2w ago

Those guy knows how to grill for sure.

23 comments

I really like these mannequins. That's not my body type, nor would I wear those shirts. But someone with that body type looks good in shirts like that, so using those mannequins gives those people a much better idea of how it'll look on them
- This is what body acceptance should be. Making people not feel like they are worthless failures because they are obese.
  Unfortunately the health-at-any-size people took that and made it to mean fat means healthy, and that couldn't be fatter from the truth.
  Being fat long-term is unhealthy. Uncontestable fact. But that doesn't mean that being fat is subhuman.
  Personally I'm of the belief that obesity is often a symptom of something else, usually mental health. A bad relationship with food and/or a lack of physical activity is an easy trap to fall into as a symptom of anxiety or depression, and it spirals from there. Accepting your fat body (or more accurately, feeling confident despite it) is then an important step in breaking that cycle and changing it.
  
  and that couldn't be fatter from the truth.
  Nice
  
  Some of it is genetic too. My dad was the healthiest man I ever knew. He exercised 5-days a week, ate healthy, didn’t smoke, and only drank red wine due to its heart benefits. But he still had a high BMI. He just couldn’t shed the belly fat.
  
  It's probably the baseline diet that maintained his high bmi.
  The modern food landscape is very different from the evolutionary pattern. Some people can tolerate it better then others.
  Lots of the nutritional advice given to people is wrong, not based on real research. Like the wine is good for your heart research, yes there was a observational correlation in a specific population, but that isn't causation.
  
  Spoiler alert, it’s still calories in calories out. Some people burn fewer calories as a baseline, (Called NEAT) which means they can’t eat quite as much without gaining weight.
  The biggest issue is most people are absolutely horrible at counting calories. They think they consumed 2000 in a day, but it was actually 3000 because they didn’t count pop, beer, snacks, condiments etc.
  If one is truly in a calorie deficit, no amount of bad genetics will keep them from losing weight.
  
  it’s still calories in calories out
  Yeah, but it's hard to count calories in:
  Plenty of foods are inconsistent. One apple might have twice the sugar of another.
  Some nutrients have a calorie count but aren't necessarily metabolized in the same way between people. One example is lactose intolerance, and whether and how to count those sugars. Another is resistant starch or certain oligosaccharides, which can be metabolized by most people's microbiomes but not be used directly by human guts. The precise pathways determine just how calories end up entering the human bloodstream, versus some portion of the calories absorbed and used by microbes, still bound up in chemical bonds as it leaves the body, etc.
  And it's hard to count calories out:
  Resting metabolic rate varies based on circumstance, and can change in the same individual based on lifestyle, hormones, etc. Any CICO calculator ends up just trying to infer baseline metabolic rate from rough models of how a certain height/weight/age/gender combination tends to work, but still requires tweaking from watching days or weeks of strictly counting calories and measuring the calories burned from exercise.
  Thermogenic effect of food makes for a certain amount of energy expenditure from simply trying to digest food.
  An individual's own exercise form can determine just how efficiently they can move, or how many calories they're burning from a specific activity.
  Some forms of exercise can increase energy expenditure during recovery.
  And all this misses the biggest weakness of trying to use CICO alone as the framework for managing weight: how we feel ends up driving a lot of our behaviors, including whether we'll stick with our diet or exercise plans. Junk food, alcohol, and even non-food drugs like caffeine or nicotine affect our appetites and our exercise fatigue, and do have a real world effect on whether we will actually do what it takes to manage the calories in or out.
  For each person who is measuring their calories wrong, there are probably 10 people who just won't stick with a plan. A good fitness plan accounts for this, and works in ways to keep a person on track. And that might look different for different people: forbidding certain foods, encouraging certain foods, meal timing or intermittent fasting, certain sleep habits, hydration levels, managing what foods are easily available on hand, etc.
  
  It isn't just what you're saying with not counting soda, etc, though. CICO is pretty complicated, especially with newer research about how gut bacteria can alter body weight without changing caloric intake. Burger and pizza calories really aren't the same as broccoli and lentil calories.
  It's not really possible to accurately count calories burned either, as metabolism is all over the place. People with energy to spare will engage in more NEAT, and people in a deficit will conserve energy.
  
  I agree it’s not possible to count exactly how many calories you burn. The basic idea is you guess how many you burn and consume that amount of calories each day. If over weeks/months you are gaining weight then you are eating too many calories, and you adjust, until your weight is stable. Now you know roughly how many your burn in a day. It’s literally that simple.
  1000 calories of pizza and 1000 calories of broccoli is the exact same from a weight gain point of view. If your maintenance calories are 2000, and you eat exactly 2000 calories of pizza, and only pizza, you will not gain weight. You’ll be extremely unhealthy in other ways due lack of proper vitamins.
  Also 2000 calories of pizza is doable in one sitting, and you won’t feel very full so it would be easy to eat more, but good luck eating 2000 calories of broccoli in a day, the volume of food is much higher.
  
  1000 calories of pizza and 1000 calories of broccoli is the exact same from a weight gain point of view.
  They are not the same because different bacteria eat different things, and some of those bacteria are associated with weight loss and gain. We can quite literally feed mice akkermansia muciniphila and cause them to lose weight without changing their caloric intake.
  Also 2000 calories of pizza is doable in one sitting, and you won’t feel very full so it would be easy to eat more, but good luck eating 2000 calories of broccoli in a day, the volume of food is much higher.
  With this you admit that there's more to it than just CICO. If you eat 2000 calories and still feel like you're starving then of course you're going to fail your diet. What you eat is extremely important for a variety of reasons.
  I'm not sure I've ever encountered a dietician that recommended counting calories for weight loss or health. They all say to eat healthy foods, avoid junk, and to eat when you're hungry, stop when you're not. And it turns out eating healthy is exactly what fosters the gut bacteria associated with healthy body composition.
  
  Do you have a link to the mice study? That sounds interesting.
  How am I admitting it’s more than CICO? What I said aligns directly with CICO. If you eat junk, you are eating high calorie dense foods, and people tend to eat more because it’s not as filling. That’s literally CICO. You eat more calories, and you gain weight.
  The reason dieticians recommend not actually counting calories is because people suck at it, as was mentioned before. By telling them to eat healthy, low calorie foods, it makes it basically impossible to eat too many calories due to the giant volume of food you would need to eat.
  In the end it all boils down to calories. You cannot escape the laws of physics. You can’t gain mass without adding mass.
  
  Unfortunately the health-at-any-size people took that and made it to mean fat means healthy, and that couldn't be fatter from the truth.
  [citation needed]
  
  Would you tell a woman that her large breasts wouldn't cause back issues and not to get a breast reduction?
  Why would you think the same things don't impact your knees and joints? Nobody is less than for being overweight, but talk to anyone who once was overweight / obese (im one) and they will tell you that going up stairs without being in pain / winded is definitely a signal of healthier living.
  
  the health-at-any-size people took that and made it to mean fat means healthy
  [citation needed]
  
  So large breasts never cause back problems?
  
  They are asking you to provide evidence that the claim is being made, not arguing in favor of the claim
  
  Apart from the extremely rare fringe weirdo people are not saying being fat is strictly healthier than not.
  
  Yeah I definitely misread the post and took it from a point of they were already making that claim. I have no relevant experience or claim in that case.
- This has been done for years now in women's fashion and I still don't get it. These mannequins have my body type and it just feels so defeatist. When I see the shirt on a healthier looking model, I know damn well what it's going to look like on me; it's not the first damn shirt I've bought. At least for a minute while I'm looking at the model though I think, "that shirt looks nice" instead of "don't bother spending money on that shirt, you cant polish a turd - save up for a treadmill instead lard-ass"
  
  Your self hate get you on a treadmill yet?
  
  Well I think the plus size mannequins look nicer.

23 comments