You must log in or register to comment.
If you eat more plants and animals and less breads and sugars you do lose weight and feel better. I’m no science guy but that does work. People over complicate this shit.
It’s mostly the plants tbh, dietary fiber is frequently ignored in macro discussions but absolutely critical
well, besides that other remark, sugars come from plants, though not all sugars are equal (ahem added sugar; fruit sugars are prolly fine)
How is bread and sugar not plants?? Oversimplifying stuff doesn’t make it better…
Say whatever you want but you can’t argue with results my man.
Well, if it works for you, great. But that doesn’t mean that it will work for anyone else.
You’re over complicating this shit.
Weight loss is primarily just calories burned minus calories eaten…
(times some factor, plus/minus some constant, ignoring higher order terms, excluding exogenous variables, etc.)
Yeah that’s a good rule too. Calories in vs calories out.
This has been my experience. I find nutritional science incredibly boring, I’ve tried many times to get excited about it, but I just can’t seem to find an ‘in’ with it to make it my 2-week special interest and learn the basics properly.
At this point the bar is “if you can’t explain in one sentence, written, what meal I can make for cheap in less than 1-2 min of active effort and no more than 10 min total prep/cooking time with no skills, effort or culinary knowledge that will be tasty to give me dopamine for the day and feed me for the entire day, I’m not interested”.
I just eat bacon, pork sausages, eggs, and throw in some kale, spinach & watercress. I’ve cut out all bread, sweets, snacks and alcohol. It’s probably not healthy but fuck it we all gotta go sometime. Right now though, feels great, I lost a ton of weight. Hard not to overdo it on the salt added to eggs but I keep a close eye on it.
The only negative I’ve noticed it as I often get hit with random low blood sugar fainting like symptoms after my 2nd-3rd coffee, later I realized I basically was consuming no sugar at all, so now I gulp down 4 red bulls a day with my elvanse for breakfast and the problem went away. MH got way better too.
For dinner I have some frozen pizza or something like that that I can make without any effort or time, but lately it’s way way way too much effort to cook/eat.
Wish there was some “nutri-slop 3000” type magic pill that just gave me all nutrients I need for the day so I wouldn’t have to worry about this shit.
This is all meant with no offense to nutritionists/scientists, way I see it, y’all doing god’s work. Literally. If that lazy mfer bothered existing or got off his ass we wouldn’t be cursed with this shit fr.
Edit: Wow what’s with the downvotes? Le Reddit hivemind is upset?
Homemade soylent recipes
This is so ignorant lmao
Pictured: The creature who has promised to protect us from sentient machines not sounding like a carbon-based life form
The truth is, anything but saccharin.
This guy should learn to view science more like a constructivist. Pretty much everything in science is just something we made up that mostly aligns with the natural world, and just because one model is less accurate than another does not mean it’s no longer useful.
We didn’t abandon Newtonion physics when Einstein’s model was accepted for instance, since Newtonian physics is still very useful, and much easier to use compared to others.
Edit: changed language from ‘proven’ to ‘accepted’.
We didn’t abandon Newtonion physics when we accepted Einstein’s model
was provenWell did I miss hearing that someone has proven Einstein?
That depends on what you mean by proven.
Time dilation is easily measured and it’s essential for things like GPS to adjust for it. And we finally got that picture of a black hole recently where you can see the light from behind the black hole wrapping around. I think it was Sagittarius A*?
That’s fair. Language changed for accuracy.
I wasn’t familiar with the term, but I always (until this moment) assumed that everybody viewed science that way.
The amount of people who think that scientists don’t understand how bees fly is evidence that most people don’t have this world view. As if someone would see a bee flying, not only having been around for eons, but a very common creature most people are familiar with, would just throw their hands up and say “WHOA! THIS VIOLATES ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! THIS SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE!”
Not so. There are those that believe objectivism is the true way of viewing the world. They view that we are on the way to understanding the universe as it truly is, that human perception will not pose an obstacle to that pursuit, and that there will eventually be one true method of viewing the universe in its entirety that is yet to be discovered. Constructivist beliefs directly oppose that idea, since all science is a man-made construct that can only approximate reality in their view. Constructivism also, then, leaves room for multiple theories coexisting because they provide better utility and insights in different circumstances. In the example of Einstein’s Relativity vs Newton’s Physics, we are talking about an older theory and the theory which usurped it because it was more accurate, and the general expectation is that another theory will be accepted down the line which will be better than both. That expectation is fairly objectivist, since it assumes there is a true model which we just haven’t discovered yet. Constructivism does not make that assumption, since the universe likely does not fit neatly into our constructions in its image.
The other thing, is that constructivism challenges scientific realism to some extent, in that it challenges the existence of many things which we cannot directly observe, such as quarks, proteins, particles, etc… because “how can we actually confirm these things exist, when we physically can’t observe them, and the things we’re using to show their existence are constructs made up by us?”
This topic is still very much in a state of debate that has very strong implications around the philosophy of how science works and how it should be conducted. That’s also just talking about constructivism’s implications in the physical sciences. Things get much hairier when you start looking at the social sciences, where biases and perception are extremely influential on what we discover. Constructivism directly challenges the attainability of scientific objectivity, which has serious implications across all fields of science.
