Macros, belike; sugar and fat. This is a pretty reliable recipe for weight gain; how bodybuilders do it, for example, with Get Big drinks (drinking calories is easier than eating them). Hey, texture point, good one.
Yea that's like the "western diet is fattening" argument. I'm just wondering: what exactly is it? The change in flavor? The change in texture? The biochemical effect of the different macros?
There seem tons of counter examples, too: the whole French paradox, for example, is based on refined, white flour and butter plus creamy sauces.
I kinda buy the economic arguments: food scientists are making food cheaper and more delicious - palatable - every year; why wouldn't the population fatten?
I just don't get that. You have to squint so hard to believe it.
How does anyone ever lose weight, then? Did I suddenly become immune to the allure of food science?
If not, if there's a mechanism, then why don't all fat people just do it when they want to lose weight?
If the "food allure" and "evil food scientists" theory was really true, I'd expect everybody to get fat over time, realize it, stop eating those foods, and then become lean again. This almost never happens.
But the thing is that I'd been avoiding processed foods for a whole decade. I did Paleo for 3 years, didn't lose any weight. If evil processed foods did it, how come I didn't lose any weight cutting them out? And how did I suddenly lose weight rapidly and effortlessly while switching to a different sort of no-processed-food diet?
Real Paleo involves not eating every day, you know? Not honey on ribeyes ad libitum. I was at my leanest in college on the Gas Or Groceries But Not Both This Week diet.
Yea, Paleo is a good "don't eat this, it definitely didn't exist in the stone age" guide, but it's not very good at actually telling you WHAT to eat (or do).
The crappy food is also usually the path of least resistance, and a lot of people also treat their emotional and stress issues with food and alcohol. When I was working on-site for customers the offices are usually stocked with a lot of crap (e.g. soft drinks), people bring in cake and candy, all the lunch options are crap as well and it's not possible to cook. Throw in peer pressure (somehow you gotta defend your food choices all the time) and after work drinks. I think willpower plays a role.
It probably plays a marginal role, but I don't think it's the major factor. Otherwise you'd see people lose tons of weight on paleo or other non-junk food diets.
The thing with willpower is, it's useless if you don't know what to apply it to.
Adherence is often cited as a major factor in dietary interventions, a lot of that might be confounded by the CICO myths . You might not have that problem personally. A lot of people prioritize fitting in a group over fat loss. You wrote yourself that your approach has been called extreme and it's probably weird to a lot of people (who think nothing about drinking hundreds of grams of sugar).
I think "lack of adherence" is code for "the diet doesn't work." Even I can't adhere to a diet that puts me in an internal caloric deficit. It's just not physiologically possible. You can't willpower your way out of starvation. Yea, you can lock people up and then they'll literally go crazy and begin chewing off their own fingers. That's been tried before.
So basically when I hear "adherence" without "the diet was ad libitum and we measured their RMR and it was normal" I assume it's nonsense and the diet was massively flawed.
A couple of years ago I hit 178.9#, the lightest I've been since 1986, no kidding. It was during lockdown. I was lifting heavy six days per week - power rack in the living room and deadlift platform on the patio, again not kidding - and doing time-restricted feeding 16:8, starting the clock in the morning with magic healing potion - cold-brew coffee concentrate, skim milk, protein powder - and quitting 8 hours later. I was hungry every evening for months, but it didn't keep me from sleeping and it was my focus, so I pulled it off. I'm not saying there wasn't an easier way to do it, but if I could have figured it out, I would have, honest. When I went back to the office I got to 208# in a quarter, panicked, and started trying to lose weight again.
This is effortful and unpleasant; that would be why fat people don't all do it, I think. Life is full of stressors, fat loss is a big one, and people don't always have room for it.
Ok, the mix thing is actually interesting. But is it mixing different flavors? Textures? Macros?
Macros, belike; sugar and fat. This is a pretty reliable recipe for weight gain; how bodybuilders do it, for example, with Get Big drinks (drinking calories is easier than eating them). Hey, texture point, good one.
Yea that's like the "western diet is fattening" argument. I'm just wondering: what exactly is it? The change in flavor? The change in texture? The biochemical effect of the different macros?
There seem tons of counter examples, too: the whole French paradox, for example, is based on refined, white flour and butter plus creamy sauces.
I kinda buy the economic arguments: food scientists are making food cheaper and more delicious - palatable - every year; why wouldn't the population fatten?
The historical mechanism for preventing obesity is poverty, you know?
I just don't get that. You have to squint so hard to believe it.
How does anyone ever lose weight, then? Did I suddenly become immune to the allure of food science?
If not, if there's a mechanism, then why don't all fat people just do it when they want to lose weight?
If the "food allure" and "evil food scientists" theory was really true, I'd expect everybody to get fat over time, realize it, stop eating those foods, and then become lean again. This almost never happens.
By trying, usually, sometimes very hard, sometimes without success, usually backsliding; most diets fail.
No, you experimented persistently until you found a way to avoid the allure of Wheat Thins, kettle corn, nachos...
Because it's hard. The problem of wealth - that's weird - doesn't go away when you notice it.
They're not evil, they're saving billions from starvation; with, ah, side effects.
The politicians who subsidize grains, though, grr.
You think that awareness that Doritos are bad for you is enough to get people to stop eating them? Really?
But the thing is that I'd been avoiding processed foods for a whole decade. I did Paleo for 3 years, didn't lose any weight. If evil processed foods did it, how come I didn't lose any weight cutting them out? And how did I suddenly lose weight rapidly and effortlessly while switching to a different sort of no-processed-food diet?
I just think it's a mirage.
Real Paleo involves not eating every day, you know? Not honey on ribeyes ad libitum. I was at my leanest in college on the Gas Or Groceries But Not Both This Week diet.
And consider Stone Age produce; not like today's.
Yea, Paleo is a good "don't eat this, it definitely didn't exist in the stone age" guide, but it's not very good at actually telling you WHAT to eat (or do).
The crappy food is also usually the path of least resistance, and a lot of people also treat their emotional and stress issues with food and alcohol. When I was working on-site for customers the offices are usually stocked with a lot of crap (e.g. soft drinks), people bring in cake and candy, all the lunch options are crap as well and it's not possible to cook. Throw in peer pressure (somehow you gotta defend your food choices all the time) and after work drinks. I think willpower plays a role.
It probably plays a marginal role, but I don't think it's the major factor. Otherwise you'd see people lose tons of weight on paleo or other non-junk food diets.
The thing with willpower is, it's useless if you don't know what to apply it to.
Adherence is often cited as a major factor in dietary interventions, a lot of that might be confounded by the CICO myths . You might not have that problem personally. A lot of people prioritize fitting in a group over fat loss. You wrote yourself that your approach has been called extreme and it's probably weird to a lot of people (who think nothing about drinking hundreds of grams of sugar).
I think "lack of adherence" is code for "the diet doesn't work." Even I can't adhere to a diet that puts me in an internal caloric deficit. It's just not physiologically possible. You can't willpower your way out of starvation. Yea, you can lock people up and then they'll literally go crazy and begin chewing off their own fingers. That's been tried before.
So basically when I hear "adherence" without "the diet was ad libitum and we measured their RMR and it was normal" I assume it's nonsense and the diet was massively flawed.
A couple of years ago I hit 178.9#, the lightest I've been since 1986, no kidding. It was during lockdown. I was lifting heavy six days per week - power rack in the living room and deadlift platform on the patio, again not kidding - and doing time-restricted feeding 16:8, starting the clock in the morning with magic healing potion - cold-brew coffee concentrate, skim milk, protein powder - and quitting 8 hours later. I was hungry every evening for months, but it didn't keep me from sleeping and it was my focus, so I pulled it off. I'm not saying there wasn't an easier way to do it, but if I could have figured it out, I would have, honest. When I went back to the office I got to 208# in a quarter, panicked, and started trying to lose weight again.
This is effortful and unpleasant; that would be why fat people don't all do it, I think. Life is full of stressors, fat loss is a big one, and people don't always have room for it.
Whereas, my point would be, getting fat is now easy, easier every year; it used to be much harder.