71–80 of 83 posts
for more info click the link :
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real people are eating too much rice. This problem can be addressed by eating less rice.
(Many) Real people are not good at controlling themselves and eating less volume of food. This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume.
They can already do that. There already exists high-volume , low-calorie food. The target market here is clearly not the people making that choice.
I genuinely have trouble caring about people whose problems are caused by making the active choice to keep putting food in the hole in the front of their head. Unpopular view, I expect, but true. Absolutely a self-inflicted injury, and making less nutritious food to indulge these people is sickening, and frankly insulting to them. They've made their choice.
Yeah, sure, maybe it IS a medical condition, and there is something massively wrong with these people's brain chemistry that means they're physically incapable of telling when they're not hungry, and they're too stupid to realise that eating five kilos of rice every day and being horrifically overweight is a clue that they're doing something wrong, or maybe they're masively emotionally damaged and stuck in some kind of self-loathing spiral that makes them eat more and more in some kind of slow suicide, but deliberately making food less nutritious is grotesque, and indulging these people in entirely the wrong way.
I suspect that they'll simply eat twice as much of this new half-calorie rice, or just top it up with a big loaf of bread.
There are people around the world starving because they don't have access to enough calories and we're trying to figure out how to reduce the caloric values of foods. At the same time we're coming up with stuff like Soylent because we're worried that we're using too much of our resources to produce foods. What a strange set of circumstances. Perhaps a less revolutionary idea to reduce the calories in the rice you eat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read though, that that same bacteria produces short chain fatty acids with some non-trivial amount of calories. Also, where is this coconut oil they are putting in going when they cool it? Wouldn't the fat from the coconut oil counterbalance the savings by utilizing this method? That said, I'd rather have the short chain fatty acids than the excess carbs, so it seems a fair trade off to me.
Short chain fatty acids have a whole host of benefits. In particular, they have anti-inflammatory effects, they improve amino acid and mineral uptake, they improve insulin sensitivity and blood lipid regulation, the list goes on.
So healthier, but not "less calories" really, especially with the Coconut oil added (MCFA do have slightly less calories than LCFA, but not all of Coconut oil consists of MCFA).
I'm all about this though, and will probably give it a try myself (I like refried rice).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like pushing abstinence education to end teen pregnancy.
Actually, it's like saying "you can have sex, just wear a condom and don't have sex with every person that asks; use a little self-control."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real people are eating too much rice. This problem can be addressed by eating less rice.
This is like pushing abstinence education to end teen pregnancy.
Likewise, eating can be fun and pleasurable, but be aware of the risks and make sensible decisions.
Deliberately making food less nutritious so that you can shovel more of it into your mouth is akin to bulimia without the vomiting. Doing it should be a big loud alarm inside someone's head, but if they're damaged enough already to seriously consider it, it probably doesn't. Helping these people indulge themselves is grotesque.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Many) Real people are not good at controlling themselves and eating less volume of food. This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume.
This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume. They can already do that. There already exists high-volume , low-calorie food. The target market here is clearly not the people making that choice. I genuinely have trouble caring about people whose problems are caused by making the active choice to keep putting food in the hole in the front of their head. Unpopular view, I expect, but true.…
When I want to lose weight, I just eat much less--typically ~800 calories per day. But that's a struggle to beat hunger. And yes, I'm hungry--I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. I like to feel satiated, and maybe that means something different to me than it does to you. But when I need to lose weight, I just ignore hunger. Not everyone is blessed with that kind of willpower.
When people ask me "how can I do what you did and lose 40lbs in 2 months?", my answer is just like yours--quit eating so much.
However if they had the choice to feel as satiated for half the calories, I expect they'd lose weight. I don't know why you imagine they'd eat twice as much--they have no idea how many calories are in the food, typically. They eat and drink as much as they want to each day without respect to any calories. Changing diet to an already-existing high-volume, low-calorie food is not nearly as good of a solution as modifying people's existing diet. It's also not making it "less nutritious,"--in fact, for these people, it's more nutritious in a sense--at least better for their health.
Your whole stance is basically a "fuck those people, I don't have that problem" stance. If you're a programmer, it'd be similar to "Vim is the best text editor, so I have no sympathy for anyone who can't use it properly. We shouldn't develop other editors, deliberately making people less productive is grotesque..." etc.
Obesity is an epidemic and any progress to thwart it is good, necessary work. It improves people in so many ways--physical health, self-esteem, career, relationships, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to say if a pilot (person) starts firing bullets into the engines (eats too much) and crashes the plane (suffers the effects of ill health), then it's probably the pilot's fault for thinking the laws of physics don't apply to them. Unfortunately, our bodies aren't designed, and while they evolved many failsafes, it takes some conscious control not to mess them up.
That's a terrible analogy. A huge proportion of well-intentioned pilots are crashing their planes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume. They can already do that. There already exists high-volume , low-calorie food. The target market here is clearly not the people making that choice. I genuinely have trouble caring about people whose problems are caused by making the active choice to keep putting food in the hole in the front of their head. Unpopular view, I expect, but true.…
I'm not in total disagreement with your idea of the solution, and it's how I approach it myself. Since my mid-20s, I've struggled with my weight. Until 23, I was 6'0" and 180lbs. Since then I've been as heavy as 225, which isn't enough to make people think I'm fat, but is more than I want to be. When I want to lose weight, I just eat much less--typically ~800 calories per day. But that's a struggle to beat hunger. An…
In this part of the thread it has gone that way, although I wouldn't word it as "fuck those people", but that they're people capable of making choices, and they're choosing to eat too much. "Fuck those people" is more emotive than I feel about it. It's their choice. What problem? There's no problem. If they want to eat less, they can. Barring brain damage or serious psychological disturbance, they're human and humans are more than capable of deciding what to eat. It's not "fuck those people", it's "they're making a choice and it's none of my business".
I do genuinely believe that. I wouldn't even call it willpower. I'm not convinced any such thing really exists; people make choices. That's all there is. I feel hungry, but I know I don't actually need to eat this. Make a choice and in doing so pick how I'm going to feel; I can keep feeling hungry, or I can not keep feeling hungry, weighed up with factors and knowledge I possess.
My stance in the bigger thread is that the idea of deliberately removing nutritional content from food is grotesque. Sure, we in the rich world have never known hunger (not the kind you feel when you haven't had anything with sugar in it for a few hours, but the kind that grinds people into dust over years and ends up with people selecting which of their family should die first), but it's still a real thing and yes, sure, it's just about free market economics and if the rich world can afford to deliberately destroy nutritional value to make life a little bit more convenient for themselves that's just how international trade goes, but nonetheless it makes me sick. That's what I feel is fucking grotesque; so much of humanity's history has been a struggle to get enough food and famine was a perpetual real issue, and sure, this is modern times in the first world and now we can just destroy the calorie content of food for our own convenience, but still, what the fuck.
Addendum: I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. Is that from what I said about some people not able to tell when they're not hungry? I understand that's a real medical issue some people have. Their body/brain doesn't work right in that sense and when they've eaten enough, the hunger doesn't fade as it should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it OK to heat it back up? Still not convinced that turning a 30 minute process into a 12 hour one is "simple".
> Still not convinced that turning a 30 minute process into a 12 hour one is "simple". Inactive prep time doesn't add much in the way of complexity.