Oh lord yes
(midwest.social)
LadyButterfly she/her
History MemesAnd when i eat more than necessary: it goes straight into the Brain and gets converted to additional worry's and Fears. Thanks Brain
I just fast through sheer fucken willpower, because nothing can overrule my Scottish descended stubbornness. Also the autism certainly helps. Problem is that I sleep deprive and fast frequently enough that I struggle to define hunger and sleep.
This violates the laws of physics
Mass is energy. If you eat less and move more but still maintain or gain mass you are a free energy machine and a violation of the laws that govern the universe
Mate if I've learned anything from this comment section, you are about to get rinsed
Who said anything about eating less? Exercise is very good for many things including keeping fit, and some people say it helps with their mood although I can't attest to that personally, but to be honest if you're doing it to lose weight you're better off just dieting (the right kind of diet, not just these fad ones that don't work and just leave you hungry all the time).
I can eat one kit kat finger and basically waste an entire 60 minute workout session.
You could very well be right. Depending on your weight, athleticism, and how much you move, it could take an hour to burn off a Kit-Kat bars worth of calories, that's pretty normal
Someone more athletic can get more movement in during that hour so they could burn off that Kit-Kat faster
Where someone less athletic probably gets less motion in during that same hour so it would take them longer, the entire hour or more, to burn off that same Kit-Kat
But moving more an eating less grantees you will lose weight because the laws of physics will not allow you to spend more energy than you take in and still keep or produce more mass
mmmyeah, thats not how weight works in this megamachine's metabolic furnace. if your intake is not immediately consumed in that furnace upon ingestion, what isnt burned morphs straight to fat aka adipose. note the name ADipose. not SUBTRACTipose. adipose absolutely loves to hold onto everything it gets so you have to work harder than is sane get it to burn
Takes mass to move mass.
As one of the lucky few, yeah it's awesome. My body basically says "oh you wanted that energy as muscle? You got it boss"
I feel like the number of people blaming genes for their unsuccessful weight loss attempts is far greater than the number of people who really do have bad genes for weight loss.
Or it might just be my personal experience with knowing people who failed to lose weight. Maybe not reflective of anything. I've heard this opinion may times before, but quite often it felt disingenuous.
I think it's more about people thinking exercise is a pretty good tool for weight loss. It really isn't, though it's a really good idea for health broadly, but weight loss is not that significant with activity, at least to get from the low end of obesity to healthy weight.
Managing what you eat and how much you eat is pretty unavoidable if you want to manage weight, but people keep thinking a few minutes on a treadmill should take care of it.
There actually is one excersize routine that one can do that will completely ignore/offset your diet. Competitive swimming. There is an issue. If you eat empty calories, you feel and perform like shit. Yeah, at my peak I was eating 20,000 Kcal a day, but there was no processed sugar, no bleached flour, no soda, no dyes, you basically had to make everything from scratch.
it's almost always the amount of trash they eat.
breads, sugar 'coffee', sugar food, cereals... it's all empty carbs. almost always... just watch people eating, you'll notice a trent that a LOT of people eat nonstop trash
How does that work though? Is there some genetic situation where consuming fewer calories than you burn doesn't lead to weight loss?
A lot of calorie expenditure is determined by hormones, and for a typical person, resting metabolism is a significant percentage of total calorie burn.
Some people respond poorly to dietary interventions because they end up with lower resting metabolic rate. Sometimes it shows up in the form of a person who is always feeling cold or exhausted.
Others have high stress hormones, which throw all sorts of metabolic loops out of wack.
And other hormones affect appetite or satiety after eating, so the biological disadvantage (whether genetic or environmental or both) sometimes comes in the form of greater difficulty with portion control or willpower compared to others. That's not a direct effect on calories in versus calories out, but it does have an indirect effect on overall success with a weight loss program, and it's grounded in an actual physical/physiological/biological difference between individuals.
Nope. It's usually people, like in this thread, not understanding what "bad genes" means.
You're a thermodynamic machine, not magic. If you eat less then you burn you'll loose weight.
You are also an extremely complicated machine, with complex chemical processes that govern long and short term behaviors.
"You" are a little slice of protein and fat the size of an avocado glued to the front of a more complicated machine. "You" are responsible for solving problems. The rest of your brain and endocrine system is responsible for managing most desires as well as most other things.
Some people have genetics where they run a mile and their body says "oh shit, this would be easier if I turned the energy fountain up to full wouldn't it?" And now they're burning more energy when they're asleep than they were before.
Other people have genetics that gives them a body that says "oh my God, you just ran nearly 2 blocks. Clearly you're in danger, so I'm going to increase the hormones that tell you to eat a lot more food. Don't worry, the pizza will be gone before you actually feel how much food that is".
You can override the endocrine system, but it's hard. The frontal cortex can change what you do, but the endocrine can change what you want.
Your body is a machine, just like a car. And different cars will start to ding and nag the driver for fuel or maintenance tasks at different points, with different levels of intensity. If your car is built for the Australian outback it might be way more aggressive about fuel warnings, and have a significantly larger tank.
All that's why excercise is a terrible way to lose weight. You lose weight by getting your eating under control and convincing the medieval peasant in your endocrine system that you're not in a famine. Excercise makes your body feel better, more capable, and healthier.
You can excercise all you want, but you can eat your way through any excercise routine in minutes.
A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is more than an hour of vigorous time on a rowing machine.
Our bodies each have an equilibrium of calories consumed/burned that it really wants to be maintained. If you start dieting to reduce calories consumed, then it automatically adjusts so that your body burns fewer calories just for existing, thereby reducing the deficit you created with your diet. So people see the diet not working and give up rather than taking the time to dial in a sustainable dietary calorie deficit that allows for weight loss without leaving you physically and mentally exhausted by your bodies compensatory reaction.
without leaving you physically and mentally exhausted by your bodies compensatory reaction.
Unfortunately, I get this feeling before even reaching maintenance numbers, let alone a deficit. Losing weight is absolutely brutal for me because there is no available option for "lose weight without complete and abject misery" for my body apparently.
Still doing it (with occasionally falls off the wagon, but get right back on), but fuck me does it suck.
Same here. The most weight I lost was in the 4 months after my then wife told me she didn't want to be married anymore, while I figured out she had already been cheating on me for months, I was already in such misery not eating didn't add any more... I lost 40 pounds in 4 months... Haven't been able to continue...
It does seem to be a thing. Just not as common as some people want it to be.
Hey denizens of Lemmy let me explain something to you. This years old meme is not asking for weight loss advice from any of you. Just laugh and move on. Resist the urge to give advice that nobody asked for.
But then how would we annoy people!?
Nobody asked you either, we have minds!
To everyone who didn't move on, welcome to the trenches. and fuck you
Fuck you!
CAN I FIGHT TOO?
No please, I insist. Fuck you!
Maybe she is eating too many carbs..
I didn't ask you for advice!
/S
Listen guys. Nobody's genetics letting them escape thermodynamics. Eat less do more. You have enough energy on your body to not eat multiple days in a row.
I'd like to invite you into my premenopausal body. Eat nothing, lose nothing. Yes, really.
You're literally the person in the meme
genetics determines how much nutrients you absorb from things you eat, it determines how easily you feel hunger, it determines your baseline energy consumption.
genetics can absolutely make you more likely to gain weight.
Genetics are a factor, but outside of extreme cases they are going to play a small role. Obesity is a modern epidemic, and we didn't all suddenly mutate. Environmental factors are much more impactful.
Obesity is a modern epidemic, and we didn't all suddenly mutate. Environmental factors are much more impactful.
But not everyone got equally obese, even in the same environments, during these time periods. What portion of the population was predisposed to extra large impacts of unhealthy foods, sedentary lifestyles, external stressors, etc., when those environmental factors weren't as prevalent?
So for completeness, it's a bunch of feedback loops between genetic factors, epigenetic factors, and environmental factors, including cultural/social factors. Some genetic factors make it harder or easier in the environments we live in (and some environments make it harder or easier).
The last time I saw this come up there were approx. 500 calorie difference between the top and the bottom for similar fitness/build of the genetics curve.
500 calories is a pretty big workout, but its at the opposite ends of the curve, most people will be around 250 calories of the middle.
What is far more important is the genetic and learned response to feeling full and hunger. Saying its easy for people to just switch track on that is frankly an awful take, the current weight loss drugs work for a reason, while you carry on taking them. People rebound from often impressive weight loss in huge numbers for a reason, and its not because they forget how to calorie count or exercise.
Yes and regardless of any of those factors if your energy intake is below your energy usage you'll lose weight.
Water has weight... Not eating as much causes stress which causes water retention. Nothing is guaranteed.
Well, one of the factors makes it hard to know what your actual caloric intake is. You are right, but it's not quite as simple as you make it sound.
Simple does not mean easy.
Unfortunately people respond differently to hunger.
Someone I know is trying to lose weight. Problem is, if they go ~100 kcal below maintenance they turn into a stress eater. ~200 below and they are unable to stop themselves from eating 400 kcal worth of food straight or of the fridge at night. All that on top of being hangry all day.
So losing weight means balancing the diet very carefully because that's not much space between eating enough to maintain the weight and eating so little that hunger overrides reason and overcompensates.
For other people going below maintenance is just kinda uncomfortable but easily doable for a couple days. Advice like "just eat less" actually works for them without having to make a whole science out of it.
It's true. I remember when I could go most of the day without eating and feel nothing but minor hunger, which was easy to ignore.
But now I'm in my 30s, and if I try to skip lunch it's like my entire body goes into revolt. Lethargy, headaches, mood changes, the works. My metabolism has changed with age and now the effects of blood sugar actually pack a punch.
Yeah but that is how you lose weight. It's one thing to be unwilling to do it because of a mental block. It's another thing entirely to impart that mental block on others as a way of feeling better about their own shortcomings.
It's quite important that you do not make the mistake of thinking that if you tell someone it is easy to do, because you find it easy to do, that does not make it easy for them to do.
With a kid, for example, you can tell them this and they will believe that it's easy for everyone, then try it and fail, and suddenly believe they are fucking stupid and it must be their fault entirely. Which makes them feel bad. Which might make them eat more, or become anorexic, or any one of a number of eating disorders.
So instead, realise that there are many factors here beyond energy in and activity out. Those are important, but not the whole story. Be kind, and take your time.
Yeah and I haven't said it was easy I just said it's how you do it
No s"t Sherlock. Doesn't really change the fact that this is much easier to achieve than for others, before we are even talking about will power. Some people can eat much more at the same workout level as others, without gaining weight. No contradiction with thermodynamics needed.
By all means keep spreading the doomer mentality of "I can't do anything to lose weight it's my genetics"
I was such an asshole after I dropped 100 pounds in my 20s. I did it, you can too!
I was such a dick. I had actual anger towards fat folks for a few years.
Its like being mad folks are poor, just, knock it off. None of these comments actually help people lose weight. It actually scares them off further into the downward spiral. Lest not forget age gets us all, and you dont know what these people have been through, or are going through. You dont know.
My country, the shit stain one, they dont allow citizens to walk anywhere. Start there. I stayed fit when I could walk/bike places. Once I moved somewhere carcentric, guess what happened. Im not a dick to fat folks anymore.
Its not so black and white. The older I get, the more I realize its systemic, at least here in the god forsaken states.
remain positive, internal work is internal, and you cant make choicss for others. I wanted to give fitness to everyone when I was younger. But not everyone is brave enough to ride a bike in car city. I still get mad when I see parents giving their fat children candy. Sets them up for a lifetine of failure. I used to have my gaurdian lock me in a room, call me fat bitch, and literally throw a bag of mcdonalds at me in my teens.
you never know what someone has been through. Always kindness.
Telling people they need to eat less to lose weight isn't unkind. These truths only push people who already are unwilling to accept reality further into delusion. I'm not sympathetic to those people.
Do you honestly, seriously believe anyone trying to lose weight doesn't know that you need to eat less to achieve that?
Really??
Strawman. I was saying no such thing, merely that for some it is harder than for others. Just like some would starve to dewth in a famine sooner than others at identical feed intake and rate of activity.
This is no excuse for anything, just a fact. People can gave an influence on that, no matter the genes.
Not understanding what you're saying doesn't mean I'm making a straw man argument lol
You were claiming I was spreading "doomer mentality of “I can’t do anything to lose weight it’s my genetics”"
That is false, I did no such thing. I merely stated the fact that metabolisms and especially regulation differ and some have to climb a steeper hill than others to get to the same peak. Harder doesn't mean impossible.
You might lose weight just not in the region where you want it. Genetics might make you lose muscle mass, bone quality long before you lose fat. Also it might make you at the same time store everything as fat when you take an energy defecit diet.
Muscle mass is directly tied to how much you use the muscle. You can eat 100 protein bars and you won't gain any muscle mass. Likewise if you continue your current level of exercise while fasting you are gonna keep the muscle and lose the fat.
Zero muscle loss while on a signifcant calorie deficit to cause noticeable and sustained weekly weightless simply isn't possible without the right sort of steroids like tren.
The best you can do is to minimise the amount you lose with the right amount of training, rest and quality macros. Ask any successful bodybuilder after making them take a piss test for roids what their losses were for their last cut.
https://www.fitnessnetwork.com.au/does-fasting-burn-fat-or-muscle/
Fat goes first, muscle mass loss is limited to negligible and can be countered by exercise as I originally said.
Our bodies have evolved to protect against weight loss. We like to think we're modern, enlightened creatures, but we're still a collection of biological processes that are centred around survival in an unforgiving world. Most of us no longer live in that world.
As a result, when we diet our bodies trigger processes that limit the effects of nutritional deficit. And sure, we'll lose weight to start with, but that hits a plateau surprisingly quickly as our metabolism catches up.
Then add into that things like ADHD (which is something affects me personally), whereby when weight loss slows to a crawl after a few weeks I get frustrated and lose interest in keeping it up. So I'm 140kg with no sign of that going anywhere any time soon.
The metabolic effect you're describing is called "starvation mode" by a lot of people and while its technically real its actually quite a bit smaller than most people think, and can easily be countered by adding a work out to your routine. If you think youre not losing weight because of it, (or gaining weight, as some people claim) I would bet you're actually not counting all your calories throughout the day.
This is textbook cope. "I won't do the thing because it's technically not the most 100% efficient way so imma be 140 forever" I've got ADHD too bud. It's possible to fast for 3 days a week.
Youre so mean
I prefer the term naughty
It's not cope, it's biology.
Yes... biology you are using as an excuse to not do something, hence cope.
Yeah this "thermodynamics" thing is so stupid, there's enough energy in a sugar cube to power my home for months.
I also probably have the genetics to "keep warm" which helps if you want to lose weight, and as a male I don't get the hormonal changes at a certain age that makes you gain weight, etc. etc. etc.
Then we have those who just expertly state "eat less", yeah man who would have thought eh.
On a more reasonable scale, things like ditching sugar (including fruit, corn, cooked carrots etc) make wonders, probably because dropping that addiction (which is hard) makes it easier to eat less.
Sport in itself cannot outrun the spoon,but it might fire up desires to be in good shape, and lose weight might be part of that, and that's really something, IMO.
Good luck with your long term goals everyone!
there’s enough energy in a sugar cube to power my home for months
…what? If that were close to true we’d be burning sugar instead of coal
No no no you see some people have the E=mc^2 gene which lets them metabolise mass directly into energy and so scientifically can never be held accountable for their weight.
I know you're sort of joking, but metabolism is extremely badly understood (most is not understood at all), and different people extract different amounts of ATP from food than others, that's just a verifiable fact. And eating less will make you lose weight, but how much less depends on, you guessed it, metabolism... So just saying "eat less" isn't very helpful IMO.
And it has not really anything close to do with thermodynamic laws, or you Had to have the emc2-gene for it to matter, thats all.
It's like relativity physics and car driving, it does intersect, but really not in any meaningful way.
My point is people get too hung up on "how much less depends on, you guessed it, metabolism... So just saying "eat less" isn't very helpful IMO." That they forget "And eating less will make you lose weight"
That's my whole point. You gotta eat less if you want to lose weight and you can dig around in the science and semantics of it all you want but the bottom line doesn't change.
Sure, but it's not like people don't know that, right? My take is sport, ditching sugar and so on will help you to eat less. Another thing is that the body reacts differently when you eat fat and sugar at the same time versus eating sugars, then later eating the fat. You are not wrong but there are many ways to get to the "eat less" IMO.
Gl on everyone's long term goal but don't you dare suggest eating less to achieve the goal of losing weight.
Let's miss my point lol
Feeling hunger is completely different than needing nutrients and energy.
Ehhhh sorta kinda. If you eat a more "natural" diet (read: not super processed) then the two are pretty closely linked. But we've invented entirely new foods that basically gives you zero satiety, but also has hundreds and hundreds of calories.
You can eat to satiety on carrots and spinach, and literally starve to death from lack of calories. You can also feel hungry all day and gain weight from drinking soda and eating cookies.
No you can't bro be serious.
This is the only one of your takes I disagree with. The food you eat does mater for weight loss, because some foods are more filling and nutritious while being low in calories. Everything else youve said is right throughout the thread.
I'm specifically calling out the idea that you can literally starve to death from eating spinach and carrots. But fair enough I'll take the L
I think it's a lot of conditioning around eating. What you write is a factor but behavior is an easy thing to fix.
There are terribly fat parents who teach their kids how to be terrible fat by example. Our DNA did not change to ultra fat mode since the 1950s.
Well, kinda.
The problem is that it isn't a 1:1 thing.
Hormones, insulin sensitivity, neurotransmitters, gut biome, muscle mass, brain activity, there's a shit ton of factors that go into exactly what that break point is. Worse, that break point isn't even 100% stable. People like to think it is, but it isn't it can change as often as daily, and at the lower end of that point, a deficit is extremely difficult for patients to maintain healthily.
And yes, it is sometimes less healthy to eat less than it is to carry some extra fat. It's not like vitamin supplementation is ideal, even when you know for a fact that what they're swallowing is mostly bioavailable.
And, frankly, that bullshit of "enough energy on your body to not eat..." is utter bullshit. Starvation does jack shit for a bariatric patient, period. No, the energy burned absolutely is not enough to maintain a healthy body and metabolism for days. I don't know where people got that idea, but it is malarkey.
I strongly urge people to go and consult with a specialist if they're having trouble reducing their body fat. It is not wise to believe the random internet stupidity that can't be bothered to stay up to date on a subject before prattling on. Fuck, I haven't even worked in two decades, and I'm more up to date than random assholes, and I know I'm behind current bleeding edge in that specific field.
Fuck, I swear, people's blind fucking cruelty trying to feel superior is disgusting. Fucking h lf assed sound bite garbage.
Thermodynamics my hairy asshole. People aren't fucking furnaces, they aren't a closed system.
The statement "Weightloss is calories in, calories out" is rather like "running a marathon is just running 100 meters and repeating it 420 more times". It's entirely true, but it's reductive beyond uselessness. Yes, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will always lose weight. And if you run 421, 100m stretches you've done a marathon. And both of those pieces of advice are completely useless to anyone trying to do it, and they can possibly even make things worse.
Managing satiety, breaking patterns, learning recipes that work for you, finding comfort without food, learning to say no to your immediate friends and family, dealing with binging, rewarding yourself without food, and many maaaaany other things are the tools people need to lose weight.
Calorie counting is useful and foundational, but you like my therapist used to say: "you can't live in a foundation". But, without a good foundation, you can't build a house either. If you switch your 5000 calorie fastfood diet for 5000 calories of fruit and vegetables, you're not going to lose weight.
It's almost like the human body is a biological nuance that's different for everyone. We all learned about "a varied diet", "an active lifestyle", and "weightloss is calories in vs calories out".
The nuance is always that these things mean widely different things from person to person.
Absolutely. What we need is a broad statement that is always true for everyone and helps everyone conceptually understand the fundamentals of weight loss. Something like... "eat less do more." Yeah! That's it! Surely such an inarguable, well meaning statement wouldn't lead to an absolute shit show that makes a mockery of the human miracle of language and communication.
You can't convince some people. Just look at people with thyroid issues. Their diet and exercise level can remain the same and yet once the illness starts affecting their bodies, they start gaining weight. There's a reason support groups are full of people asking how to lose this suddenly gained weight.
That's such a large amount of excuses that you sound like an American.
Really? Really? That's the best you can come up with?
I mean, I agree with you, but you gotta admit it's a good comeback.
It sounds like their intestinal parasites have taken over their executive function like the Last of Us cordyceps fungus.
Woke mind virus is real but it's just a brain worm that convinces Americans they need to eat more food to get less fat
Right... Well guess I'm actually dead right now since I haven't eaten in a couple days.
It apparently impacted your comprehension since you only read part of that paragraph
True dat. I'm not one to double check if what I'm drinking is piss by skulling the glass, I admit that.
Somebody went for a waddle around the neighbourhood three times and expected to drop 5kg as a result.
It's my DNA's fault
Username checks.
I hate waddling people, I know everything about people by the way they walk.
For instance, I can tell by the way they walk they're a woman's man, no time for talk.
[(Don't mind me. Just having some fun with this.)]
Hrmm... so that has me wonder what in my circumstances in my ancestors past left the evolutionary imprint on my genetic expression where I cannot gain weight and struggle with appetite.
... Though as I entertain the idea, I still suspect it more a contemporary environmental poisoning. Some chemical/physical/emotional stressor, this life, more than prior.
Certainly seems more tractionable, to focus on now, than give up, leaning on some excuse from before born. We play the hand we're dealt.
And best look at what's on the table. A lot of industry injecting gluttony-inspiring chemical agents in their junk (that they try trick us into believing it's food, by simply calling it food). It's same as in for-profit medicine. Like Hippocrates is reported to have said, let food be your medicine, and your medicine shall be your food. For-profit says "a patient cured is a customer lost". So any food with health claims on its advertising and packaging, quite likely have a poison seed to perpetuate the problem you're trying to resolve, especially if there's a corporation behind them, with stock holders and investors to satisfy with increasing profits, and are not allowed to not do anything that would increase profits (~ that's a fun law the corporation bought for itself... ahem, to protect the shareholders, of course).
But hey, maybe they care. /s
So since the corporation cares, it must be us. Nothing to do with them. Since our efforts (as advised by the corporation) are failing, it must be something else. Blame great great grandma. Couldn't possibly be the corporation. ;)
[(Don't mind me. Just having some fun with this.)]
Can we not post the entire library of Reddit memes
OP automates their posting on this platform... they have a lot of dumb content that they blanket Lemmy with because quantity > quality to them. I'm probably going to block the account soon because it's really annoying.
This screams: I ran on the treadmill for an hour and I deserve a snack. Said snack is energy bars or something like that.
I know, because that's how I used to think. Went to a dietist and her words were: Exercise is for toning, eating is for weightloss.
Yeah, you burn calories and you lose weight if you exercise a lot, but let's be real, most of us aren't exercising a lot. Going to the gym for an hour isn't the same as doing athlete sports or manual labor.
That's why, if we want to lose weight, we have to look at portion control, lean protein, cut down on starch and eating a lot of greens.
You can still eat a lot while losing weight, but most people aren't going to eat the right things and that's the issue. I was told that energy bars, crackers and anything bread-related outside of rye bread, was a weightloss killer.
It doesn't mean you can never ever have bread again, but if your aim is to lose weight, you're not gonna get very far if you snack on bread and crackers. If you snack on vegetables, however, you'll be able to eat A LOT.
There are always things you can do to adjust your diet so that you will lose weight, but if you don't know anything about what different types of food actually does to your body, you may think you're doing the right thing by eating ten bananas a day, but the scales don't move because you ate frigging ten bananas a day!
Doesn't mean you can never eat bananas or squash or fatty fish ever again, but while losing weight, you're supposed get less calories than what you need to sustain your weight. It helps reading into it and getting a basic idea of what, how and where. I didn't know shit before I had a professional helping me. I'm still no expert and my weight still goes up and down during different seasons of my life, but I know why and I know how to fix it when I get the motivation. Losing weight is very, very, very easy once you make up your mind to do it and have a basic understanding of what food does to the body.
Losing weight is very, very, very easy once you make up your mind to do it and have a basic understanding of what food does to the body.
No, losing weight is very very SIMPLE.
But a lot of people, like me when I was obese, don't struggle with knowing what to eat. We struggle with our brain, with satiety, with binging. With failing and comforting ourselves with food and failing more. With controlling food as a means of controlling our lives. With not taking ownership of our problems.
It's not easy at all. It's really fucking hard. But at least it's not complicated.
I'm not a stranger to having those problems, but if you read what I said, you'd also know that I said that once you make up your mind and have the knowledge necessary to make the choices that leads to weightloss, it is very very very easy.
That hard part is breaking out of the cycle and establishing a healthier habit. Once you're on that track, losing weight is easy.
But if you don't have the motivation and/or the right mindset, it will not happen, and there can be a myriad of reasons as to why that is. Life circumstances, mental health and such. I myself have dealt with a lot of blows in my life recently that has caused me to gain weight and I'm going to lose the weight when I go on break and finally get some time away from the stress. And after that, it's gonna be pretty easy to keep going.
But losing weight is easy. I will always stand by that.
Losing weight is very, very, very easy once you make up your mind to do it and have a basic understanding of what food does to the body.
Nice if that is so easy for you. Let me tell you how that feels for me: As soon as my body does not get its usual amount of calories, it replies with relentless hunger. The kind that burns in your stomach and distracts you from everything else. The only thing my brain wants to think about is how to get more food and how tasty it would be. If I don't give in, I go into energy save mode: I feel exhausted, my body does not want to move or do anything that could cost it valuable calories.
For a lot of people losing weight is not easy. You could also tell a smoker that it is easy to quit smoking, just don't pick up a cigarette anymore.
This is why things like ozempic are used despite it's side effect. It gives you time to get in the habit of a healthy diet without the brutal hunger and hopefully your body accepts that diet when you reduce the dosage.
Your body gets used to the amount of calories you eat. So if you don’t eat to that amount, it freaks out and thinks you’re dying (/dramatic effect). After gradually reducing your daily caloric intake and hitting your new maintenance target, over time your body will get used to the new norm.
Yes, that is often the case, but reducing it is the hard part. You need to keep it at a lower level for a while before your body adjusts.
Note that for some people it never adapts completely. Those people will always feel hungry or crave a snack and are never satisfied with the level of calories they actually need.
Just out of curiosity have you used ozempic and if so did you notice a decrease in severity of the hunger related symptoms on your mentality?
I did not, I know two people who do and they were impressed how easy it was to stick to their recommended diet. However, they are still on it, the interesting part is if you can get off without reverting your behaviour. Also they did not have any side effects so far, so lucky them.
I am currently holding my weight and don't plan on using it.
I'd you're open to advice: calories aren't what makes you feel full. Mass makes you feel full (a bit over simplified, but not completely wrong), so what you need to do is eat stuff, and I ate SO many carrots and cucumbers when I was trying to feel more full without more calories.
I absolutely hate raw carrots now, but eh, small price to pay.
For a lot of people losing weight is not easy. You could also tell a smoker that it is easy to quit smoking, just don't pick up a cigarette anymore.
Yeah, except then you die. So actually DO keep smoking, but limit yourself to 3x a quarter of a cigarette per day. Easy, right?
It does help with the immediate hunger, but it comes back strong once your body realises it was "cheated" out of calories. I am not sure I can withstand that for a long time. But maybe a short time would already be an improvement.
So thanks I will try to have carrots lying around at all times and try to eat them first between meals. Maybe it helps.
Also have you asked a smoker how it feels to slightly reduce the number of cigarettes per day?
Lot of negativity in this thread.
Nuh-uh!
There’s psychology in play here. For some people food is the only pleasure they get in their otherwise miserable existence. Genetically, some people get a greater pleasure “hit” from food than others, some of whom, on the extreme, treat food as this thing they have to do now and then in order to keep living.
Fixing this hedonistic approach to food means modifying their life to contain something else to replace this form of pleasure. If they can get their “hits” elsewhere, food consumption can then fall off.
Worse, in addiction scenarios, there’s no going cold turkey on food.
The resolution could be finding success in some pursuit. A relationship with someone awesome. Pleasure replacement can take many forms.
As is, for those who get a pleasure “hit” from food, there is minimal restricted access.
Fwiw nobody loses weight through exercise anyway. You can only lose weight by consuming less than you burn. You burn more when you exercise, yeah, but you still have to resist just eating that bit more to cover the extra expense. Your basal metabolic rate increases when you build up more muscle mass, yeah, but yet again that doesn't mean that your appetite will be the same as before, you're still going to have to have the will power to eat less than you'd maybe want. Conditioning yourself to stop eating before you're absolutely full, training to manage living with a bit of an appetite without having a snack, and learning your way around food that is more filling through fibres, protein, and complex carbs like starch is literally the only sustainable path to losing weight.
That being said you should exercise either way. It's more important than losing weight for the vast majority of unfit people anyway.
Yeah, unless you are a bodybuilder or professional athlete most of your daily calories are just going to go into staying alive. Meaning if you just want to lose weight, you are going to see much more impact from eating less than exercising more. Humans are unfortunately very efficient at things like running. Exercising does have other health benefits though.
Fwiw nobody loses weight through exercise anyway.
If you want some depressing stats: walking around a soccer field burns 2 entire peanut M&Ms. Not 2 bags, 2 individual candies.
Is Scottish the first one people go to for European peasant?
No, but being at war with the English is a pretty universal experience.
Even the English, good old civil wars!
But what European country with a long history hasn't been at war with at least a few neighbours?
That depends... do you consider Germany after World War II and reunification and stuff a new country? Because then: absolutely flawless 💖🥳
If it's a new country then it doesn't have a long history.
It could just be OOP's ancestry.
I feel SO represented, and I'm German.
For Anglocentric Americans yeah, either Scottish or Irish.
