So the definition of poverty would be whatever income level you decide.
By definition everybody that makes below that income is in poverty.
Identifying the reasons why their income is below the poverty level doesn’t change the definition of poverty or the direct mechanism for being in poverty.
More or less. Again, we can quibble about the precise definition of poverty, but I don’t think that’s the point here.
wat is the point? I live in the hood, and shop at an ALDI frequented by others in my neighborhood. the cost of produce isn’t prohibitive.
lol u silly
your body would take corrective action involuntarily, and prolly keep you at a svelte 500 lbs.
The problem with CICO is that, I mean yes, if you expend more energy than you take in, you will lose weight. That’s just a truism, it’s an undeniable fact, but as Lawnmower_Man said way upthread, that’s like saying “to have a successful business, take in more money than you expend”. Like right, that is of course the eventual goal, but as a description of how to create a successful business, it’s completely useless.
In studies, simple calorie restriction has a very bad track record in getting people to lose weight and keep it off. The problem is that CICO proponents will meet any and all failures with “you didn’t try hard enough to restrict calories; try harder”. The belief that calorie restriction is a viable path to losing weight is thus completely unfalsifiable. No amount of failure, and there has been a lot of it, will shake the belief of proponents that that’s how it’s done.
The solution to alcoholism is extremely clear, you stop drinking alcohol. But looking at people failing to do this and taking the attitude that “hey it’s just about Alcohol In, they’re not trying hard enough” just makes you an idiot who is missing the point. Keeping loudly insisting that people follow a program which they are for whatever reason unable to follow is just dumb. The question is, why aren’t people able to do it? In the case of weight loss, the answer to that is extremely complicated and not well understood, but “they’re not trying hard enough” is a lazy answer along the lines of “poors need to bootstrap themselves better”.
You criticized the CICO approach but haven’t offered an alternative.
No you wouldn’t. Once you put on enough pounds that the extra 60 calories per day roughly equaled what was required to keep your body at that new weight you would maintain but not continue to gain. Assuming all else remained the same.
I don’t really have one, since like I said, it’s complicated and not well understood. I think focusing on eating the right kind of foods is more important for most people than a calorie counting approach. If you eat stuff like potatoes and lean chicken as calorie sources it’s very difficult to overeat.
It’s likely that there are gene expression issues which make it very hard for some individuals to lose weight. For example:
As someone who’s lost a lot of weight in my lifetime, the CICO thing is just the dumbest galaxy-brain shit ever. It’s like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking alcohol. Yeah, I should eat less and exercise more, thanks for that advice, I would have never worked that out on my own.
In general an answer to any behavioural problem which is “stop doing the behaviour” is just useless and clueless.
Depression? Just cheer up.
OCD? I guess just stop being so particular about things.
Addiction? Just stop using the substance bro.
Social anxiety? Just don’t worry about what people think about you.
Overweight? Eat less.
These answers all have in common that they are 100% true and close to 100% useless. For the first four, people have generally absorbed the idea that some behaviours are not as simple as all that for people to change. The last one is the odd one out in this regard. I think this is because it’s not so easy to pathologise. We tell ourselves these stories, like “depression is a chemical imbalance” or “addiction is a disease” which are actually bullshit but move things outside of the realm of normal human brains so we don’t have to reckon with the fact that none of us are in control of our behaviour. It’s harder to pathologise overindulging in food, especially since the mechanisms that drive people to eat more aren’t well understood. Also, not everyone struggles with the urge to drink oneself into a stupor every day or obsessively check that doors are locked, so people are more apt to understand that other people are having a very different experience of the world than they do. Everyone has overindulged in food or drink at one time or another, so it’s easier to buy the story that maybe other people just aren’t trying hard enough.
Alright, so let’s say you do the ChrisV chicken and potato diet.
If you do this and you counted the calories in your chicken and potato meal and you compared that your daily calorie expenditure, what do you think you would find?
That you’re eating less calories. So what? The question is how you achieve that consistently, that’s my whole point.
It’s like me talking about how Apple achieved their success through slick products, good marketing, Apple ecosystem lockin and so forth and you being like “right but if you counted up their money in and money out, what would you find?”. You’d find that the money in is greater than money out, but that doesn’t mean that “business is just money in and money out” is a galaxy brain idea.
CICO is not a way of losing weight, it’s a description of what weight loss IS, just like “moderate or discontinue alcohol use” is just a description of what recovery from alcoholism is. Just repeating that doesn’t make you an expert on treating alcoholism, it makes you clueless about it.
I guess I can’t speak for all CICO proponents, but CICO <> telling someone to eat less.
CICO is not even behavioral advice. It’s a general observation that any strategy that you use can’t escape that reality.
There are lots of strategies. There’s weight watchers, there’s Keeed’s potato diet, you’ve got your chicken and potatoes thing, etc.
The trick (and it’s not easy) is to find a regimen that you can comply with. But just because that’s hard, it doesn’t mean CICO is not true. Because, as you say, it’s basically a truism.
I’m not sure what you think we’re arguing about. This is more or less what I’m saying. And in that regard, it is basically the “whole story”.
Now if you want to answer the question, “How can I find a diet that I can stick to that will allow me to achieve CICO?”, that’s great, but it’s a different question.
It’s weird though because none of your ancestors had gram scales to weigh their Cheerios and yet they didn’t have this overeating problem of yours. So why is that?
Food was scarce for most of humanity’s history. Also less sedentary lifestyles.
Well it’s unquestionably true that during my lifetime even the poorest here can afford much more food than their grandparents could, while kids are much less physically active because of computer games, the internet and streets being much less safe to play in.
Fat kids were very unusual when I was young, and there are no surprises when data is periodically published showing obesity rates among kids nowadays.
I only have to go back to my parents’ and grandparents’ generations to find people not overweight let alone obese. Do you think food was scarce for them? Because I’m positive they had as much as they wanted. I’d really like to see some evidence that they were less sedentary because it seems to me like they were more sedentary than most people I know today. None of them ever logged or measured any calories in their lives and seemed to do just fine. In other words, I don’t have to go all the way back to the potato famines to find populations that weren’t crazy obese.
Mine didn’t.
You only need to look at the jobs our grandparents generation worked compared to today and all the machines that are available today.
agree with this, cept’ the streets being much more dangerous than 30 years ago. we can’t honestly even compare because of the overreaction to crime. the pendulum has swung so far and done far more damage to society than the actual crime.
At the end of the day, it is about self-control. I smoked a pack of cigs a day when I was a teen, and I looked around at some of the wasted-away adults in the apartment complex I lived in at that time, and thought, ‘nah, not interested in looking like that in 30 years.’
weight-loss and alcohol is the same thing. do you value your health, and if so, what do you need to do? people are colossal pussies/ excuse making machines these days.
I can’t keep my mouth shut, cake just finds its way in there. I can’t let my kids outside, everyone is depraved but me. Anomie