Oh okay, you’re having the same problem with ‘simple’ and ‘easy’ as brazil84.
Both are false statements. Let’s focus on the claim of “simple”:
I have, more times than I’d care to count, linked to a variety of sources that explain just a small bit of the state of the art in the science of understanding obesity. Many specifically regarding the concept of “settling points” and the very complex mechanisms involved that function to preserve a certain body mass within any given individual. (From changes in metabolism, in non-exercise induced thermogenesis, to brain mechanisms, to a variety of very complex messaging changes in multiple systems that cross talk …) I cannot claim to understand all the complexity myself; heck the complexity is not fully understood by anyone yet.
Simple it aint.
Perhaps a more serious response would also be useful …
Was chunking yourself up from clinically underweight (which is associated with greater mortality risk than is overweight or obese) either simple or easy? Was it just a matter of eating more calories and exercising less? Having accomplished that goal do you think someone telling someone who is seriously underweight to “just eat a sammich” is helpful?
Yay for you!! Good on ya!! (That is NOT sarcasm).
I’m a little late to this party (the post I’m quoting is maybe 5 pages ago?) but I just want to give some props to Inigo for telling it like it is: he understands and will not dispute the assertion made by the OP (and how can you with a straight face?). He simply doesn’t “care to live that way”.
That is his (her?) choice, and it succinctly sums up the entire issue here. IOW-- it can be done, and in fact it is done all the time. It’s just that some people simply choose not to do it. Simple.
At least Inigo comes right out and admits it without the all the whiny, bullshit excuses.
Be honest; be true to yourself. End of story.
Agreed. But even without looking at the underlying physiology, it’s reasonably clear that these things are not simple. This is clear from the fact that weight loss programs fail so often and the fact that when people quit smoking, it usually takes a number of attempts to succeed.
If it were simple (like turning off a non-broken hair dryer), nobody would have to make numerous attempts to do so. There are not hundreds of books written on how to turn off a hair dryer. People don’t spend hours discussing online the best way to turn off a hair dryer.
Successful dieting (and quitting smoking) are only “simple” in the trivial sense that the actual physical activities involved can be described very easily: “just cease smoking” “just eat less” etc.
But that’s silly. If we were having a discussion of how to make money in the stock market, and somebody wandered into the thread and said “it’s very simple: just buy low and sell high,” everyone would correctly realize that the speaker’s statement is meaningless. If a drug addiction counselor said “It’s very simple, just taper your drug use over the next couple months and then cease completely,” any reasonable person would realize that the counselor is being an ass.
I agree that this is an important distinction. I think cigarettes cause a more intense craving than food, but at least with cigarettes you aren’t constantly trying to figure out what the ideal level of consumption is. With food, it’s a lot easier to fool yourself into thinking that you aren’t breaking your diet.
I’ll give you an example. In Post #271, I asked if this “Andy Griffin” you mentioned quit on his very first try.
Instead of simply saying, “I don’t know,” you responded as follows:
i.e. you did not respond to the question and instead tried to change the issue.
Lol, nice cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps the failure to understand is on your part.
Here is the original exchange:
If people in Loach’s camp concede that weight loss (and quitting smoking) are technically simple but not easy, then what point are they trying to make by asserting that to quit smoking, you “just stop smoking”? Are they disagreeing with bump’s point? If so, how?
I don’t dispute that at all. For most people, quitting smoking is not a matter of “just stopping.” It is a difficult psychological process which usually entails a lot of failed attempts.
There might be a few people out there who can “just stop,” but I think it’s pretty unusual. Also, people have a tendency to lie about these sorts of things. They don’t like to admit to themselves or others that they are or were addicted to something. It gives them a smug feeling of superiority to tell others that they “just stopped.”
The bottom line is that bump is right on this issue. It’s arrogant and idiotic to tell people that you “just eat less and exercise” to lose weight as if it’s like turning off a hair dryer.
It reminds me of the scene in Meatballs when one of the campers is competing in a high jump and he asks Bill Murrary’s character for advice. The advice? “Try to jump very very high.” Which is funny, because it’s technically correct but ultimately meaningless. Telling somebody to “just stop smoking” or to “eat less and exercise more” is no different.
Yes my first time.
This is not your first time being a fucking idiot.
Wow, very impressive. This message board is full of impressive, atypical people. :rolleyes:
Anyway, do you agree that what you did was unusual?
No, you are an idiot – if you think that generally speaking, quitting smoking is like unplugging a hair dryer. Do you actually think so?
The comparison between smoking and being fat is like comparing apples to a Sherman tank. The two things are not equal in any way shape or form.
Nicotine is physically addictive. To the best of my knowledge food is not. (Although I have my doubts about Krispy Kreme donuts)
You can quit smoking and live a long and healthy life. You cannot quit food and expect to live a long and healthy life.
We have to keep eating. Not so with smoking.
Now you will have to excuse me I have a date with my bicycle and about 30 miles of road as I work to lose some weight.
Confession time:
In an earlier thread (guess it was two weeks ago?), I expressed confusion and frustration about an article that highlighted how a person had to maintain a diet of 2300 calories to maintain their weight at 190 lbs, as if 2300 calories is such a hardship that it’s no wonder so many people are fat.
I still don’t understand this. 2300 calories is not a small amount of calories. I can see how 1600 calories* is restrictive (that’s what I aim for). I can even see how it might be hard to do 2000 every day. But 2300 calories? That’s 700 calories per meal, plus some change for snacking. If you are eating 700 calories for breakfast and you are not training for a marathon, why are you surprised that you are overweight?
So that article, which was written to elicit understanding and sympathy for fat people trying to lose weight, had the opposite effect on me. It made me think that there’s a lot of whining going on, and that people really are a trip in this day and age.
My judgmental-ness has diminished a little bit since then, as I’ve really tried to put myself in other people’s shoes. For instance, I can see how a person might be focused on maintaining themselves at 2000, but neglect to take into account the invisible snacking that happens in the day (someone offers you some peanuts, you take a corner of a donut left in the workplace breakroom, your kid gets a sloppy ice cream cone and you lick it down for them, you get carried away tasting the spaghetti sauce). But still, in my mind 300 calories isn’t that big of a deal if a person has already tucked away 2000 calories. I admit that would have a hard time listening to someone who says differently.
*For me, keeping to 1600 is not that big of a deal. Sometimes I go over by a little, but then the next day I go under by the same amount and it’s all good. But I know that if someone told me I had to drop down to 1300, I would find this very burdensome. Even if I didn’t feel hunger pangs, psychologically I wouldn’t be able to handle it (apart from knowing that it would not be enough to sustain me). Maybe it’s the same for anyone else, regardless of what they are used to? I don’t know. I guess I’m thinking about this too hard.
2300 seems like a lot. I think my weight maintenance is somewhere between 1500 and 1800 calories. When I’m trying to lose weight, I shoot for 1200, unless I’m exercising vigorously, in which case I shoot for 1500. I have never really found eating within my calorie range to be that difficult. The difficult part is keeping up the motivation to do it, and consistently tracking.
You know, I was just thinking that there are some permanent changes I have made in my diet with basically no problem. I switched from white to brown rice, we only eat rice or quinoa pasta, I eat way more beans and vegetables than I used to, red meat very rarely, and shoot for 3-4oz of meat per meal. I’ve been maintaining those changes since 2008. It helps that my husband is allergic to everything on the planet, so I really have no choice but to cook wheat-free, dairy-free, heavy-sauce free food. But I have learned how to do it well.
It’s all that in-between stuff that gets me.
I don’t disagree. In my observation, what has impelled a permanent change in my smoking friends has most often been a major life change, usually, the birth of a child. I can’t believe how many of my former smoking buddies just stopped after they had a kid. These people I’m sure had failed attempts to stop before, and it was the psychological weight of being responsible for their child’s health that finally flipped that switch in their head.
I do think that permanent weight loss is much more difficult than permanently kicking the smoking habit. I know a lot of people who succeeded in the latter. Not too many with the former.
Evidence has been coming out for years that food can be addictive just like drugs.
Here’s a quote:
In any event, it’s clear that a large percentage of otherwise normal people consume unhealthy foods even though they know that those foods are unhealthy and even though they know eating those foods will undermine their goals. Fundamentally, how is that any different from people who succumb to the cravings to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes?
Besides which, it is clear that there is at least one similarity, which is that quitting smoking and successfully dieting are not simple like turning off a light switch is simple.
Ah yes, the famous “I know you are but what am I?” technique perfected by the great philosopher Peewee Herman.
No I would not equate the hardest thing I have ever done (and I’m a combat vet) to unplugging a hair dryer. And I never did. As others have stated you seem to not understand the difference between simple and easy.
If you’re 190 pounds, that doesn’t sound off to me. It does depend, though, on how much muscle you have, your height, your age, your activity level, etc. According to my food diary, when I was at 195, I was eating 1700-1900 calories per day on my diet, and doing circuit weight sets, and I was losing at a pace of about 2 lb/week. I’m 170 lbs now, and my maintenance level for the last few years has been around 2500 calories per day, but I do consider myself relatively active. That said, I don’t run 6 miles a day 6 days a week as religiously as I used to, but I find other ways to keep on my feet and moving, because most of my day is spent in front of a computer.
I think **monstro **means that 2300 sounds like a lot of food, enough to be satisfying and sufficient to keep a person sated.
Lol, it may be a cliche, but it would appear to be true.
Well let me ask you this. What did you mean by this statement:
Were you simply pointing out that the actual physical activity involved in quitting smoking is very simple? Or were you making a statement about the difficulty involved in quitting smoking?
Actually, the first definition at dictionary.com for simple is as follows:
But let me ask you this:
If your position is that quitting smoking is simple (in the technical sense that all you are doing is not using cigarettes) but not easy, what is the point of posting a message asserting that quitting smoking simple? Do you think anyone is unaware of that fact? Do you think anyone disagrees?
Do you think anyone doesn’t know (or disputes) that the actual physical aspect of quitting smoking is extremely simple?