Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Physically it's very simple So is cutting your arm off with a hacksaw. "Simple" does not mean "easy."
And that is exactly taneq's point.
Then he made it very poorly, as the other responses here attest.
The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
331–340 of 348 posts
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried that theory for 20 years, and it didn't work for me. I've always been active, playing lots of sports and going to the gym regularly, hiking, biking, running, etc.. Unless I'm counting calories, I always compensate for exercise by eating more. I finally realized exercise alone wouldn't help me lose weight. In general, you probably can't get rid of a little hunger. If you want to lose weight and be in a calorie…
I should have been a bit more explicit - I meant life after weight loss. The problem was apparently that maintaining a healthy weight requires being perpetually hungry. I was wondering if being able to afford 3 solid meals and some snacks without gaining weight would help with that appetite issue.
I understand. FWIW, in my mind what I said applies to life after weight loss. I still speculate that exercising more to eat more doesn't solve the appetite issue. At least for me anyway. Here's why. The comment you replied to made the hunger out to be an issue so large that it affects quality of life drastically and negatively, and so significant that the alternatives - not losing weight and the problems that come with that choice - are preferable to the extreme hunger. I have no doubt some people legitimately feel this way.
My experience counting calories and adjusting to the hunger are all about being just a little more hungry. I'm not starving or ravenous at any point, I stay only a sliver shy of satisfied. I don't let the hunger get uncontrollable, and if I'm ever crazy starving, I eat. I never get crazy starving when I'm counting calories, though, because if I exercise a lot I eat a lot, and if I don't work out then I don't get as hungry.
Before I mentioned adjusting mentally to seeing a little hunger as good rather than bad. That helps. Quality of life is a relative and subjective idea, and within reasonable limits, people can and do adjust to being equally happy with less. If weight loss is a goal, then I'm suggesting that seeing a little hunger as a good thing is a way to re-calibrate your quality of life detector, not a way to compromise. If you want to lose weight, then the feeling of being sated, and the weight gain that comes with it, isn't a higher quality of life. It's more than you need and includes potentially negative side effects.
Another mental change I made that I didn't mention before is that when I had success counting calories, I set my calorie limit to what it "should" be forever, based on standard age / height / goal weight charts. I never had a life after weight loss, I didn't temporarily reduce it further than that like most people who diet try to do. I just set it to what it should be for the long term. I knew this would make it take longer to lose weight, but I wanted to form a habit and feel like I was always eating a normal amount, rather than suffering a temporary sacrifice. I wanted to set it and forget it, rather than have to adjust again later. I was still eating 3 solid meals a day, and having snacks. Just a little less than before, controlled and accounted for so I knew when I was about to go over.
I also like to go a little light during the day so I have a calorie budget for a dessert treat after dinner. This way I usually feel like I'm splurging just a little rather than suffering through hunger. Instead of feeling like I need to summon more willpower, I feel like I'm always cheating just a tiny bit.
From my own experience, I didn't find that counting calories and being a little bit hungrier on average than I was before affected my quality of life negatively. Not at all. My appetite changed when I changed my diet. I became more comfortable with being just a little hunger, and perhaps surprisingly, I think I have more energy.
Anyway, it depends, I don't judge anyone's choices, and I think this is a lot more complicated and difficult than having willpower or overcoming hunger. But I also think an adjustment is an adjustment - the steady state of living with weight loss should be expected to feel different than before.
There are foods that help with feeling hungry. High fiber and low calorie foods can be eaten in larger volumes than high fat foods.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I should point out that for myself the most effective way to lose weight is basically just starvation. I exercise a lot and track calories and only consume between 1500 and 2000 a day (I probably need at least 2500 a day and maybe closer to 3000)" Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but this is the only effective way to lose weight. If your body needs 2500 calories a day and you eat 2000 you'll lose ~1lb a week.
> If your body needs 2500 calories a day and you eat 2000 Very few people require 2500 calories a day, particularly with modern sedentary lifestyles. Plus, aside from the thermodynamics component, from a nutrition standpoint not all calories are the same.
"Very few people require 2500 calories a day, particularly with modern sedentary lifestyles"
That doesn't have anything to do with my point. (Although mercifully my TDEE is closer to 3kCal)
"Plus, aside from the thermodynamics component, from a nutrition standpoint not all calories are the same."
Again, we're talking about weight loss which pretty much is thermodynamics.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I should point out that for myself the most effective way to lose weight is basically just starvation. I exercise a lot and track calories and only consume between 1500 and 2000 a day (I probably need at least 2500 a day and maybe closer to 3000)" Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but this is the only effective way to lose weight. If your body needs 2500 calories a day and you eat 2000 you'll lose ~1lb a week.
Sorry my point was more that I'm okay going at a 1000 calorie daily deficit and that I just accept the inevitable hunger. This differs from many approaches which seem to chase the holy grail of finding food that's very filling, but also very low in calories and usually not going for that extreme a calorie deficit. Put another way, mine is the stubborn bull-headed weightloss plan. Basically I just try to climb the mou…
Got it, that makes sense. I tend to the filling but low calorie approach (vegetables!) myself with around a 750kCal deficit.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness to your doctors that would be a hard one to diagnose.
Wouldn't it show up in a blood test? I mean I wouldn't immediately suggest a blood test for back pain, but still.
Apparently not. There is a reason why blood Ca and Mg levels don't correlate with their levels in the rest of the body.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe that's another signal (along with the linked article) that the "science" in this arena hasn't advanced to the point of being repeatable and predictable. Why would there be a treatment right now that works well but can't be shown to work in a controlled study? There's nothing special about back pain that makes it impossible to scientifically study. Personally, I think the signal you mention is more because bac…
It's easy to see if someone has a broken leg or test them for cancer. For most back pain, you can't even prove that person is actually suffering from it.
> For most back pain, you can't even prove that person is actually suffering from it.
Why does this matter? You ask the patient to report on their subjective experience the same way you would in studies about cures for depression and headaches.
My point is that 1) only when no surefire scientifically backed cure exists will most people take alternative therapies seriously and 2) problems that can resolve on their own (self-limiting) are very susceptible to generating unreliable anecdotes about cures. Back pain fits these two so generates many unreliable anecdotes which you should be highly skeptical about.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that weight loss is largely a mental rather than a physical issue, but very, very wrong to suggest it's as simple as making a choice. Mental health issues can prevent someone from making good, rational decisions, and the notion that they're somehow failing to make an "easy" choice shows a contemptuous lack of understanding and compassion.
> very, very wrong to suggest it's as simple as making a choice taneq didn't suggest that.
And [the weight] stays off
for as long as your choice
holds.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Weight loss isn't "known intractable". Indeed, weight loss is "simple", as you said. The problem arises when you have managed to get to your target and you realize that, short of amphetamines or similarly dangerous drugs, there is no known way to keep your weight stable with an acceptable life quality . Obese people are not stupid when they choose to keep eating; they've just learnt by experience that, unless you s…
Regarding the hunger problem - is increasing calorie consumption a viable option? A physically active male with significant muscle mass can fairly reasonably find himself needing about 3000 kcal a day without having to be a pro athlete. Would becoming much more active and gaining lean mass help, or would the amount of food needed to feel sated just increase?
One cookie takes 20 minutes of jogging to burn off. Abs are made in the kitchen, not the gym.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#339As a counterpoint to the "deadlifts fix everything" folks, I regularly (4-6 hours weekly) do deadlifts, squats, overhead squats, air squats, goblet squats, pistols, weighted pistols, muscle ups, snatches, situps, pushups, handstand holds, handstand pushups, power snatches, toes to bar, toes to elbow, thrusters, pull-ups, planks, couch stretch, pigeon stretch, vinyasa yoga, kettlebells etc etc etc. Pretty much total insanity.
I've been a desk jockey for nearly a quarter century, and have had constant low back pain for nearly as long. My back feels terrible every day, particularly when deadlifting, or standing up from sitting on the throne for a bit. Chiros haven't helped (100% quackery imho, I've tried a dozen, and really want it to work), X-rays show nothing wrong.
The only thing that has helped has been classic "80's ladies" leg movements (bird dogs, fire hydrants, movements like shown in the linked video), along with foam rolling out tightness in the hips.
I suspect my hip flexors are extremely strong in one direction, and extremely weak in the opposing direction (medial glute), pulling my pelvis out of whack, and thereby hosing up my lower spine.
Anyway, sometimes barbell work doesn't help. YMMV.
Re: The $100B per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
> very, very wrong to suggest it's as simple as making a choice taneq didn't suggest that.
And [the weight] stays off for as long as your choice holds. It looks like that's exactly what taneq is saying.
I said it's a matter of making a choice. I never said making a choice (much less making that choice) was simple.