site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1616 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for January 22, 2025

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This guy advocates very little protein or carbs, and very saturated fat (cream, in his case).

This guy is also a dumbass who claims that caloric reduction doesn't work because he tried a 1000 kcal diet and his mood and energy levels crashed through the floor. No shit, Sherlock, that's Auschwitz levels of nutrition. Right now he's consuming 2294 kcal daily, which is around the right amount of caloric reduction for a 113kg person. I'm glad he's found a diet that keeps him happy and motivated, but it's still caloric reduction.

I think you're misunderstanding the 'caloric reduction doesn't work' thesis he promotes (and which I share). Obviously CICO is true as an accounting tautology, if you're losing weight, then your body must be consuming/expelling energy at a greater rate than it is consuming it.

But CICO as a description of weight loss is very different from CICO as an actionable weight loss strategy. Simply eating fewer calories on a standard diet doesn't actually work. The weight always comes back because obesity is fundamentally a problem of a broken lipostat. This is the consensus among obesity researchers because obviously the entire world didn't just decide to start eating more in the 1970s for no reason and then get obese. As for what caused the broken lipostat? Gary Taubes think it's hyper-palatable food, I personally think it's vegetable oil, or rather an excess of linoleic acid that vegetable oils provide, far beyond what our biology requires.

The ExFatLoss diet (and high carb, low protein, low fat diets like the potato diet) are attempts to fix the lipostat by resaturating the body's fat stores. I recommended this one because CertainlyWorse was trying keto, and I think if keto is going to work then minimising polyunsaturated fats is the key part.

I simply think hyperpalatable food makes you overeat. I've eliminated most hyperpalatable foods from my diet and can now quite reliably hit my maintenance calories without feeling hungry.

Simply eating fewer calories on a standard diet doesn't actually work.

This is not true. In fact, you admit as much in the silence between this period and the next sentence, because presumably something happened during this silence.

The weight always comes back because obesity is fundamentally a problem of a broken lipostat.

This does not follow. There is a missing intermediate step.

This is not true. In fact, you admit as much in the silence between this period and the next sentence, because presumably something happened during this silence.

Be charitable. You know what I meant. Appetite goes up, metabolic rate goes down, and then yes, people either eat more food and regain the weight, or their metabolism slows down so much that it doesn't make a difference how little they eat, they still regain the weight.

Simply white-knuckling your way to thinness doesn't work for 95% of people because the body fights back. People don't decide to get obese by choosing to eat more calories, telling them to simply choose to not be obese by eating less calories doesn't work. To recommend a strategy which will fail almost everyone who tries is cruel, particularly if it involves judging them for lack of willpower afterwards.

By contrast, ExFatLoss describes his weight loss through his version of keto as easy, compared to calorie controlled diets that he had tried before. Something else is clearly going on. Much better to try and work out what it is than just sneering at the fatties.

Be charitable. You know what I meant. Appetite goes up, metabolic rate goes down, and then yes, people either eat more food and regain the weight, or their metabolism slows down so much that it doesn't make a difference how little they eat, they still regain the weight.

Yup. And where this plateau occurs controlling for height and sex is determined by genes. Some ppl have such crappy metabolism genes they are still fat cutting to 1500kcal/day and cannot lose more. many such cases. ironically, being a bigger glutton makes wight loss and leanness easier. A guy who maintains at 250 lbs eating 5kcal/day will find weight loss easier than the same guy at same height and weight who eats 3kcal/day.

Some ppl have such crappy metabolism genes they are still fat cutting to 1500kcal/day and cannot lose more.

Any specific examples?

https://x.com/Ed_Realist/status/1837975714622296202?

There is enormous individual variably of metabolism, about as much as IQ, controlling for height,.

There is some variety of metabolism: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/32865, but not as much as random dudes that can't lose weight claim.

I wish the study used fat-free mass instead of total mass: fig.2 shows that RMR (measured in kcal/(kg*hr)) drops in overweight and obese individuals, but this is explained by the fact fat doesn't affect RMR much.

people either eat more food and regain the weight

Ah, so there is an intermediate bit that lives in the silence.

metabolism slows down so much that it doesn't make a difference how little they eat

This is not true. We know, from science, how this works.

easy

I didn't hear any claims from you about things being easy or not; that's pretty subjective and hard to measure with science. You made factual claims that are scientifically false.

Yeah, the problem with that guy is that he is fat. Maybe his diets work for a very fat person with extreme insulin resistance, but I'd rather follow the advice of someone whose body looks like I'd want mine to be.

what would that be? A fitness model? A lot of those ppl either have superior genetics, take stims and steroids, or do tons of cardio. it's the same 'cut calories' advice seen everywhere else

Just a normal dude with a good body is fine by me. But I'm not taking diet advice from a fat man.

The best diet advice comes not from a fat man, but from a man that used to be fat.

This.

Listening to my in-laws talk, you'd think they're experts on nutrition and have nothing else on their minds. But just look at them.

The number of conversations I have had with people that have tried every diet under the sun and firmly believe they have arrived at a deep understanding of nutrition despite the obvious failure of their diets boggles my mind. People will tell me, to my face, that carbs make you fat. I can observe that I am, in fact, not at all fat and eat rice and noodles on a regular basis. This has zero impact on their belief that carbs make you fat.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats