so, I apologize.

Perhaps you can prove my assumptions wrong about your coherence by explaining how you always act the way you think, and how you never fail at any endeavors. The italiziced part is critical because past failures count against your ability to try again and they also particularly invalidate your previous claims in this thread (you don't know how many people are thinking about how they should do something about their excess weight after having failed several times in the past). So pray tell, How many social advocacy issues are you actively involved with (and have succeeded at) to fix this dysfunctional society? How good are your personal marks at the sports of your choice? How much have you contributed to expanding the boundaries of human knowledge? Because if you can't say or you haven't, then you aren't really doing what you should be doing according to your own statements, and you are just "thinking without acting".

 

 

For any of those interested in getting into (better) shape, I recommend trying a balanced diet and exercise first then seeing a professional if you're severely out of shape. I'd advise against listening to internet experts who are more full of **** than TN before he sits on the toilet.

 

 

You can trust me when I say I'm really not full of it (I just went), and I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert, but safety rule #1 is to have at least a basic medical examination before starting any exercise regime, regardless of intensity, if you weren't exercising before. After that, finding someone who can give you the basic ability/mobility tests such as

would be highly recommendable as well. Sedentarism wrecks your body and you can exercise without noticing any problems for months or years until *crack*.

I was referring to someone else with "internet experts" mate. I'd say your advice for those struggling with a weight problem is better than "kill yourself fatty".

[Gorgon]

Everyone gets thinner by starvation. It's not fun, nice and can be dangerous. But it definately works.

After a while the stomach contracts and you stop feeling very hungry, that's how people can stand going on fast. It's not going to kill you. 

 

It doesn't 'cleanse' your system from 'accumulated toxins' though. Complete hippie nonsense.

[Nonek]

I wonder if there is something within mankinds genetic code that drives us to consume more, perhaps because of millenia eeking out nourishment?

[Blarghagh]

I wonder if there is something within mankinds genetic code that drives us to consume more, perhaps because of millenia eeking out nourishment?

 

I believe it's been suggested that the ability to rationalize and live in communities wasn't so much intergrated into our brain as tacked on in a new bit right next to the mammalian instinct to procreate and seek out a fat meal to satisfy ourselves for as long as possible because we don't know where the next meal is coming from. It's supposedly why a lot of things people do seemingly go against their logic and desires. I'm no expert though, so don't take my word for it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Well now we have a dysfunctional society of people that don't act upon what they think and refuse to act even on the behalf of things they think are right. Some people even refuse to admit to the things they really think and just say and do the society dictates them.

 

 

Examples?

 

I refuse to think that you need examples of obvious statements about obedient societies that blindly follow their superiors without any self conscious reflections leading to disasters. They teach that in school on history and we have numerous examples basically every day on the news.

 

 

 

What I do need is examples that our society has more problems with people not acting on what they think is right than with people who do act on what they think is right (and are wrong about it).

 

 

 

Yes, as I already mention it is full of those people and people who think those people are wrong but don't do anything about it. It lacks people who think those people are wrong and act on this belief.

 

 

 

Can't help but think that you're very optimistic in assuming that people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a positive change outnumber people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a negative change.

 

 

 

But, to take less of a big-picture view, even on the micro scale, when somebody's actual, sincere belief is that it would be just better to die, acting on it results in them being dead, which is pretty much objectively worse than being fat and continuing to live.

And how do you know it's worse? Do you have any experience in being fat and being dead? Probably no.

I support anyone who made a conscious decision about improving their life. Even if they believe it means ending their life. I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist. 

 

 

It's a very nice sentiment, but having suicidal thoughts is generally thought of in the medical community as unhealthy in itself; hence, your proposed solution is more akin to denying painkillers from a person who's in obvious agony, then going "ah well, I guess it couldn't be helped; he made his decision for himself, and who am I to take this right from him?" when he decides to end his suffering. It's an exceedingly hypocritical idea.

 

 

I wonder if there is something within mankinds genetic code that drives us to consume more, perhaps because of millenia eeking out nourishment?

 

Close-ish. There are various rather involved reward mechanisms related to (over)consumption of food.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I wonder if there is something within mankinds genetic code that drives us to consume more, perhaps because of millenia eeking out nourishment?

Not quite sure tbh, but some studies have gathered evidence that retaining and gaining excess fat may be easier for those whose ancestors had to deal with food scarcity. Would post said studies, but am currently at work.

[Meshugger]

Aren't sub-saharan blacks the ones most prone to get overweight? Or maybe they digest the sugar differently than other races, who knows.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

But, to take less of a big-picture view, even on the micro scale, when somebody's actual, sincere belief is that it would be just better to die, acting on it results in them being dead, which is pretty much objectively worse than being fat and continuing to live.

And how do you know it's worse? Do you have any experience in being fat and being dead? Probably no.

I support anyone who made a conscious decision about improving their life. Even if they believe it means ending their life. I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist.

 

 

 

 

It's a very nice sentiment, but having suicidal thoughts is generally thought of in the medical community as unhealthy in itself; hence, your proposed solution is more akin to denying painkillers from a person who's in obvious agony, then going "ah well, I guess it couldn't be helped; he made his decision for himself, and who am I to take this right from him?" when he decides to end his suffering. It's an exceedingly hypocritical idea.

 

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves.

 

To reiterate what he said as it bears repeating: "I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist."

 

No one has the right to force upon another person painkillers or any other kind of treatment if they don't want them. Such a thing is evil, even if there are imagined good intentions behind it.

 

Relevant anecdote:

 

 

I can actually speak from experience of refusing to take pain killers. I once blew my knee all to hell. Tore my mcl and other tendons, and was on my ass with crutches for months. Tons of pain, excruciating at times really. I only ever took one Advil to shut my mother up who was driving me nuts telling me I needed pain killers. Why? As bad as the pain was, I wanted 100% of my cognitive abilities, along with the ability to know when I was doing something that was not good for my knee (that's generally what physical pain is: your body telling you this isn't good) so I didn't do further damage to it (a not uncommon thing for people who numb themselves all up to do to an injury). Also, there was a bit of 'ya know, my ancestors lived through getting speared without pain killers, I think I can deal with a blown out knee and not wuss out because something hurts.' This is not to say that I don't think pain killers are warranted in some situations, however I do think most people who use them are wussies (or like the effects on the brain). But as Sharp says, who am I to tell them what's best for them if that's what they want for their body. I 100% support person X's basic  right to pop pain killers if they wish to do so, for any reason they wish to do so.

 

Edited February 20, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Nonek]

Balance in all things I suppose, the urge to improve oneself can become greed, the urge to improve humanity can become contempt for them (as we see all too often,) the urge for civility can become an opposition to anything said that one individual does not like, etcetera.

 

I may be wrong however, I am not the great and everlasting know-it-all Yoghurt.

 

Edit: Torment and Spaceballs, i'm doing well today.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

It's a very nice sentiment, but having suicidal thoughts is generally thought of in the medical community as unhealthy in itself; hence, your proposed solution is more akin to denying painkillers from a person who's in obvious agony, then going "ah well, I guess it couldn't be helped; he made his decision for himself, and who am I to take this right from him?" when he decides to end his suffering. It's an exceedingly hypocritical idea.

 

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves.

 

 

 

Telling a person that if they have suicidal thoughts, the correct course of action is to act upon them, instead of seeing a mental health professional immediately is dangerously irresponsible at best. "Actively denying painkillers from a person who is in agony" was indeed a bad analogy; it's more akin to putting a gun in arm's reach to a person who can barely move and is in unspeakable agony while informing them that they can find painkillers on the 10th floor if they don't mind having to take the stairs.

 

 

 

Tons of pain, excruciating at times really. I only ever took one Advil to shut my mother up who was driving me nuts telling me I needed pain killers. Why? As bad as the pain was, I wanted 100% of my cognitive abilities

 

 

To me, the idea that constant, "at times excruciating" pain is less impairing to one's cognitive abilities than the effect of most (non-restricted) painkillers is ridiculous, but each to his own, I guess.

[Malcador]

Well, can see the argument that you're not responsible for them - if they want to go kill themselves, you're not under any obligation to help them. Is a decent thing to do, though I imagine the success rate at that might be pretty low if the person is a stranger.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I will neither provide further examples nor I would elaborate because every thinking person will agree or disagree and you will twist and backpedal every example just to prove that people shouldn't decide for themselves and live in a socialistic kettles.

 

 

 

Now there's an amusing sentence. I especially love how not only "every thinking person will agree or disagree" is just about as meaningful a statement as "objects are either blue or they're not", but also has zero connection to the rest of what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

Can't help but think that you're very optimistic in assuming that people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a positive change outnumber people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a negative change.

It's either that or we are f**** up as a species, and I don't think we would survive this long if we would truly be.

 

 

 

Way to vastly overestimate humanity's ability to impact the ultimate outcome of events in a cosmic (hell, even planetary) scale. Or, at least, impact it in a positive direction; see also: global warming.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as medical community. If you mix three of them in a room you will walk out with 4 different contradictory opinions on the simplest topics. This thread was started on one of those. Do you realize that if we accept the statement that started this thread one of the branches of "medical community" (diabetology) should be completely chopped of?

 

 

Nice try, but that's not how medicine works. For example, most doctors will agree that missing a large chunk of your upper body is generally not going to increase your life expectancy; same with having suicidal thoughts.

 

Not to mention that you seemingly have no idea what diabetology even is, but I'll let that slide.

Edited February 20, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Now there's an amusing sentence. I especially love how not only "every thinking person will agree or disagree" is just about as meaningful a statement as "objects are either blue or they're not", but also has zero connection to the rest of what you're trying to say.

Whatever floats your boat. It's a shame you didn't have anything meaningful to say about how lack of action and submitting to the government will help the Ukrainian situation to deescalate.

 

 

 

...What do you think has led to it escalating in the first place? 

 

 

 

 

It's either that or we are f**** up as a species, and I don't think we would survive this long if we would truly be.

 

Way to vastly overestimate humanity's ability to impact the ultimate outcome of events in a cosmic (hell, even planetary) scale.

 

Survival of human race is hardly a cosmic or planetary scale event. 

 

 

 

You're free to argue over semantics as much as you want; doesn't change the fact that "most people would impact the world in a negative way if they acted on their beliefs" isn't refuted by "humanity hasn't wiped itself out yet, therefore you're wrong" unless you can also prove that the original statement being true would unavoidably lead to humanity having wiped itself out by now. It's kind of a "bro, do you even logic?" issue.

 

 

 

Nice try, but that's not how medicine works. For example, most doctors will agree that missing a large chunk of your upper body is generally not going to increase your life expectancy; same with having suicidal thoughts.

MOST will agree?! Now that is really a biggest blow to credibility of medicine I ever seen. I guarantee you that ALL 6 year olds WILL AGREE to the same statement without wasting hundreds on thousands on getting a medical degree.

I wasn't appointed but I think "most doctors" will agree they don't want you to defend them because you are doing more harm trying to help than other people that actually try to harm them.

 

 

Personal attacks instead of rational arguments, coupled with a bad case of tone-deafness. Classy. Go on...

 

 

 

Not to mention that you seemingly have no idea what diabetology even is, but I'll let that slide.

Please enlighten me how a medicine branch that deals in 99% on the impact diet has on human body and whose 99% of patients seek help in relation with obesity will survive if the statement "diet and exercise have no impact on obesity" was in fact true. 

 

 

diabetology

Type: Term

 

Pronunciation: dī′ă-be-tol′ō-jē

Definitions:

1. The field of medicine concerned with diabetes.

 

You seem to be confusing it with dietology (or, more correctly, dietetics), which is pretty much the textbook definition of what I alluded to, ie. you having no idea what it is.

Edited February 20, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[213374U]

I was referring to someone else with "internet experts" mate. I'd say your advice for those struggling with a weight problem is better than "kill yourself fatty".

 

Are you sure? Apparently some people disagree:

 

 

Why you try to add something to my statement that I didn't put there? I object and refuse to include your attempt to discredit my statement by twisting it. I never said anything about "and how you never fail at any endeavors.", so don't insult my intelligence by trying to maneuver me into defending a statement I didn't make.

So if we leave this ludicrous paragraph of yours behind...

 

I'm sorry that you can't seem to deal with the implications of your "solutions". As I explained, you cannot be certain of how many people took the "correct" approach and failed, and are then left in a situation where trying again seems pointless and all they can do is think about it (even if only because being fat carries a stigma that cannot be avoided). The only possible way to follow your "advice" perfectly is to never fail at anything. Understand this: knowing what the solution of a problem seems to be and having the tools required to implement that solution are very different things. In your manichaean correct/incorrect fantasy, you are ignoring the implementation process completely, as people should continue to try and do what is "correct" according to you ad infinitum until they succeed (or kill themselves). A popular definition of madness (misattributed to Einstein) is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

And, by the way, selectively tagging what other people say as "ludicrous" to avoid discussing it is called hand-waving. It's painfully obvious when you do it to those who can recognize the tactic and raises suspicions that you are covering a hole in your argument.

 

 

 

Let's make one thing clear. If someone can't say something it doesn't make their statement anyhow less valid. There could be numerous reasons they cannot say some things.

 

Oh, but it does, when their statements are of a moralizing nature, i.e. "this is the correct way to do X", which is what you did. Patronizing is bad enough in and of itself, but when it's done by someone who lacks complete moral superiority because they can't follow their own advice to the letter (among other things because the advice is unrealistic), it's hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Now, what I'm doing to act on my thoughts and beliefs?

I'm now a leader of local structure of a political party. We actively support our candidate for presidential election that will take place in May and preparing the campaign for parliamentary elections in October.

I take part in numerous actions and organizations that I think are valuable in shaping the world in to what I think is in accordance with my beliefs.

As for sports I don't do anything professionally, I work out to the extend I think is necessary for me to stay fit and feel good about myself.

 

So yeah I really act on what I think is right, so my advice: refrain yourself from further embarrassing yourself.

 

Good. What will you do if you fail to get elected and cannot change this disfunctional society into something you consider functional? You will then have failed and the alternative is, by your own logic, to kill yourself, rather than sit back and perhaps reflect on what may have gone wrong. Perhaps the solution you thought was correct isn't quite so, or maybe you lack the tools to implement said solution.

 

Personally, and considering your expressed views in this and other threads about killing, suicide, and what is "correct", I hope you crash and burn spectacularly. Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. Hugs and kisses.

 

PS. I thank you for your advice, but I am very fond my right to make a fool of myself online and in person, and exercise it regularly. Get off your high horse.

 

 

 

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves.

 

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least.

 

When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support.

Edited February 20, 2015 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves.

 

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least.

 

When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support.

 

 

Exactly this.

 

The core problem with the implementation of libertarian ideals like "people have a right, hell, a moral obligation to kill themselves if that's what they feel would improve on their situation" is that they're entirely dependent on the idea of human beings as rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest, which, as cognitive science has repeatedly shown us, is laughably false.

Edited February 20, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid