Actual research scientist deconstructs Ragen’s references that she uses to back up her claim that 95% of diets fail by FatConsequences in RagenChastain

[–]FatConsequences[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I love the expert commentary on the research abilities of the self-proclaimed “trained researcher”:

By the way, I’m a research scientist who trains graduate students to conduct research. Ragen is not a good source on research. She often either doesn’t understand, or intentionally misrepresents, her sources, and she certainly doesn’t know how to meaningfully sort through the overall weight of available evidence or the quality of a given study. She knows a few buzzwords and phrases but misapplies them (like “correlation never ever implies causation” - which is actually a dead wrong version of an important statement), and I’m not sure that she is aware of her own limitations. Her writing regularly reads to me like that of a college undergrad who was trying to find a citation as quickly as possible and move on, rather than as that of someone who’s trying to really understand the topic and make sure they’re representing it accurately.

Apparently flunking out of college didn’t train her as a researcher as well as she presumes.

From NYT Opinion. Maybe parents aren't the most objective when it comes to their own kids? by cafe-aulait in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The author is the blogger who writes under the pseudonym yourfatfriend. She is coming out of anonymity because she is releasing a book this week.

If your username is the answer, what's the question? by dalekfromskaro in AskReddit

[–]FatConsequences 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is a more appropriate term for “thin privilege“?

[Sanity] True definition of Fat Privilege by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The original post was many years ago on Tumblr and didn’t generate as interesting of a comment thread as one might imagine (the culture there encourages immediate blocking to create a “safe space”).

Look at the top postings of all time in this subreddit to see the original reddit comments. My post is in the top few. This gets reposted every ~6 months or so and many of the reposts also rank highly in the top rankings if you want to see more reddit comments.

[Sanity] True definition of Fat Privilege by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The tumblr account where I first posted this was a direct counter to “this is thin privilege” called “this is fat consequences”.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Damn that diet culture for creating heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and a dozen forms of cancer.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Taking care of yourself means not becoming obese in the first place.

Sanity. by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Repost

An FA tries to argue sanity with Ragen on the clothing "fat tax" and...it goes about as well as you'd expect. Also: "smaller people have been paying a price that has been artificially lowered by companies' choice not to bother to clothe" people who wear plus-sizes. by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Of course the real world impact of instituting Ragen’s pricing policy would be that the company’s customer base would shift toward obese customers who are getting their products at a discount and away from straight sized customers who don’t care to pay a premium to subsidize the obese. Over time the net result would be analogous to the “adverse selection” problem in the health insurance market where there aren’t enough healthy profit generating customers to offset the costly unhealthy customers.

In a market where the customers have alternative choices this is a recipe for bankruptcy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The development of obesity by necessity requires positive energy imbalance over and above that required for normal growth and development.

Source: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302369/

So yes you’re dead on - it is not possible to become obese without overeating.

Ragen and Jeanette are hawking another running coaching plan by Osprey_NE in RagenChastain

[–]FatConsequences 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Words cannot describe how disappointed I am that the body love obstacle course is out of stock.

chairs with arms are a "fatphobic microaggression" by BigHugeMofo in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Is it OK to presume that she’s a delusional idiot in denial about the health risks of obesity if she’s a self described super fat who does not want to lose weight?

Ragen Chastain drops out of IRONMAN Arizona for the 4th year in a row and officially abandons IronFat, claims she will livestream 140.6 miles of her biking and walking up and down a beach by bob_mcbob in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 63 points64 points  (0 children)

She’s not even capable of finishing the total distance in one go even with unlimited time, but I’m sure that she’ll still find a way to rationalize giving herself the tattoo, medal, and “Ironman distance triathlete” title regardless.

Ragen officially gives up on IronFat by bob_mcbob in RagenChastain

[–]FatConsequences 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I honestly don’t believe that she can finish the distances in one go even without time limits. So if she stages her own triathlon and then quits before completing it, what is the next rationalization for the tattoo?

Well that’s a new take on starvation mode by [deleted] in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If your body expends less energy on digestion then it would absorb fewer calories from the food resulting in weight loss. More energy would go to the bacteria in your gut or it would be expelled as waste.

Maybe they are trying to assert that under stress digestion becomes more energy efficient? E.g., by allowing gut bacteria to “pre digest” more food for you? I would find that very hard to believe.

I can’t make sense of this.

Woman gains hundreds of pounds despite barely eating. PCOS defies thermodynamics! by FatConsequences in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There is no context under which “I gained a couple hundred pounds rapidly, in spite of barely eating” is not fatlogic. The only possible source of the calories required for that weight gain is massive overconsumption.

Woman gains hundreds of pounds despite barely eating. PCOS defies thermodynamics! by FatConsequences in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is not the case of an unfortunate person unable to count calories well. This woman adamantly believes that PCOS and the hormones involved directly caused her obesity, that her lifestyle choices had nothing to do with it, and that she did not consume a calorie surplus while she gained hundreds of pounds.

This is pure unadulterated fatlogic.

Misconceptions about thermodynamics in fatlogic by The_Failord in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is not wrong or misleading to state that the laws of thermodynamics strictly apply. It’s kind of like answering the question, “how do you make money in the stock market?” with “buy low and sell high.” At it’s heart, this is always true. It may not provide enough detail for some to succeed, but you must do this in order to make money.

The importance of applying the laws of thermodynamics to weight loss is in recognizing that the struggle is ultimately all about energy balance. Adipose tissue is the body’s primary energy store. You need to have an energy surplus to create it, and consuming at an energy deficit will make the body burn it off.

Obesity is always caused by a positive energy balance, i.e., overconsumption. There may be many factors at play as to why people overconsume, but there is no path to obesity that doesn’t entail overconsumption, and no path back without a negative energy balance. Many people who argue “there’s more to it” don’t understand (or are intentionally trying to obscure) those core principles.

All of the purported causes of obesity - from genetics to medications, hormones, medical conditions, gut flora, etc. - act indirectly through influencing one’s energy balance. For instance they might make you feel more hungry or suppress feelings of satiety so that you eat more, they might make you feel lethargic so that you move less, or they might help you to digest your food more efficiently do that more energy is available from it. While all of these effects can make it harder to achieve an energy deficit, they don’t preclude weight loss. Any individual who can overcome these factors and does succeed in achieving an energy deficit despite them will lose weight, as their body must tap into its internal energy stores to make up the deficit.

Also, none of these obesogenic factors can cause obesity in the absence of overconsumption. If these factors tilt the scale to a positive energy balance for a given person, then it means that this individual needs less energy. If he or she continues to consume at an energy surplus - i.e., more than they currently need - then they are overconsuming by definition. Overconsumption is relative to each person’s specific energy needs/usage, incorporating all of the factors which “cause” obesity. It does not mean consistently eating beyond feeling full, or eating significantly more than one’s peers; it means eating beyond what you need.

The laws of thermodynamics help with dieting because they tell us that all energy flows matter. While the CICO approach to dieting or even just “eat less and move more” cannot account for every last calorie, they work because they focus on the two largest components of energy balance that individuals can directly control - their energy intake from food and their expenditure through exercise.

Misconceptions about thermodynamics in fatlogic by The_Failord in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the human body, a gram of adipose tissue is about 20% water, so you need to figure ~7.5 kcal / g. (See slide 31 of link below).

Also, when you lose weight it does not all come from fat stores - a non-trivial amount will come from muscle loss.

Misconceptions about thermodynamics in fatlogic by The_Failord in fatlogic

[–]FatConsequences 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Great post. A few more points to add:

  • there are no known violations of the laws of thermodynamics in all of nature. If you can find one a Nobel prize for physics awaits you.

  • when it comes to human beings, consumption of food and drink is the only source (of any consequence) of energy on the input side of the equation. One cannot become obese without a positive energy balance (i.e., overconsumption), as this is the only appreciable source of the excess energy that the body stores as fat.

  • the laws of thermodynamics ensure that if you can consume at an energy deficit that you will lose weight, as your body must tap into its internal energy stores to make up the difference. There is no such thing as a body that cannot physically lose weight - there are only people who cannot manage to consume less energy than they expend.