Fasting

TheRealFluent said:
@vurt;, this has nothing to do with your topic but I just wanted to say that you did excellent work on Kenshi's flora, fauna and foliage. Really nicely done. I mentioned you in a question to the developer on the terrain design in an interview I did for RPGCodex, not released yet. Your plants and trees really bring some areas to life and look beautiful, and I think that engine in general is beautiful, despite being ancient and only running on one core. The max view distances for example are vast. Great work man! :party:
Click to expand...

Cool :) I only did the first desert area though, this was way back when the game only had one biome, so i'm not sure what has changed or what is even kept of that.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Ah, thought you did more. I could have sworn a lot of those trees and foliage were "vurt trees". :)
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,603
Eye said:
As always nature is more complex and beautiful than scientists or laymen initially think.

The quote is taken from the article Chemical messengers: how hormones make us feel hungry and full but you can find numerous recent articles when using ‘fat’, ‘hormones’, ‘signal’ and ‘intestines’.

The yoyo effect is real. Also, what is doable for you can be very hard for an obese person thanks to these hormones. It is easy when one gets a good/early signal you are full but an obese simply does not get that signal that early, if s/he gets it at all; their body is telling them, keeps on telling them, they are hungry.

If it was just a matter of motivation I think that in this world where being slim is commended, where being thin is the norm, and where obese people are quite often being seen as dumb and lazy, the biggest people would be the best in losing weight.
Click to expand...

I don't really know this world you speak of.

But I do know the world I live in - and, in that world, burning more calories than you consume is the number one concern if you want to lose weight.

I didn't say it was easy - because it rarely is.

But it's simple - and, yes, motivation is the key.

If you really want to tell yourself it's terribly complex - and that people are overweight because it's so incredibly hard to figure out how to lose weight, then go right ahead.

It's just going to be 100% counter to the reality I know.
 
Calorie reduction is only going to work if it's going (significantly) below how many you burn.

That said, it's surprisingly hard to keep track of calorie consumption. It takes discipline and quite an effort for a while - until you get the hang of it, at which point you don't have to micromanage everything because you have a reasonable idea.

It's just as effective to simply increase the amount of exercise.

Now, personally, I'm extremely lazy - and I hate to do anything that's not strictly necessary.

So, for exercise, I simply walk back and forth inside the house. I usually turn on my SmartTV and watch a bunch of crappy YouTube videos for an hour while I keep up the pace.

In the same way, I eat whatever I want - and I simply walk an hour for each 300 calories I consume above the desired ceiling.

Some days, I go above what I should - and then I compensate the next day.

Once you get used to it, it's relatively trivial. However, the initial effort can be extremely challenging if you're used to large amounts of calories.

But bullshit excuses won't help either.
 
Darth Tagnan said:
Calorie reduction is only going to work if it's going (significantly) below how many you burn.

That said, it's surprisingly hard to keep track of calorie consumption. It takes discipline and quite an effort for a while - until you get the hang of it, at which point you don't have to micromanage everything because you have a reasonable idea.
Click to expand...

I do agree calorie reduction is a key part of weight loss, but I don't agree it's a permanent solution on its own (see my earlier post).

In a nutshell, the issues with JUST calorie reduction is:

1) It doesn't help reverse original dietary issues for the weight gain in the first place (any number of factors can contribute, such as sleep, stress, diet, and other health issues).

2) It's not sustainable on its own, because the body has a set weight it wants to be at, and will adjust its energy consumption accordingly (which can be changed, but not with just calorie reduction).

3) There's no good set formula for CICO, so finding how many calories your body consumes is difficult. And exponentially difficult when that number dynamically changes according to other factors (see #1 and #2).

For some people, it could simply just be calories.

However, as an example, one third of the population in North America is either diabetic or prediabetic (insulin resistant). I can be very frustrating when those who don't fall within that category are telling those people that all they need to do is eat less. It won't reverse the damage, and they won't get the same results.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Caddy said:
I do agree calorie reduction is a key part of weight loss, but I don't agree it's a permanent solution on its own (see my earlier post).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're agreeing with.

I never said "calorie reduction" is key. I said it's key to burn more calories than you consume - so it's really the deficit of calories that's key.

1) It doesn't help reverse original dietary issues for the weight gain in the first place (any number of factors can contribute, such as sleep, stress, diet, and other health issues).
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't really agree with this. If you consume less calories - your body WILL adjust - and if your original problem was consuming vastly more calories than your body needs - that's going to be the number one factor.

2) It's not sustainable on its own, because the body has a set weight it wants to be at, and will adjust its energy consumption accordingly (which can be changed, but not with just calorie reduction).
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. The body doesn't "want" to be at any weight. But it's true that people are creatures of habit - and if you eat vastly more than your body needs, then your body will become used to it.

But it can be changed by making an effort.

3) There's no good set formula for CICO, so finding how many calories your body consumes is difficult. And exponentially difficult when that number dynamically changes according to other factors (see #1 and #2).
Click to expand...

Actually, it's really quite simple - and the basic metabolic rate is pretty universally relevant - as long as you keep a few key points in mind, like muscle mass.

However, as an example, one third of the population in North America is either diabetic or prediabetic (insulin resistant). I can be very frustrating when those who don't fall within that category are telling those people that all they need to do is eat less. It won't reverse the damage, and they won't get the same results.
Click to expand...

It's not about eating less - it's about consuming fewer calories. Essentially, it's about eating different things and using the power of the habit to change your ways.

I'm fully aware that it's frustrating to be faced with reality when reality is a challenge.

But reality doesn't care.
 
Darth Tagnan said:
That's bullshit. The body doesn't "want" to be at any weight. But it's true that people are creatures of habit - and if you eat vastly more than your body needs, then your body will become used to it.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of things that you're just taking as assumptions, but this is the most obvious one.

Are you saying that an individual's body always burns the same amount calories, at the same rate, all the time?

Because that would mean you're denying that metabolism exists.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Caddy said:
There's a lot of things that you're just taking as assumptions, but this is the most obvious one.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is one of the topics where I assume very little - unless you think of something like gravity existing as an assumption. I guess it is, in a way.

I suppose you have some kind of knowledge that goes beyond science? :)

Are you saying that an individual's body always burns the same amount calories, at the same rate, all the time?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything like that.

However, there are people much, much more into health and science than I who have established easily approachable ways of calculating reasonable estimates of metabolic rates.

But I'm not terribly interested in a random Internet article match.

If you don't "believe" in the basic metabolic rate and that a significant calorie deficit will inevitably result in weight loss - then so be it.

I suppose reality has shifted significantly in the last few decades - and the reason so many Americans are so overweight is not due to eating vastly more calories than they need due to things like absurdly high sugar content in their food, but a huge host of modern spooky factors that apparently weren't in play in the past.

I can't argue against beliefs like that.
 
Darth Tagnan said:
Oh, I don't really agree with this. If you consume less calories - your body WILL adjust - and if your original problem was consuming vastly more calories than your body needs - that's going to be the number one factor.

I'm fully aware that it's frustrating to be faced with reality when reality is a challenge.

But reality doesn't care.
Click to expand...

And what if your original problem wasn't consuming extra calories? That's what i'm saying. If you're diabetic, your original problem wasn't a CICO issue. And then you're telling people who respond to macro-nutrients differently than you that they're not facing reality...

And of course reality doesn't care. That's why doctors with less than a week of nutrition training, that still recommend the CICO method are telling their patients that they're just "not exercising enough and/or eating too much" after they've starved and exercised themselves into oblivion, while still suffering from metabolic syndrome.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Darth Tagnan said:
I suppose you have some kind of knowledge that goes beyond science? :)
Click to expand...

LOL Really? Come on man. I just linked you a peer reviewed scientific journal study, and that's your response?

TfE4MJC.png
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Caddy said:
And what if your original problem wasn't consuming extra calories? That's what i'm saying. If you're diabetic, your original problem wasn't a CICO issue. And then you're telling people who respond to macro-nutrients differently than you that they're not facing reality…
Click to expand...

Are you seriously ignoring how many people develop diabetes because they're overweight - particularly because of their unhealthy diet?

Being overweight is one of the primary causes of insulin resistance.

And of course reality doesn't care. That's why doctors with less than a week of nutrition training, that still recommend the CICO method are telling their patients that they're just "not exercising enough and/or eating too much" after they've starved and exercised themselves into oblivion, while still suffering from metabolic syndrome.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's only ignorant doctors with next to zero experience recommending that people watch what they eat? Right :)

I don't really know what motivates you to believe this kind of thing - but I can't say I find it very convincing.

In any case, for every single "new age" article you can find that claims burning more calories than you consume is not going to work - I can find at least a dozen that will support my zero experience claims.

That's because it's common knowledge for people who're not desperate to invent complicated causes where the most likely explanation is the least appealing one.
 
Caddy said:
LOL Really? Come on man. I just linked you a peer reviewed scientific study, and that's your response?

TfE4MJC.png
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much random Internet links mean to me - especially in the post-Trump era ;)

I'm afraid you have to make do with common sense and rational arguments to have a chance with me.
 
Losing weight is not simply a matter of doing the exact opposite of gaining weight.
The body, the way it functions, changes when losing weight, making it harder to lose weight, making it even possible to gain weight while getting fewer calories than when reaching that weight the first time.

To me it seems that you value your opinion more than recently discovered scientifical evidence in well done studies.
That is your right, of cource, to denounce (the latest) science, but I find it rather pointless to start a debate.
 
Darth Tagnan said:
I can't tell you how much random Internet links mean to me - especially in the post-Trump era ;)

I'm afraid you have to make do with common sense and rational arguments to have a chance with me.
Click to expand...

Ouch man. I usually have some mutual respect for you, even when I disagreed. But this is the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling nonsense.

If you're going to call a peer reviewed study a "random internet link", I might as well be arguing with a flat-earther, and our debate is futile.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
I guess we all have a right to believe whatever we want to believe.

Personally, I prefer to believe in what makes sense and what's right in front of me - especially when it's backed up by endless scientific evidence.

Of course, we can pretend that because it's scientifically POSSIBLE to gain weight - under very specific circumstances - when you're in a calorie deficit - then that means that we can just ignore the rules of reality and start losing weight by eating a ton of junk food.

It's not like make believe is a hard thing to do :)
 
Caddy said:
Ouch man. I usually have some mutual respect for you, even when I disagreed. But this is the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling nonsense.

If you're going to call a peer reviewed study a "random internet link", I might as well be arguing with a flat-earther, and our debate is futile.
Click to expand...

You linked a 22 year old article that doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said - and you're somehow expecting me to agree with your nonsensical claims because of that?

Oh, I respect you as a human being and I believe you're a smart guy in many ways.

But, I'm afraid in this case - much like Eye - you're motivated against reality for one reason or another.

I will refrain from making the easiest of assumptions as to why :)
 
Eye said:
Lucky me, I have no weight problem. Perfect BMI.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you reached that by eating endless amounts of fries and washing them down with Coca Cola? ;)

I hear that's the new weight-loss approach supported by science!

Also, BMI? Isn't that a bit old-school. Isn't there some kind of modern scientific measurement that's actually relevant? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom