19 votes

Age-related weight gain has far more to do with our activity patterns than it does with our metabolism, which barely budges after age thirty, according to the National Institutes of Health

43 comments

  1. [41]
    demifiend
    Link
    No shit. We don't have the time or inclination to play any longer; we're too busy working.

    No shit. We don't have the time or inclination to play any longer; we're too busy working.

    5 votes
    1. [35]
      aphoenix
      Link Parent
      A lot of people believe "metabolism" is a big part of your weight. It really isn't. People are fat when their caloric intake exceeds their caloric expenditure. Fixing this is simple; eat less, do...

      A lot of people believe "metabolism" is a big part of your weight. It really isn't. People are fat when their caloric intake exceeds their caloric expenditure. Fixing this is simple; eat less, do more. Note I said "simple", and not "easy". Eat less and do more is hard, despite the fact that it is simple.

      I think that could sum up basically every argument about diet forever, but people always add a bunch more to it.

      7 votes
      1. demifiend
        Link Parent
        No kidding. The problem is that doing more is never really enough. An hour of exercise or two a day doesn't cut it when you're an emotional eater, or when somebody else is cooking, serves...

        Eat less and do more is hard, despite the fact that it is simple.

        No kidding. The problem is that doing more is never really enough. An hour of exercise or two a day doesn't cut it when you're an emotional eater, or when somebody else is cooking, serves unreasonably large portions, and starts drama when you immediately put half in a container.

        It was honestly easier to control my weight when I was single. Nobody gave a shit if I ate or not. TBH, a lot of things were easier when I was single, but I'm not going to get a divorce just because my wife makes my life harder. I knew it wouldn't be easy before I popped the question, and did it anyway.

        6 votes
      2. [12]
        insomnic
        Link Parent
        I met a personal trainer who explained this as the Calorie Bank. It's the basic principle to keep in mind with maintaining your weight. Calories In = Calories Out: Maintain Weight Calories In >...

        I met a personal trainer who explained this as the Calorie Bank. It's the basic principle to keep in mind with maintaining your weight.

        • Calories In = Calories Out: Maintain Weight
        • Calories In > Calories Out: Gain Weight
        • Calories In < Calories Out: Lose Weight

        Just keeping that in mind helps me watch my weight better ... It won't get you looking cut or build your physique but I'm over 40 and just trying to be healthy and happy.

        4 votes
        1. [11]
          lars
          Link Parent
          How do you factor in muscle atrophy? Where you're getting bigger, but not gaining any weight? You'd have to find some balance right? You'd need to reduce calories taken in and exercise. Then find...

          How do you factor in muscle atrophy? Where you're getting bigger, but not gaining any weight? You'd have to find some balance right? You'd need to reduce calories taken in and exercise. Then find the right balance of what you need to take in to function?

          1. [2]
            lemon-fresh
            Link Parent
            What do you mean by "getting bigger, but not gaining any weight"? Also, except in cases of obesity you will not be able to gain much muscle in a caloric deficit. Hence why you have the notions of...

            What do you mean by "getting bigger, but not gaining any weight"?

            Also, except in cases of obesity you will not be able to gain much muscle in a caloric deficit. Hence why you have the notions of "cutting" and "bulking".

            1 vote
            1. lars
              Link Parent
              Stomach has gotten a lot bigger but haven't put on weight.

              Stomach has gotten a lot bigger but haven't put on weight.

          2. Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            Gaining weight generally refers to gaining muscle or gaining fat. Your value on the scale can stay the same with different proportions of muscle and fat. So it's possible to lose muscle and gain...

            Gaining weight generally refers to gaining muscle or gaining fat. Your value on the scale can stay the same with different proportions of muscle and fat. So it's possible to lose muscle and gain fat, or vice versa over time and keep relatively similar values on the scale.

            1 vote
          3. [7]
            insomnic
            Link Parent
            I'm not sure how you have muscle atrophy while getting bigger since atrophy is losing muscle ... I might be misunderstanding your question. I will say that whole thing of "you're not losing weight...

            I'm not sure how you have muscle atrophy while getting bigger since atrophy is losing muscle ... I might be misunderstanding your question.

            I will say that whole thing of "you're not losing weight because you're building muscle" is not very true at all. It takes so much effort to create a pound of muscle vs what is lost in fat by the efforts to get that muscle. You'll see slimming down long before seeing bulking up. Body builder stage is where those kinds of things become something to consider I believe - not so much when average joe is just trying to be fit and healthy.

            You can also start to look "pudgier" when you first start doing muscle work because now that layer of muscle is firmer and it can push the fat bits out more in some parts of your body (tummy in particular).

            You have to have calories to perform activity, but that goes back to the calorie bank and finding the right number for you. Calories are fuel for your body so if you are being more active, you'll need more fuel - but the bank still works for this because you'll need more calories in to have more calories out to break even with the added activity.

            1. [6]
              lars
              Link Parent
              In my case, my gut is bigger, but I am not gaining any weight. I haven't been exercising or eating right for a while now.

              In my case, my gut is bigger, but I am not gaining any weight. I haven't been exercising or eating right for a while now.

              1. [5]
                insomnic
                Link Parent
                Ah. Gotcha. It really doesn't take much for some areas of fat to be more noticeable... and a pound of fat is much less dense than a pound of muscle so losing a pound of muscle to become a pound of...

                Ah. Gotcha.

                It really doesn't take much for some areas of fat to be more noticeable... and a pound of fat is much less dense than a pound of muscle so losing a pound of muscle to become a pound of fat would be noticed as quite a bit more pudginess. Losing muscle is easy... stop moving. Gaining fat is easy... eat calorie dense foods without moving. Going for the beach bod takes a LOT of effort but just being healthy doesn't take as much physical effort as it sometimes seems.

                You might find my other comment useful if you're trying to get started on being a bit healthier.

                1 vote
                1. [4]
                  lars
                  Link Parent
                  Thanks. Goal is to have stomach fat gone for the most part. Def need to limber up. Getting pudgy and getting boobs. I feel uncomfortable a lot because I am very short for a man. So chairs and...

                  Thanks. Goal is to have stomach fat gone for the most part. Def need to limber up. Getting pudgy and getting boobs. I feel uncomfortable a lot because I am very short for a man. So chairs and things already don't accommodate. Added pudge makes it worse.

                  1 vote
                  1. [3]
                    insomnic
                    Link Parent
                    I can relate. For me it was to just keep doing little things to build up the habit of eating better and moving more. Even if I didn't feel like going for a 3 mile walk like I was supposed to do,...

                    I can relate.

                    For me it was to just keep doing little things to build up the habit of eating better and moving more. Even if I didn't feel like going for a 3 mile walk like I was supposed to do, I'd go for a walk around the block or do some stretches and squats - something is better than nothing. :)

                    Also, don't get too discouraged at first. My tummy and lower back lose weight last and fat is a whole body thing. You can't lose weight in a specific spot no matter what the TV commercials say so it's really about the cumulative effect. The good news is that you see a lot of results in the first few weeks. This can help with motivation at the beginning but those first firming up weeks can make you wonder why the 2nd and 3rd month don't seem to have as obvious of changes - they're there though.

                    I never did quite get back to my younger trim physique. I'm too lazy to commit to breaking through that plateau, but I got to the point where I felt healthy and felt comfortable in my clothes, and different people respond to diet and exercise differently. I say "felt" because I fell off the wagon a bit with my habits so I'm recently getting back to it myself.

                    1 vote
                    1. [2]
                      lars
                      Link Parent
                      Thank you

                      Thank you

                      1 vote
                      1. aphoenix
                        Link Parent
                        I used to be quite fat; now i'm just fat, and I'm much more fit than I have been for the last 8 years, and continuing to improve. Take what I say with a grain of salt (see earlier re: am fat), but...

                        I used to be quite fat; now i'm just fat, and I'm much more fit than I have been for the last 8 years, and continuing to improve. Take what I say with a grain of salt (see earlier re: am fat), but these are the steps that I've taken and what's resulted from it.

                        I started with two relatively easy changes. I understood that this is a lifelong decision for healthiness, and that I'm in this for the long run, so I wasn't expecting immediate results from these.

                        First, I started cataloguing everything I ate. I use an app to do it, called Lifesum. You have to record everything if you're going to do this; it will be an eye opener. The result was that after a couple of weeks of doing this, I adjusted what I was eating to get the caloric intake numbers into a reasonable area (currently around 2000 calories a day for me, but the app can help you with this based on your activity level). I looked at every meal I was going to bring in and figured out how to keep it within the caloric requirements I had for my day.

                        Second, I focused on doing more things outside of the house. I joined a couple of sports teams (I play ultimate a couple of times a week) and I made some family adjustments to what we do (ie - we go hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, and generally outside-ing more). The result was that after some time, being active didn't feel like a chore that I was doing, but a reward that I received.

                        Both of these lifestyle changes were based on things that I already do; I check my phone while prepping a meal anyways, and I want to spend fun time with my family. Both of them helped to take a really difficult problem (eating less and being more active) and give me ways to deal with doing both. The important thing is to not stop trying if something doesn't work out; there are thousands of ways that people have found to help us get healthier. I recommend just trying until you find the thing that resonates with you.

                        Good luck! It's not easy, but it's definitely worthwhile!

      3. [5]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [4]
          aphoenix
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I think that it's more insidious than this; I think most people want to be thin, and I think there are a lot of snake oil merchants out there who make their living by telling you about this one...

          People just like to make excuses.

          I think that it's more insidious than this; I think most people want to be thin, and I think there are a lot of snake oil merchants out there who make their living by telling you about this one simple trick that's going to help you to be as beautiful (or health) as you want to be.

          On top of that, there are a lot of different diets that focus on things that you don't really need to focus on if your goal is just to reduce or maintain your weight. Paleo diets, keto diets; it's all more than you need, and a lot of people make a lot of money telling a lot of people a lot of bullshit.

          Eat less; do more.

          Edit: it's important to note that not all diets are snake-oil. However, many of them boil down to "what is an effective way for me to consume less calories?" When you get to a point that you want to do more with your body (ie - "I'm not fat, and now I want to be super strong") then it's important to start focusing on things like "what will actually enable my body to make muscles", but for the most part, people need to find things that help them address how to actually take in less calories.

          2 votes
          1. [4]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. Petril
              Link Parent
              I am losing about 1.5 lbs a week at my desk job by eating 1200 calories a day! Which is a totally decent amount. And I do little to no exercise. (Which is bad. I know. :-|) Exercising is...

              I am losing about 1.5 lbs a week at my desk job by eating 1200 calories a day! Which is a totally decent amount. And I do little to no exercise. (Which is bad. I know. :-|)

              Exercising is surprisingly less effective at burning calories. It's great for your health, but not essential for losing fat.

              2 votes
            2. lemon-fresh
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Well... Diet is the main thing you should be controlling if you are looking to lose weight. Combining with exercise is great but I would say exercise is better for improving cardiovascular health,...

              Well... Diet is the main thing you should be controlling if you are looking to lose weight. Combining with exercise is great but I would say exercise is better for improving cardiovascular health, improving balance and muscle/brain function.

              You can definitely lose weight without exercise.

              1 vote
            3. aphoenix
              Link Parent
              To be fair, if you have to choose between the two, definitely choose 'eat less'. It's the best bang for your buck. Weight loss starts by putting down your fork. That said, I definitely agree that...

              To be fair, if you have to choose between the two, definitely choose 'eat less'. It's the best bang for your buck. Weight loss starts by putting down your fork.

              That said, I definitely agree that exercise is a hugely important part of life. Our body is the vessel with which we experience everything, and we should give it the care that it deserves. Exercise keeps us healthy, reduces our stress, and increases our happiness. Plus it's like a drug; those people that you see running around in the morning aren't doing it only for the body they get - it also feels really good!

              1 vote
      4. [17]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        I absolutely fucking hate how everyone likes to distill it down to CICO. This is not the whole picture. The macronutrients you consume subtly effect many things like hunger, activity, energetics...

        I absolutely fucking hate how everyone likes to distill it down to CICO.

        This is not the whole picture. The macronutrients you consume subtly effect many things like hunger, activity, energetics (how much is burned off as heat energy or simply not absorbed), and many other bodily functions.

        Don't believe me? Here's an example where one group ate more calories and more protein and ended up gaining more muscle and losing more fat. Source.

        The HP group consumed more (p < 0.05) total energy and protein during the treatment period compared to their baseline intake. Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more (p < 0.05) total calories and protein compared to the NP group. There were significant time by group (p ≤ 0.05) changes in body weight (change: +1.3 ± 1.3 kg NP, −0.1 ± 2.5 HP), fat mass (change: −0.3 ± 2.2 kg NP, −1.7 ± 2.3 HP), and % body fat (change: −0.7 ± 2.8 NP, −2.4 ± 2.9 HP). The NP group gained significantly more body weight than the HP group; however, the HP group experienced a greater decrease in fat mass and % body fat.

        This isn't even scratching the surface of genetic differences in how we process certain macros. Some people, for example, convert a larger portion of fats into cholesterols and therefore absorb less energy from fat. Some people have stronger or weaker insulin responses to carbohydrates, which can result in more energy being stored or not. There are a million ways in which the quality and type of food you consume can affect the energetics of the person consuming them.

        1. [4]
          lemon-fresh
          Link Parent
          Yup, but you have to start somewhere. Once you have a grasp of your total daily energy expenditure vs consumption looking at your macro nutrient consumption levels would be a great next step.

          Yup, but you have to start somewhere. Once you have a grasp of your total daily energy expenditure vs consumption looking at your macro nutrient consumption levels would be a great next step.

          4 votes
          1. [3]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            Yes, but you can't just say it's "only" CICO. Say its "mostly" CICO or "almost entirely" CICO or "99%" CICO. When you tell people a lie, and then tell them the truth later, you're doing them a...

            Yes, but you can't just say it's "only" CICO. Say its "mostly" CICO or "almost entirely" CICO or "99%" CICO. When you tell people a lie, and then tell them the truth later, you're doing them a disservice and making them question the science.

            1 vote
            1. [2]
              aphoenix
              Link Parent
              This is the thing. You think what I said says that. It doesn't say that. This is "strawmanning". You're doing it super hard.

              This is the thing.

              You think what I said says that.

              It doesn't say that.

              This is "strawmanning". You're doing it super hard.

              1. Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                Adding to someone else's post is not strawmanning. I'm pointing out an argument I don't like and why it's wrong.

                Adding to someone else's post is not strawmanning. I'm pointing out an argument I don't like and why it's wrong.

        2. [12]
          aphoenix
          Link Parent
          Cool, but CICO is still 90% of what's important in weight loss. For most people, it's the one simple trick that they need to actually not be overweight. It's been shown over and over that this is...

          I absolutely fucking hate how everyone likes to distill it down to CICO.

          Cool, but CICO is still 90% of what's important in weight loss. For most people, it's the one simple trick that they need to actually not be overweight. It's been shown over and over that this is true and effective (eg - Mark Haub and the twinkie diet, or the guy who did the McDonald's Every Day diet, etc) who all had healthy outcomes basing their eating entirely on CICO.

          I'm not claiming that anything beyond that can't help with some aspect of health - certainly watching macros is important if you're bodybuilding, for example - but even the study you linked is tangential to this discussion. It's measuring muscle gain, not weight loss.

          So while it's not "the whole picture" it's simple, it actually works, and it's something that almost every single person can understand and manage. Macro counting isn't something that your average fat dude is going to be concerned about, and it's not going to do anything for him, because first he has to figure out how to just start eating less food. For 95% of people who want to lose weight, "eat less, do more" is the most important thing. It's simple, and it's actionable, and it doesn't really require massive lifestyle changes.

          Side note: if you're passionate on this topic, I recommend toning down your opener ("I fucking hate your point of view"). It was off putting. I elected to be charitable, but my response is probably slightly snarky, because you set this tone and I responded to it.

          4 votes
          1. [11]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            Then say it that way. My point is that it's more nuanced than that, and that if you're eating all shitty calories, guess what, you're probably going to eat more calories than you need because...

            Cool, but CICO is still 90% of what's important in weight loss.

            Then say it that way. My point is that it's more nuanced than that, and that if you're eating all shitty calories, guess what, you're probably going to eat more calories than you need because they're denser, easier to eat, fuck up your insulin, make you more hungry, cause you to go into a food coma more often, decrease activity, etc.

            even the study you linked is tangential to this discussion. It's measuring muscle gain, not weight loss

            Read it again, they measure body fat as well.

            It's also just a single example (and perhaps one of the best and strongest) of how macronutrient consumption effects the composition of someone's body. It's one piece of a very large and complex puzzle, but the whole point here is simply that what you eat directly effects how much you eat and how that food effects your body.

            Macro counting isn't something that your average fat dude is going to be concerned about

            Macro counting, no. But macro composition they absolutely should be. The twinkie diet will make you lose weight, but it will fuck up your body and will be pretty darn difficult to maintain. However, a smartly designed diet where food sources are varied, high in protein and fiber, and with minimal processing will result in a diet that is easier to maintain and will likely be significantly more effective.

            For 95% of people who want to lose weight, "eat less, do more" is the most important thing. It's simple, and it's actionable, and it doesn't really require massive lifestyle changes.

            And many of these people you tell to "eat less, do more" are going to fail at their diets and revert to their old habits.

            In fact, I'd argue you're likely just pissing them off by saying "eat less, do more" because they already know that they need to do this. People aren't stupid. The problem is that every time they try to "eat less, do more" they fail because, guess what, eating slightly less fries at mcdonalds will reduce your total calories, but it's not going to reduce your hunger when you're still eating garbage food. Going to the gym a few times a week is going to burn some calories, but their hunger will adjust to the new norm, and they'll eat them back.

            In many cases, until they start to focus on the food they are consuming, they're likely not going to make any real progress because the food they are consuming is contributing to their disease. The food they are consuming is making them tired, is leading to extra fat storage, is reducing their energy levels, is making them more sleepy, etc.

            1. [10]
              aphoenix
              Link Parent
              As a blanket declaration, that one should consider from now until the end of the universe, with very few exceptions, everything is more nuanced than a blanket statement that can be issued in four...

              My point is that it's more nuanced than that

              As a blanket declaration, that one should consider from now until the end of the universe, with very few exceptions, everything is more nuanced than a blanket statement that can be issued in four words, and in no way is anything that I said contrary to that. Also, with my own quote above, "Eat less and do more is hard, despite the fact that it is simple", my point is also more nuanced than "just do CICO".

              Macro counting, no. But macro composition they absolutely should be. The twinkie diet will make you lose weight, but it will fuck up your body and will be pretty darn difficult to maintain.

              You should look up Mark Haub and his experiments. They're pretty interesting, are easy to replicate, and show pretty conclusively that CICO is the by far the most important factor. Most notably, they don't fuck up your body; if you run the twinkie experiment and stick to it, you'll almost certainly be healthier at the end (with some warnings, such as "don't do this if you're diabetic" and "if you don't stick to it exactly, it doesn't work" and "you do have to eat a few vegetables"). This is right down to body composition that you brought up (LDL down, HDL up, etc). Basically, you need to check your facts here.

              I think most of the rest of this conversation came about because you missed the key point of what I originally said, which I'll restate here, and reiterate that it is more nuanced than "just do CICO":

              People are fat when their caloric intake exceeds their caloric expenditure. Fixing this is simple; eat less, do more. Note I said "simple", and not "easy". Eat less and do more is hard, despite the fact that it is simple.

              To sum up:

              • I make a distinction between "easy" and "simple". I'm pretty sure you missed this and just focused on the CICO part.
              • I stand by that CICO is correct. If you eat less calories than you spend, you will lose weight.
              • The stuff that you brought up contributes to why it's not easy to do CICO
              • Nothing I said implies that there is no further nuance beyond "CICO", and actually explicitly states that despite its simplicity it is a very difficult thing to do.
              4 votes
              1. [9]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                Then don't do it the disservice of distilling it down without explicitly stating that it is "more nuanced". For losing weight, yes. But for keeping weight off for an extended period of time, no -...

                my point is also more nuanced than "just do CICO".

                Then don't do it the disservice of distilling it down without explicitly stating that it is "more nuanced".

                show pretty conclusively that CICO is the by far the most important factor.

                For losing weight, yes. But for keeping weight off for an extended period of time, no - his studies are not targeted at this.

                I make a distinction between "easy" and "simple". I'm pretty sure you missed this and just focused on the CICO part.

                At this point I don't remember whether I caught the difference, but it doesn't matter because it's very plausible that a layperson would not.

                Now that you've taken the time to explain yourself, I believe we are mostly on the same page, meaning the issue here is communication, which is precisely what I was bringing up in the first place (well, I also sourced some stuff, because a lot of people still think CICO is all that matters and macronutrient composition is completely irrelevant).

                1. [8]
                  aphoenix
                  Link Parent
                  Once more, this is explicit in my original point, which you completely didn't get, and potentially still do not:

                  Once more, this is explicit in my original point, which you completely didn't get, and potentially still do not:

                  Eat less and do more is hard, despite the fact that it is simple.

                  3 votes
                  1. [7]
                    Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    Can you help me understand what is not clear about the statement: It does not matter whether your statement is correct, if it has a strong potential of being misunderstood by another person. For...

                    Can you help me understand what is not clear about the statement:

                    the issue here is communication

                    It does not matter whether your statement is correct, if it has a strong potential of being misunderstood by another person.

                    For example, the statement

                    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

                    Is a gramatically correct statement. But most people are not going to understand what this sentence means.

                    This is an error of communication. Communication needs to be specific enough so that other people can comprehend or understand what you are saying while being simple enough to avoid confusion.

                    Hinging your entire argument on the use of a single word, which happens to be a synonym of the word you are trying to avoid, is communication that could be enhanced by the use of additional words to elucidate the intended message.

                    1. [6]
                      aphoenix
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      I chose my words very carefully, and if you don't understand this is not an issue with me, but an issue with you. Many people understood them without issue and my statement implicitly points out...

                      It does not matter whether your statement is correct, if it has a strong potential of being misunderstood by another person.

                      I chose my words very carefully, and if you don't understand this is not an issue with me, but an issue with you. Many people understood them without issue and my statement implicitly points out the issue that you are experiencing, which is that a lot of people mistakenly conflate "simple" with "easy".

                      The entire point, which I still believe you missed, is that everyone knows that to lose weight you eat healthier and exercise, but while those things are easy to say and easy to understand, they are quite hard to implement because there's a million other factors; they're hard things to do.

                      You may not like when people trivialize things by saying "it's easy to lose weight, just reduce calories in and increase calories out". That's fair; I hate it when people say it's easy, because if it was easy, I'd weigh 40 pounds less than I do. It's simple, but it's far from easy.

                      If you don't understand this from what I wrote, then I recommend you read it again until you do. It's clear, it's concise, and it's very understandable, and this communication issue is entirely on your end. You're attributing meaning that you don't like to something that you didn't understand, and you were aggressive while doing so.


                      tl;dr: You started with this:

                      I absolutely fucking hate how everyone likes to distill it down to CICO.

                      Which indicated to me right away that you didn't get it and that you wanted to fight about it. I should have just ignored it, and that's my bad. However, you could have said something like:

                      Are you saying weight loss is easy because of CICO?

                      And I would have happily explained that that's basically the polar opposite of what I was saying.

                      2 votes
                      1. [5]
                        Gaywallet
                        Link Parent
                        Because how could you ever be wrong? This is an assumption As I already said, I understand it now. The problem is that it required a lot more discussion to get to that point, which is precisely...

                        I chose my words very carefully, and if you don't understand this is not an issue with me, but an issue with you.

                        Because how could you ever be wrong?

                        Many people understood them without issue

                        This is an assumption

                        If you don't understand this from what I wrote, then I recommend you read it again until you do

                        As I already said, I understand it now. The problem is that it required a lot more discussion to get to that point, which is precisely the problem. It's a problem of communication.

                        It's clear, it's concise, and it's very understandable

                        to you

                        and this communication issue is entirely on your end

                        Another assumption

                        1. [4]
                          aphoenix
                          Link Parent
                          I'm frequently wrong; don't assume that just because I'm not admitting to being wrong here that I can't admit to it at other times. I don't think that's particularly fair. Similarly, I'm not...

                          Because how could you ever be wrong?

                          I'm frequently wrong; don't assume that just because I'm not admitting to being wrong here that I can't admit to it at other times. I don't think that's particularly fair. Similarly, I'm not letting this colour my overall opinion of you, which is generally positive.

                          This is an assumption

                          This isn't the first time that I've used "simple" vs "easy" in an explanation, and it's something that most people understand relatively quickly, and I'm including you in that group. When I went back and stressed that point, you immediately understood, and I didn't do a lot of explaining. I think that understanding was due to the point itself and the fact that you reread it.

                          I think you're very passionate about this topic, and you saw something that wasn't there and got angry about it. I've gotten similarly angry at people saying to me, "Listen, just eat less food. It's super easy." It's not easy, or we'd all have the bodies of greek gods. That's a thing that's anger inducing; I understand and, to some degree, respect that. However, I'd urge you to make sure that you're taking a swing at the right person when you come out swinging. Or, even better, don't come out swinging at all, but find middle ground and build bridges.

                          2 votes
                          1. [3]
                            Gaywallet
                            Link Parent
                            Apologies if I implied so, but your demeanor these last few posts has been one admitting to doing no wrong. You don't even admit that it's plausible, let alone possible that you could be mistaken...

                            I'm frequently wrong; don't assume that just because I'm not admitting to being wrong here that I can't admit to it at other times.

                            Apologies if I implied so, but your demeanor these last few posts has been one admitting to doing no wrong. You don't even admit that it's plausible, let alone possible that you could be mistaken about your communication skills.

                            I've admitted that I misunderstood you and that this was a communication issue. By you insisting it's entirely an interpretation issue, and not an issue with the message itself is insulting, denigrating, and quite frankly egotistical and almost assuredly provably incorrect (there are 8 billion people, many of which do not speak English as their first language - if I, a native speaker, had this trouble how do you think they will fare?).

                            When I went back and stressed that point, you immediately understood, and I didn't do a lot of explaining. I think that understanding was due to the point itself and the fact that you reread it.

                            If someone has to reread your message to understand it, perhaps the quality of the message can be improved so that this is not necessary. Again, the buffalo buffalo example is useful here - in most cases it will require many readings to understand. The sentence can be made simpler to understand by increasing the complexity (more words). This is an often seen problem in academic literature, especially philosophy.

                            I'd urge you to make sure that you're taking a swing at the right person when you come out swinging.

                            Apologies, this was not meant as an attack on you. My message was, at first, a general venting at people claiming CICO = everything. I misinterpreted your message as one aligned with this. Since understanding this, my entire goal has been to offer you constructive criticism on your communication/message.

                            Can you offer any advice on how to temper my words or perhaps communicate better to you that I want you to be a better speaker so that this miscommunication does not happen in the future to other people?

                            1. [2]
                              aphoenix
                              Link Parent
                              I understand this loud and clear.

                              I want you to be a better speaker so that this miscommunication does not happen in the future to other people?

                              I understand this loud and clear.

                              1 vote
    2. [6]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [5]
        Belds
        Link Parent
        You could get up at 5 or 6 to exercise but you could also just eat less. The choice is entirely up to you. I’m not saying you are but some people overlook the fact that they could just eat less....

        You could get up at 5 or 6 to exercise but you could also just eat less. The choice is entirely up to you.

        I’m not saying you are but some people overlook the fact that they could just eat less. And if you eat less you can also save money in the process.

        5 votes
        1. [5]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [2]
            Petril
            Link Parent
            But if you get zero exercise in the day but you eat less than the recommended amount, you'll lose weight. There's a reason why people who are chronically ill lose weight, and it sure as heck isn't...

            But if you get zero exercise in the day but you eat less than the recommended amount, you'll lose weight. There's a reason why people who are chronically ill lose weight, and it sure as heck isn't exercise. And it's for sure not all muscle atrophy, either.

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. Petril
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Woah. Buddy. It sounded like you were confused because you said "you need to do exercise, otherwise you're not going to lose fat." The person above you was talking about "eating less." You said...

                Woah. Buddy. It sounded like you were confused because you said "you need to do exercise, otherwise you're not going to lose fat." The person above you was talking about "eating less." You said "actually... it doesn't matter how little you eat if you don't get any exercise" (which is not true) and went on to talk about recommended amounts. So it sounded like you were confused.

                Good to know you're not actually confused. I'm not out to get you. Pinky swear.

                Edited for clarity.

                4 votes
          2. lemon-fresh
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Depends on how you calculate your "recommended" amount of calories. Your muscles also won't atrophy unless you're completely immobilised.

            Depends on how you calculate your "recommended" amount of calories. Your muscles also won't atrophy unless you're completely immobilised.

            3 votes
          3. Belds
            Link Parent
            Recommended calories are just general guidelines for an average person. If you move less then you need less calories. There’s no set amount of calories you should be eating. You do need some form...

            Recommended calories are just general guidelines for an average person. If you move less then you need less calories. There’s no set amount of calories you should be eating.

            You do need some form of exercise but that could be as simple as getting up, showering, walking to the car, driving to work etc. you don’t have to run or do jumping jacks or anything. Your body will adjust to the workload you need so you may get weaker but it shouldn’t really be an issue unless you take it to the extreme

  2. insomnic
    Link
    I wish there was a bit more to this article because it touches on the hardest part of being healthy as we get older: inertia. A body at rest wants to stay at rest ... a body in motion is easier to...

    I wish there was a bit more to this article because it touches on the hardest part of being healthy as we get older: inertia. A body at rest wants to stay at rest ... a body in motion is easier to keep in motion.

    I don't remember where I learned that phrasing of inactivity as inertia rather than motivation, but switching that up really helped me to look at my lowered activity levels differently. Got me moving more since I treated my exercise patterns more like physics rather than psychology. Started with little things to get moving and built up from there - and maintaining once goals were achieved only required little things to keep the momentum stable and healthy.

    The only trouble I had was when I completely dropped my routine ... I stopped for a year (life stuff interfered). I had to start over again with ramping back up to "cruising" mode.

    3 votes
  3. lemon-fresh
    Link
    I'm working out more often and more consistently than I ever had when I was younger and yet I like to blame my age for not being able to get my body fat down to the 10-12% range. This article...

    I'm working out more often and more consistently than I ever had when I was younger and yet I like to blame my age for not being able to get my body fat down to the 10-12% range. This article certainly made me consider how much more walking I was doing as a student compared to now (desk job, drive everywhere)... But I ate waaaayyy worse as well lol.

    Guess I just need to get even better at eating less and moving more.

    2 votes