400 people out of the total population of the U.S., which is over 3 hundred million? I’ll admit that there are people who haven’t registered on this site because they don’t know about it, or aren’t on the internet. But if even only 1 % of the people who qualify for their registry have signed up, that’s still a 1 in 7,500 chance of taking the weight off.
I think that likely proves Philster’s point more than yours.
Also, looking through their research, I found this:
(Low carbers, don’t get too excited. Only 10% of the members registered used a low-carb diet)
Reading through the articles can prove very enlightening. I see several articles which reinforce some of my statements:
It’s easier to maintain weight than it is to lose it
There is a wider variety of calories consumed and calories expended than can just be accounted for by weight alone.
Losing weight does not necessarily corelate to improvement in health.
That would be an incorrect label. I’m sure you can look up the definition of the term yourself to see that it has to do with mischaracterizing your position into something easily refutable. Likening world class hockey skill to losing weight was easily refutable all on its own. Yes, there is a physiological aspect to controlling your weight, but there’s a physiological component to everything we do/think/enjoy. While CrafterMan may be a very rare exception to the norm, the fact is that he DID lose weight and he DID apply willpower successfully. So you can probably see why he thinks it’s possible.
That was one study using some unknown (to us) percentage of their initial enrollment; the site has 5000 successful weight loss people registered. Picking some random percentage points and doing some math based on that is really really silly, btw*.
*eta: reminds me of the show “dragon’s den” where entrepeneurs try to get investment money. So often they lead off saying “This is a 2 billion dollar industry. If I can just corner 1% of that market…”. Yeah, well, you probably won’t!
The strawman argument was the idea of locking someone in a bathroom and reducing calories by force. I don’t propose that. It would work. Yes. That is not relevant to the issue of real people in the real world.
If you want to congratulate Crafter, you can do so.
The real world and all the efforts towards sustained weight loss make my argument solid. I’m going to go about my business and hope and want you all to succeed.
Nope, per pound. But it’s of LEAN body mass, not body mass. So you have to discount bones, fat, and water. At a minimum a sedentary person needs .5 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass, up to 1 gram per pound of lean mass for people who work out actively.
You know, it was this post from Submerged that got me involved in this thread. That, to me, seems to be saying you cannot have a diet where you eat those things and expect to lose weight. billfish said that you can’t deep-fry foods and lose weight. I’m only in here to refute that. I wouldn’t use the dusting flour in my chiles rellenos, but I’d use almond flour and it would be perfectly fine. One of my standard restaurant dishes is chicken wings–provided they’re not breaded, they’re one of the better options on my diet. I’ll frequently get an order of wings and a side salad. It’s one thing to say “Hey, Stoid, you probably won’t be successful on a low carb diet if you’re eating cornbread, because ingestion of so many carbs at once triggers more physiological carb cravings and makes it more difficult to maintain that sort of diet.” It’s another thing to say stuff like “You can’t eat these types of foods and lose weight.” You most certainly can–you just have to give up other types of foods. Types of foods that are, just so we’re clear, terrible for you.
I’m actually kind of sad that nobody’s taken me up on my offer. It’s much more sane than the one about 3,000 calories of meat.
It’s a good question, and I guess I’m not really sure how to answer it. My best guess is that there are aspects of my personality that have allowed me to sever an emotional attachment with food without a great deal of pain. For starters, I’m not all that of an emotional person to begin with. Secondly, I am an engineer, and I tend to look at things in a very logical and scientific fashion. Thirdly, I can be very focused & determined when I want to be.
And then there’s the underlying reason on why I do not want to be fat.
When I was in my early 20s I knew that, appearance wise, there were three strikes against me: 1) I was short (5 foot 6 inches), 2) I was bald, 3) I was fat. I did not want to be a “short, bald, fat guy.” There was nothing I could do about my height and baldness, but I knew there was something I could do about my weight. So that’s what’s been driving me all these years… a fear of becoming a short, bald, fat guy.
So in a nutshell, I changed my relationship with food. Instead of looking at food as a source of pleasure, I looked at it in a dubious, cold, and calculating way. To help me make the change, I looked at the situation as battle between me and the enemy (food). “Food is evil, and it is trying to do bad things to me. It wants to hurt me. I must not let it win. I will be the winner.” So I began using food (against its wishes) to simply give me nutrients and energy, and fought back its attempts to do bad things to me. Sounds weird, I know. But it worked for me.
I firmly believe that, if a fat person doesn’t fundamentally change their relationship with food, they have no chance of losing weight and *permanently *keeping it off.
This is a pretty massive thread at this point, so I’m not going to go combing through to refute every point, but I’ll share my general impression of what happened:
1.) **Stoid **claimed that calories don’t matter, and what’s important is getting rid of carbs (which includes replacing them with fat).
2.) People said that that (i.e., trading carbs for fat as calories-for-calories) would not work.
3.) People agreed that a low-carb diet could work, assuming that it also worked to lower your total caloric intake.
So people might not have explicitly said “replacing carbs with an equivalent amount of fatty things isn’t going to work,” but at least from my perspective that is very clearly what they meant, and I remember people more than one clarifying that you can in fact lose weight on any diet that lowers your caloric intake (up to an including nothing but junk food).
*Philster doesn’t realize that if you lock someone away in a room and feed them X, they will lose Y weight. Therefore, he can’t accept that weightloss/long-term success is possible for the masses if they were just do blah blah blah.
*
Strawman argument.^^^
The argument remains one about real people in the real world.
.
You claimed that “they didn’t want it badly enough” wasn’t valid, because someone can want to be a player in the NHL very badly and still not make it in. **Crafter_Man **was pointing out that this argument was fallacious, because while there is no way to guarantee a person who wants a spot in the NHL a position, you can guarantee weight loss for someone who wants to lose weight by forcing them to maintain a restricted-calorie diet. He didn’t say it was a plausible option, simply the literal truth.
Ergo, it wasn’t a strawman–you just made a terrible analogy, and he pointed out why it was terrible.
The strawman bit was NOT about the NHL. It was about the ridiculous argument about locking someone in a room and demonstrating they can lose weight. Tearing into this argument and demonstrating something about weight loss success was/is the issue.
That’s not my argument/position. I am operating in the real world, which has real world mechanisms, challenges… in the real world!
But that’s exactly the point. It’s extreme, but possible; there is no similarly extreme-but-possible method for getting into the NHL. The argument was not about whether it’s *easy *to lose weight; simply whether it’s physically possible.
Because it is physically possible for anyone to lose weight on a calorie-restricted diet, this means that anyone who wants to lose weight but “can’t” didn’t want to lose weight badly enough, because if they did want it badly enough, they would be using more extreme methods. Now, it’s possible that what they value more highly than losing weight is their health or their sanity. However, the fact still remains that if they had wanted to lose weight more, there were methods (hard, but not impossible) for them to do so.
That’s why it’s ridiculous for you to call it a “strawman.” It also reveals the weird attitude you’ve been displaying this entire thread about weightloss, one that would seem to bear no resemblance to reality.
If you re-read this, please note that it was your personality that allowed you to change your relationship with food. For another person, changing their relationship to food would be on par with changing their personality. Or possibly requiring them to flat-out change their personality.
What I’ve seen in the studies is that the people who were successful losing weight first had to choose something that they could live with. That, in reality, is what you did - you took an approach that is something you can live with. You have to work with people the way they are, not the way you are.
My problem is that you are saying “My way is the only way”, which then leads to “If you succeed, it’s because I’m right, but if you fail, it’s because you are wrong”. Heads you win, tails don’t count.
Bear in mind, I don’t think that Atkins/Taube works because carbs are the problem - I think when it works, it works because it’s a diet that some people can live with.
I don’t see him saying that. I see him saying “This is what worked for me. It’s one way, and it’s available to everyone, but there may be similar but different ways that would work for you.” That’s certainly what I am saying.
If it is physically possible for a fat person to lose weight (which is *always *the case), and if their arms and hands are controlled by their brain, then they can use their brain to control the types and quantities of food they put in their mouth. Saying that they “don’t have this control” is a lie. They do have this control. They have simply made a decision that the pleasure they receive from food trumps the pleasure of being a normal weight.
Going from Obese to ideal BMI and sustaining it for years: It’s practically unobtainable. It’s, essentially, been a failing proposition, except for the scant few… and I call them freaks… medical freaks.
You can all blather on and cling to the hope that is Crafter Man. He has a course that seems, again, unlikely to work. We’re back to another technique, trying to reach some mental state. Okay, like that’s never been done before.
I support all these methods. From every conceivable angle, I have been in the mix, and would offer anyone the best technique for them. I’ve seen everything from surgery and mental approaches that run the gamut.
I cannot ignore reality. Given the vast array of approaches to the issue at hand, I still see nary a hope for obese people. But they are entitled to try! If we throw thousands upon thousands of people into the fight and a scant few come out better, I believe that is better than nothing, and a few might get some exercise and stop getting bigger, if not getting/staying thinner long term.
I am certainly not saying my way is the “only” way. If you can *permanently *maintain a healthy BMI using a different method, all the power to you, and you will hear no argument from me. But please tell us how you did it so the rest of us can benefit.
I only know the way I did it, and it has worked. I am relating my story so that others might be able to benefit.
And as I mentioned a couple other times, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every person I know who
a) was fat or obese, and
b) lost the weight, and
c) kept it off for more than five years
did it by
a) changing their relationship with food, and
b) drastically cutting back on the amount of fat consumed, and
c) cutting way back on calories consumed, and
d) eating a well-balanced diet primarily consisting of fresh fruit, vegetables, fish, and lean meat (mainly poultry), and
e) cutting out fast food and fried foods
Let me give this a try. I think Crafterman’s point is this.
If various diets and minor behavior modification DON’T work, you have to go the next step and actually change your relationship with food.
Many folks are saying the first two just don’t work for some folks. Which is obviously true. Crafters point is they arent going to the next step.
Now maybe some/many folks CAN’T do that, but I suspect that a decent fraction of folks that can’t control their weight haven’t tried to change their relationship with food, hence the never ending parade of diets/fad/gimicks/tricks that don’t work for them.
A diet is not changing your relationship with food.
Dieting is to marital problems as changing your relationship to food is to spousal abuse. One is for tweaking a minor problem. The other is for dealing with a major life problem.
