Island Life by David Slack

Read Post

Island Life: The Prime Minister will see you now

324 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    BenWilson, good to see you can admit to being wrong! I have respect for anyone who can do that.

    Heh, I'm wrong hundreds of times every day. So far as I'm concerned, it's the only way to move forward. Insisting on being right before acting leads to paralysis, and knowledge does not grow.

    But so far as advice for fat people goes, I'm still waiting for the alternative solutions. So far we've got mine that doesn't work for everyone, and a couple of others that are so damned drastic that they're hardly the basis for public policy. What else does anyone have to offer?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Crikey, I think we're getting close to some sort of agreement!

    To appeal to MY personal experience for a moment, weight loss is vastly easier if you regulate the proportions of different foods as well as count calories. Eg, calories from alcohol are special, I can tell you. I've never tried to lose very much, only 5-10kg for athletic reasons, so I haven't faced the challenges of a more overweight person, but what I find is that doing it with calorie counting alone - energy in vs energy out - is brain-dead. For that matter, the kind of activity you do matters. If you can handle short bouts of interval training, you get more weight loss than long bouts of less intense activity, even though the work done (in a physics sense) is the same.

    (Also, and not that it matters, but I assumed dyan was a woman. Perhaps that means that dyan has developed a truly gender-neutral style...)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Danielle, you were going to get bitter no matter what. Face it. ... Seems to me you're bitter to your very core about the entire position I hold. I'm a very bad man for not just doing as I'm told...

    Oh lawdy. The whining. Dude, just a nugget of advice from your pal, Bitter McGee: you might want to rethink this particular line of argument in future discussions, because it's... kind of unintentionally hilarious. :)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • dyan campbell,

    Eg, if you swap out 400kJ of energy from legumes and vegetables, and replace it with white sugar, you will get fatter. Same energy intake, same activity levels, different hormonal response. I am sure that is what Dyan is talking about.

    Yes, thank you Stephen, exactly . Also consume white sugar and the absence of nutrients will signal your brain to forage for more food... this is exactly what I mean.

    This is only part of it: HPA axis describes a paradoxical situation where your adrenals on overdrive (i.e. stress) make you store abdominal fat, and that abdominal fat secretes cytokines that make you more stressed. The ultimate vicious circle.

    But I'm still not convinced Dyan actually gets it at all, and considers the human body a temple exempt from said immutable laws. He can tell me otherwise.

    No, what I said was that you don't understand enough physics, chemistry, biochemistry, endocrinology or clinical chemistry to make any sense. I said:

    "Ben, I'm not saying physics are not relevant, what I'm saying is that your simplistic application of Newtonion physics is not really relevant when talking about endocrine function; not in the way you believe it to be, anyway."

    You're so caught up in your endocrinology you can't see that no matter what your endocrines are secreting, they aren't creating fat from nothing. That is a physical impossibility. OK, get it?

    Er, no, I didn't say anything about people getting fat from eating nothing. I said people could get fat from eating very little. And I said that two identical people eating identical diets could gain different amounts of weight in different places on their bodies, depending on the level of stress they experience.

    If you think the human body functions like an internal combustion engine, you should have a look at what happens when someone suffering from type1 diabetes (formerly known as "juvenile onset") eats a tremendous amount... no matter how much they consume, they are emaciated and slowly starve to death. With kidney complications. Just add insulin...

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 595 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Christ, and some of you complain that copyright threads go round and round.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19743 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Danielle, I've got simpler advice for you: Don't take it personally.

    Dyan, I never said people couldn't get fat from eating very little. But somewhere between whatever you mean by very little, and nothing, they will lose fat.

    As for the identical people with identical diets blah, blah fucking blah, I never disagreed with that. Obviously there are lots of factors. But I have a way of measuring them that doesn't have to wait for the total perfection of dietary science.

    I never said the human body functions like an internal combustion engine either. It was simply a point about how you can measure output without pulling the engine apart and understanding it's internal physics. That's just not necessary.

    Similarly, you can find that break even point which you seem to feel does not exist because of your superior knowledge of all science, (as opposed to my more simple expedient of actually experimenting to see) by cutting back until the raw measure, whichever one it is that you're concerned about, starts to come down. That's science that children can understand. And it actually works too. I don't know if it works for every person. Maybe there is someone who has a body for which there is actually no gap between what you call 'very little food' and no food at all. I'm struggling to think why you can't cut 'very little' in half. Is it atomic? Is there a basic, indivisible unit of food?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Danielle, I've got simpler advice for you: Don't take it personally.

    Um, OK. I'll try not to take being called 'bitter to my very core' by someone who doesn't know me at all personally. I'm just a playah-hatah, I know, I know.

    If you're talking about this discussion, I have been particularly careful *not* to talk about myself and my own experiences, because I don't think it's useful to universalise my own life and assume it will be relevant to everyone else. You might be familiar with that tactic? You've been using it for pages now.

    I don't have PCOS. I don't have type II diabetes. I am squat, but I am not duplicitous about food. None of the things you think I'm taking personally are personal. I just disagree with you, because I think you are wrong. Accept it, dude.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Ben, you would stir a lot less shit if you didn't choose really poor examples and analogies and just said what you meant from the get-go. From my perspective your choice of anecdote, vocabulary and example couldn't be more calculated to create misunderstanding of the points you want to make.

    All I've learned from you is this:
    - you have a fat mate who ate in secret
    - you think calorie restriction is all that's necessary for successful weight loss
    - you think calorie restriction always works
    - you personally have succeeded in losing weight through calorie restriction alone
    - you have a very, er, unnuanced view of what's involved in losing weight

    1. doesn't prove anything (and muddied the water a lot too).
    2. might be true, but lots of other things help too, and allow people to eat more satisfyingly and healthily.
    3. is definitely not true, especially over time, for the vast majority of dieters, and it's certainly not easy (I think we might actually agree on the "not easy" part, but disagree on whether "willpower" is an important factor or has a moral dimension).
    4. is an admirable achievement, but it's not proof that your approach works for everyone.
    5. keeping intake <= output is a necessary factor, but it's not the only one, and in fact it's a small one compared to all the others that confront people who might want to weigh less than they do.

    I've said everything I want to say; thank you and good night.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Um, OK. I'll try not to take being called 'bitter to my very core' by someone who doesn't know me at all personally.

    I've just had to put up with a lot of attitude from you all day, that's pretty much where I got that conclusion. Because you took it personally. Conjecture. Could be wrong. Maybe you like stirring shit too.

    As for not talking about your experiences, fine, you stick to your style. I personally like to hear from people who have actually tried things rather than just read about them, and I figure there are other people like me out there.

    Stephen, I kind of had an inkling that a tedious fight was in the offing the moment Danielle showed up and started ragging on me. I could have let it slip there, but I wanted to hear at least one refutation of a fairly solid theory, which is by no means my complete view on dieting. That was never asked for, and I will never give it. It's too obvious for general consumption.

    As for the intake restriction (I never said anything about counting calories. In fact, I don't need to know anything about calories).
    ROR for your points:
    1. It proves a lot. It proves that it's not magic, or impossible. In fact, it's simple.
    2. Never denied that. It's a backup. That's how I use it.
    3. Did I say it was easy? Hell, I never even said it was worthwhile. That's a choice for the individual. All I said was that it's simple and possible.
    4. Nor was it sold as such. But it could be the vast majority. Or even a substantial minority. Or it could even be one person out there, who might try it. In all cases, it's worth saying it.
    5. Aha! So it is a necessary factor. I'm calling it a night.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Round and round and round..

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19743 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    I lurve the way BenWilson says, apropos Danielle's reasonable - indeed contained & quite stringent commentary -"I've just had to put up with a lot attitude from you all day"---anybody hear daddy calling kid out? Tho' I'm not sure that isnt kid stamping it's foot-

    anyway, the feedback to BenWilson's almost-wholly self-involved statements has been awesome - thank you everyone else! I've learned quite a bit (and onsent some posts to family members.) Cheers, sweet dreams-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Ben - so let me summarise. You're right, everyone else has misunderstood you, so we're kind of all wrong. Good on you mate.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Actually, it seems very similar to a copyright thread. You're trying to have a conversation when along comes someone who is underinformed, won't listen and will not acknowledge being wrong even in the face of concerted reasoning and demonstrable expertise. Still at least you're not getting the schoolboy passive-aggressive number here. Good on you all.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19743 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    No Sacha, apparently *I* am the only one who gets that. :)

    I've just had to put up with a lot of attitude from you all day, that's pretty much where I got that conclusion. Because you took it personally. Conjecture. Could be wrong. Maybe you like stirring shit too.

    Ben, I hope I have done you the courtesy of not speculating on possible faults in your personality, or your motivations, be they corrupt or pure, for having this argument. I would really appreciate it if you could do the same for me. Because we don't actually know each other.

    As for not talking about your experiences, fine, you stick to your style. I personally like to hear from people who have actually tried things rather than just read about them, and I figure there are other people like me out there.

    I am not saying that personal anecdotes are irrelevant. On the contrary, I often think they are useful and illustrative, and many people here have talked about their own lives. However, your *entire argument* is based on you and your experiences. That's not particularly helpful, and I think it's made your argument both weak in some places and completely wrong in others.

    I kind of had an inkling that a tedious fight was in the offing the moment Danielle showed up and started ragging on me.

    Dude, I have actually had less passive-aggressive crap from people I have seen naked. Could you, perhaps, save this sort of thing for people *you* have seen naked?

    (I'm not saying your argument didn't irritate me, btw. It certainly did. But it was because it was, like, so *wrong*! Not because this is some personal vendetta of mine.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Newsprint,

    @Stephen. You have an amazing skill. Are you, in fact, The Voice of Reason?

    Wellington • Since Mar 2008 • 42 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Round and round and round..

    I've taken to sitting on my hands.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    *blush*

    I'll admit to being the Voice of Compulsive Argument. Except today, because I have a cold, so I'm the Hoarse Whisper of Contention.

    But doing one's apprenticeship on Usenet in the old days certainly helps.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    <quote>I've taken to sitting on my hands.

    I've just barely resisted wading in myself. Actually, having started typing I'm so sorely tempted to do so, but ... gah. That was close.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Oops, quote fail. Needed more attentiveness and less stream of consciousness.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Heather W.,

    The Obesity Action Coalition has released their report "Food Security for Pacific Peoples in NZ". So far the main talking point the mainstream media have taken from the 60 page report is that Polynesians can't afford healthy food so have no choice other than unhealthy/obesity causing foods.

    North Shore • Since Nov 2008 • 189 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Thanks for that link Heather W - will read & urm digest the pdf-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    Could we just say that weight gain/loss is primarily a function of food intake and energy use (as per Ben) while readily conceding that there also a number of other important environmental, genetic, biological, cultural and economic factors. We could even concede that as a practical matter, most people will use diet and exercise as a means to control their weight.

    While recognising the feminist element of the issue, we could also say that long term changes in behaviour may be more effectively brought by psychological techniques that avoid making people feel bad about themselves. (You know, before someone tries to set Ben on fire.)

    I like friends. Let's be friends.

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Could we just say that......

    I'll back that WH and well put I thought.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    (You know, before someone tries to set Ben on fire.)

    According to Keith, burning things at Earth Hour is a bad idea anyway.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Jake Pollock,

    You can also use cigarettes for that, Steven.

    Raumati South • Since Nov 2006 • 489 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.