this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
82 points (94.6% liked)

BecomeMe

753 readers
1 users here now

Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Look in the mirror

You're acting like it's trivial. Obesity wouldn't be common if it was trivial

Your own sources says why it's hard and you're pretending you didn't see it

[–] Torvum 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Nah mate you're delusional. If we're talking the LOWEST BAR POSSIBLE: don't be obese. It's so simple to just intake less calories. We're not saying lose body fat, get into shape, become an athlete, or 12% bf. Just literally set your bmi ( a bullshit measurement anyway) to AT MINIMUM overweight.

Yes it's ludicrously trivial and requires you to just stop eating so much. The same fucking method vets have your dog do when they weigh too much.

As I said elsewhere, calories and consistency are 90%, everything else is to optimize your goal. And the vast majority of people are lazy morons who can't stay consistent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Let me guess, you've literally never heard of the concept that the body reduces energy expenditure and increases hunger when you eat significantly less? (despite both being mentioned in the previous linked research)

Or alternatively, you're in full denial over it and think that doesn't happen?

[–] Torvum 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That literally doesn't happen the way you think it does. A normal reduction of calories for A POUND A WEEK is 500 calories. In no universe is that significant. You don't suddenly start feeling like your starving and your body doesn't shut down metabolic processes just because you omitted a muffin worth of calories at breakfast. You really are so fucking delusional. Not to mention, it's thermogenically impossible for you to stop intaking energy and gain weight. It doesn't slow to a crawl and stop. It spends a short waiting period to refill adipose lipids, and when it came out guess back to the normal rate. I more than understand survival instinct to eat when you stop eating as much. But you're in control of your own desires.

Obese and morbidly obese people only have themselves and their lackadaisical care for their own health to blame. If it's in your control, you either want something enough, or you make excuses.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Strawman, you're making up stuff I haven't said

You don't suddenly start feeling like your starving

Blatantly false according to science from the last 3 decades

and your body doesn't shut down metabolic processes

It slows them down, it takes a fair bit more before they shut down

just because you omitted a muffin worth of calories at breakfast

Strawman, and you know it. Losing weight requires eating much less than a normal person does, for many people you have to eat 1/2 - 1/3 as much to for the body to burn body fat because otherwise you only feel more tired when you don't have enough available calories

it's thermogenically impossible for you to stop intaking energy and gain weight.

Strawman and you know it

It spends a short waiting period to refill adipose lipids, and when it came out guess back to the normal rate

For a substantial fraction of the population this is a blatant lie, it does not return to normal energy expenditure for YEARS when the body notices that your stored fat is depleting. You have not read any science from the last 3 decades if you believe otherwise.

[–] Torvum 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assumptions are not strawmen. It's a direct response to a point you made.

Conflating feeling mildly peckish and the feeling of actually starving. That sure makes sense.

Right, as doing a 500 calorie deficit is literally nothing, and it takes about 2 weeks for your metabolism to adapt to the cut. You'd be dead for them it stop.

My god. There is no fast way to lose weight but you don't have to "eat much less" you just need to be in a long term energy deficit.

You're making it blatantly obvious you're even more delusional by not understanding what a strawman is. Even if I was wrong I'm not setting up an arg I'mument no one stated just to trash it. Regardless, lmao. This is literally basic biology. Something can't grow without the energy to supply growth. Try growing a tree without sunlight and water. I'm sure it'll sprout in an energy deficit. You can recomposition in a cut sure, but you can't pack muscle or lipids if there's no incoming energy.

Wow so when your body no longer needs the same energy to maintain your 400lb fatass, you should just eat less energy, revolutionary!

This is why it's fucking trivial to lose weight. Weigh in twice a week, count calories, adjust weekly income based on weigh-in changes, and for god sake exercise. Wow so complex, so many variables! Every ground you stand on is so unbelievably antithetical to how simple and well researched this is. I know you want to believe in boogeymen, and ard probably obese yourself (assumption not strawman, learn your terms) but it's easy. Just because it can take 4 months to lose 16 pounds, doesn't mean it isn't simple. I regularly do this for powerlifting body recomposition. I know the science. I know the processes. I actively participate. You are fucking lazy, stupid, or delusional if you cannot lose weight in an energy deficit, or gain muscle and weight in a surplus. End of discussion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lying to me about what I said when my words are right there isn't the smartest strategy.

You're also factually wrong on almost everything here.

You're still rejecting the fact that the body reduces energy expenditure during weight loss, you're absolutely blatantly lying about hunger not being intense when you try to lose a lot of weight, and you're being obnoxious about it too.

Your mention of powerlifting explains everything - your extra muscle mass increases your base metabolic rate compared to regular people (some studies say 5-10%) more than a person with similar build and normal activity level, and since total energy expenditure also decreases when you're losing weight (one study below says -30%!) the difference is even bigger between you and ordinary overweight people.

And you're clearly one of the people doing it for ego. You are so disconnected from reality that you can not comprehend that other people have different experiences than you do.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

The remarkable constancy of body weight in this context, presumably without conscious constant calculation of how many calories are being consumed and/or expended by most individuals, suggests that energy intake and expenditure vary directly to maintain relatively stable energy stores

[–] Torvum 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're the one spewing psuedo-science and cope. Just because it becomes stubborn doesn't mean it will never budge. Secondly lmao 1 pound a week being "a lot of weight" I can lose 8 pounds in a day by dehydrating myself. Just shut the fuck up and move on. You're actually moronic.

The difference in my muscle mass of 220 and someone who's 220 mostly fat is still a caloric energy balance. Do I have to increase my calories more than them to maintain? Yes. No one had stated an objective maintenance caloric intake. Mine could be 3500-4000, their's 2800 or some shit. Still doesn't change it's a trivial intake issue. I'm done replying to someone so objectively stupid. Eat less, lose adipose tissue, lose weight. I guess overall starving nations having no fat people is just coincidence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)