The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum

Quote from: jt512 on Today at 04:55:04 AM

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 04:32:37 AM

Quote from: jt512 on Today at 12:23:47 AM

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 12:04:43 AMI've just thought of something else:

I'm asking why there's an increasing epidemic (it's getting to be a pandemic with the globalisation of the American lifestyle) of people being overweight or obese.

You're asking what is the best way of treating people when they're overweight or obese.

They're different questions.

I agree that those are different questions and that both are important. But I'm asking neither one. I'm actually not asking any question at all. I'm saying that weight loss is proportional to calorie deficit, and to a very good first approximation, therefore, it doesn't matter whether you create that deficit by decreasing calorie intake, increasing calorie expenditure, or a combination of both. All that matters is the magnitude of the deficit.

QuoteThe study I linked to at the start of this thread wasn't asking about exercise as a treatment.

Nobody cares about that study. We've all moved on.

QuoteI think that there's the epidemic because people are eating excess calories, not that they're expending fewer calories.  People are still expending around 2500 kca per day, but consuming 3000 kcal per day.

I largely agree with that. As I've said before, the largest cause of the obesity epidemic in the US is the portion sizes of our meals that we've become accustomed to. And it's not just in fast food restaurants. It's ubiquitous. We get a lot of visitors from Europe. They all can't believe how large a typical restaurant meal here is.

But lack of exercise is a problem, too. Compared to Europe, we are a very sedentary population.

So the aggressive advertising and marketing of ultraprocessed junk food high in sugars, fats and salt aren't a problem in producing the obesity epidemic?  Sugared beverages aren't a problem?  Industrial bread containing so much sugar that they're more cake than bread isn't  a problem?

Anyhow.  I've just got from the gym.  According to my super-accurate heart rate monitor, I've just expended 1070 kcal, so I now have your permission to have a double cheese burger and large regular coke - when I finally feel hungry after my overnight fast.

You're acting like an idiot. Get back to me when you're ready to act like scientist again.

And where are your figures showing that Americans consume much more calories than Europeans.  According to this report it's the same for Americans and Europeans:

https://www.fao.org/3/cc2212en/cc2212en.pdf

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 04:32:37 AM

Quote from: jt512 on Today at 12:23:47 AM

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 12:04:43 AMI've just thought of something else:

I'm asking why there's an increasing epidemic (it's getting to be a pandemic with the globalisation of the American lifestyle) of people being overweight or obese.

You're asking what is the best way of treating people when they're overweight or obese.

They're different questions.

I agree that those are different questions and that both are important. But I'm asking neither one. I'm actually not asking any question at all. I'm saying that weight loss is proportional to calorie deficit, and to a very good first approximation, therefore, it doesn't matter whether you create that deficit by decreasing calorie intake, increasing calorie expenditure, or a combination of both. All that matters is the magnitude of the deficit.

QuoteThe study I linked to at the start of this thread wasn't asking about exercise as a treatment.

Nobody cares about that study. We've all moved on.

QuoteI think that there's the epidemic because people are eating excess calories, not that they're expending fewer calories.  People are still expending around 2500 kca per day, but consuming 3000 kcal per day.

I largely agree with that. As I've said before, the largest cause of the obesity epidemic in the US is the portion sizes of our meals that we've become accustomed to. And it's not just in fast food restaurants. It's ubiquitous. We get a lot of visitors from Europe. They all can't believe how large a typical restaurant meal here is.

But lack of exercise is a problem, too. Compared to Europe, we are a very sedentary population.

So the aggressive advertising and marketing of ultraprocessed junk food high in sugars, fats and salt aren't a problem in producing the obesity epidemic?  Sugared beverages aren't a problem?  Industrial bread containing so much sugar that they're more cake than bread isn't  a problem?

Anyhow.  I've just got from the gym.  According to my super-accurate heart rate monitor, I've just expended 1070 kcal, so I now have your permission to have a double cheese burger and large regular coke - when I finally feel hungry after my overnight fast.

You're acting like an idiot. Get back to me when you're ready to act like scientist again.

Quote from: jt512 on Today at 12:23:47 AM

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 12:04:43 AMI've just thought of something else:

I'm asking why there's an increasing epidemic (it's getting to be a pandemic with the globalisation of the American lifestyle) of people being overweight or obese.

You're asking what is the best way of treating people when they're overweight or obese.

They're different questions.

I agree that those are different questions and that both are important. But I'm asking neither one. I'm actually not asking any question at all. I'm saying that weight loss is proportional to calorie deficit, and to a very good first approximation, therefore, it doesn't matter whether you create that deficit by decreasing calorie intake, increasing calorie expenditure, or a combination of both. All that matters is the magnitude of the deficit.

QuoteThe study I linked to at the start of this thread wasn't asking about exercise as a treatment.

Nobody cares about that study. We've all moved on.

QuoteI think that there's the epidemic because people are eating excess calories, not that they're expending fewer calories.  People are still expending around 2500 kca per day, but consuming 3000 kcal per day.

I largely agree with that. As I've said before, the largest cause of the obesity epidemic in the US is the portion sizes of our meals that we've become accustomed to. And it's not just in fast food restaurants. It's ubiquitous. We get a lot of visitors from Europe. They all can't believe how large a typical restaurant meal here is.

But lack of exercise is a problem, too. Compared to Europe, we are a very sedentary population.

So the aggressive advertising and marketing of ultraprocessed junk food high in sugars, fats and salt aren't a problem in producing the obesity epidemic?  Sugared beverages aren't a problem?  Industrial bread containing so much sugar that they're more cake than bread isn't  a problem?

Anyhow.  I've just got from the gym.  According to my super-accurate heart rate monitor, I've just expended 1070 kcal, so I now have your permission to have a double cheese burger and large regular coke - when I finally feel hungry after my overnight fast.

Connections
Puzzle #108
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟨🟨🟨🟨

Quote from: bachfiend on Today at 12:04:43 AMI've just thought of something else:

I'm asking why there's an increasing epidemic (it's getting to be a pandemic with the globalisation of the American lifestyle) of people being overweight or obese.

You're asking what is the best way of treating people when they're overweight or obese.

They're different questions.

I agree that those are different questions and that both are important. But I'm asking neither one. I'm actually not asking any question at all. I'm saying that weight loss is proportional to calorie deficit, and to a very good first approximation, therefore, it doesn't matter whether you create that deficit by decreasing calorie intake, increasing calorie expenditure, or a combination of both. All that matters is the magnitude of the deficit.

QuoteThe study I linked to at the start of this thread wasn't asking about exercise as a treatment.

Nobody cares about that study. We've all moved on.

QuoteI think that there's the epidemic because people are eating excess calories, not that they're expending fewer calories.  People are still expending around 2500 kca per day, but consuming 3000 kcal per day.

I largely agree with that. As I've said before, the largest cause of the obesity epidemic in the US is the portion sizes of our meals that we've become accustomed to. And it's not just in fast food restaurants. It's ubiquitous. We get a lot of visitors from Europe. They all can't believe how large a typical restaurant meal here is.

But lack of exercise is a problem, too. Compared to Europe, we are a very sedentary population.

I don't mind generic TV violence, even large battles and mass killings, when it doesn't go in depth on the details. I do mind torture and scenes where they take care to make it about the suffering and the intentions to cause suffering.

Not just for what they're showing, but for what it says about the writers and directors and what they're choosing to make the story about. Especially if they have supposed good guys be involved in it, and not face consequences for it. But even the villains, you don't have to show it, you don't have to go for the shock factor. Implied violence is plenty.

Quote from: bachfiend on September 26, 2023, 11:44:31 PM

Quote from: jt512 on September 26, 2023, 09:40:44 PM

Quote from: CarbShark on September 26, 2023, 05:44:06 AM

Quote from: jt512 on September 25, 2023, 07:48:41 PMSo, to recap. We are now all in agreement that if you are in energy balance, then (1) increasing exercise increases your total energy expenditures, (2) doing that while maintaining your current diet leads to negative energy balance, (3) and that in turn loses to weight loss.

On paper, yes.

Are we all agreed then that in clinical trials where exercise is used by itself as a weight loss intervention it has not found to be effective...

No. When exercise is sufficient in quantity and closely supervised, so that compliance is assured, clinical trials have shown that exercise alone is effective in producing weight loss. Look at these results, for example:



These are results from a 10-month clinical trial in which untrained overweight and obese male and female subjects were randomized either to control (no exercise) or to 5-day-a-week aerobic training, that was progressively increased to either 400 kcal or 600 kcal per session. No dietary advice was provided. All exercise sessions were supervised by study personnel to ensure that the target exercise expenditures were achieved at every session.

Both exercise groups lost body weight and fat and gained lean body mass. Those in the 600-kcal group, naturally, lost more weight and fat than those in the 400-kcal group. There were no significant difference between sexes.

BMR was measured throughout the 10-month study and did not decrease, despite the beliefs of bachfiend, which disagree with the entire literature on the subject.

Except for having to come into the lab for an hour or so 5 days a week, subjects maintained their normal lifestyles. Thus, subjects lost weight despite whatever compensatory mechanisms you, bachfiend, and the other exercise deniers think occurs.

Quote...and where exercise has been used with a weight loss diet it has not been found to be significantly more effective than the weight loss diet by itself?

No, I haven't seen that. What I have seen is that the combination of diet and exercise produces greater effecgts than either one alone, as almost must be the case. Weight loss is proportional to energy deficit.

How do you know that the participants who are making the effort to come into a lab 5 times a week for 10 months aren't making other changes in their lifestyles including diet?

First of all, the investigators monitored diet by multiple means including diet diaries, multiple 24-hour recalls, and direct observation of ad libitum eating, and they found no changes over the course of the study.

But, let me get this straight: you think that subjects randomized to each group changed their diet in proportion to the number of calories of exercise they did. And that that accounts for the results of the study.

QuoteYou have the hypothesis that the intervention participants haven't changed their diets.  Where is the evidence for your hypothesis?

No. You have the hypothesis that subjects changed their diets (and, in fact, did so in proportion to the amount of exercise they were assigned to do). Where is the evidence for that absurd notion?

Apparently, you just believe that calories burned by exercise somehow don't lead to lead to weight loss, and you will go to any ridiculous length to defend that belief. I learned a long time ago not to bother arguing with fanatics. See ya.

I've just thought of something else:

I'm asking why there's an increasing epidemic (it's getting to be a pandemic with the globalisation of the American lifestyle) of people being overweight or obese.

You're asking what is the best way of treating people when they're overweight or obese.

They're different questions.

The study I linked to at the start of this thread wasn't asking about exercise as a treatment.

I think that there's the epidemic because people are eating excess calories, not that they're expending fewer calories.  People are still expending around 2500 kca per day, but consuming 3000 kcal per day.

I think the answer to your question is that overweight and obese people should first change their diet, and also do the exercise they can tolerate, if they can tolerate it, to improve their fitness.