Some researchers assert that the body responds to exercise by burning fewer calories when you’re not working out. Regardless of its effects on weight loss, exercise provides many health benefits.
Here’s the part where it says cico (ebm in the paper) hasn’t really produced any results, since your skimming missed it.
Furthermore, conceptual adoption of the EBM has failed to stem the obesity pandemic.[emphasis mine]Governments and professional health organizations heavily promote energy restriction (especially with low-fat diets) and exercise; nutrition labels on packaged foods prominently display calorie content; and personal responsibility to avoid excess weight gain is emphasized in patient care. Nevertheless, obesity prevalence continues to increase worldwide, prompting spectacularly complex formulations of the EBM addressing myriad biological, behavioral, environmental, and societal factors converging on energy balance (Supplemental Figure 1), with questionable practical translation.
Tldr even with cico being pushed at a population level, 70% of Americans are still overweight or obese. Why do you think that is?
Obeying cico does work. The study seems to state the obvious. People are not very good at obeying rules that bring long term benefit causing short term mild discomfort.
It is too easy to eat too much without it affecting ones ability to survive and reproduce. Priority of physical health is very low in most peoples lives.
All in all. The answer is easy to losing weight but getting there mentally is hard when were are used to everything being easy.
“Obeying cico does work.” and “People are not very good at obeying” are right next to each other in your comment. So people, that aren’t good at doing x, should do x? I’m not getting how that’s helpful. Can you explain how a solution that relies on people doing something they’re bad at has any chance of working?
There are people in jails as well despite we all knowing that crime is bad. People tend to break all kinds of rules. We as a society should make getting exess calories more difficult and force the individual take more responsibility in their own choices. For example having way higher taxes for products that contain sugar. This should encourage people to switch to noncaloric sodas for example. Having your health insurance price take a hike for every pound on the obese side of things.
So in short. Make it more expensive and inconvenient to eat too much and get obese.
You would be penalizing people for decisions made by the food industry. The very large and powerful food industry. In America, you already usually pay more money to get bread without corn syrup added to it (as just one example). It’s in almost everything. YOu pay more money for the equivalent lower calorie/more natural food. Add on to that the fact that most Americans are no longer taught to cook whole foods (most never have a single Home Economics class in their education), and you have long term effects from decisions made by large social systems. Yet, we blame individuals, no matter their social class or individual biology.
Individuals are to blame as well. We can tax the companies and/or individuals for making poor choises. Food doesnt have to be healthy to lose weight. Just smaller protion size. So if one is able to afford so much food that one becomes obese the price of unhealthy food has definitely room for extra taxes.
I live in northern europe and here soda without sugar is cheaper since we have sugar tax. Its great! I just wish we would prioritize our free healthcare more towarss those who actually try to better themselves.
Force the individual to take more responsibility for their own choices? By reforms like making soda more expensive? Soda taxes are not an individual choice, they’re a systemic solution. Look, you’ve been saying a few things that are contradictory, so I don’t think you have a really well formed idea about what causes fatness, either on an individual or population level. I’d suggest looking into the research a bit more and seeing if you can reconcile what you find with your ideas about how humans work, both individually and as a population. If you can’t, then it might be time to update some of your beliefs. I don’t think either of us have anything further to gain from this exchange until you do. Have a good one.
Here’s the part where it says cico (ebm in the paper) hasn’t really produced any results, since your skimming missed it.
Tldr even with cico being pushed at a population level, 70% of Americans are still overweight or obese. Why do you think that is?
Obeying cico does work. The study seems to state the obvious. People are not very good at obeying rules that bring long term benefit causing short term mild discomfort.
It is too easy to eat too much without it affecting ones ability to survive and reproduce. Priority of physical health is very low in most peoples lives.
All in all. The answer is easy to losing weight but getting there mentally is hard when were are used to everything being easy.
“Obeying cico does work.” and “People are not very good at obeying” are right next to each other in your comment. So people, that aren’t good at doing x, should do x? I’m not getting how that’s helpful. Can you explain how a solution that relies on people doing something they’re bad at has any chance of working?
There are people in jails as well despite we all knowing that crime is bad. People tend to break all kinds of rules. We as a society should make getting exess calories more difficult and force the individual take more responsibility in their own choices. For example having way higher taxes for products that contain sugar. This should encourage people to switch to noncaloric sodas for example. Having your health insurance price take a hike for every pound on the obese side of things.
So in short. Make it more expensive and inconvenient to eat too much and get obese.
You would be penalizing people for decisions made by the food industry. The very large and powerful food industry. In America, you already usually pay more money to get bread without corn syrup added to it (as just one example). It’s in almost everything. YOu pay more money for the equivalent lower calorie/more natural food. Add on to that the fact that most Americans are no longer taught to cook whole foods (most never have a single Home Economics class in their education), and you have long term effects from decisions made by large social systems. Yet, we blame individuals, no matter their social class or individual biology.
Individuals are to blame as well. We can tax the companies and/or individuals for making poor choises. Food doesnt have to be healthy to lose weight. Just smaller protion size. So if one is able to afford so much food that one becomes obese the price of unhealthy food has definitely room for extra taxes.
I live in northern europe and here soda without sugar is cheaper since we have sugar tax. Its great! I just wish we would prioritize our free healthcare more towarss those who actually try to better themselves.
Force the individual to take more responsibility for their own choices? By reforms like making soda more expensive? Soda taxes are not an individual choice, they’re a systemic solution. Look, you’ve been saying a few things that are contradictory, so I don’t think you have a really well formed idea about what causes fatness, either on an individual or population level. I’d suggest looking into the research a bit more and seeing if you can reconcile what you find with your ideas about how humans work, both individually and as a population. If you can’t, then it might be time to update some of your beliefs. I don’t think either of us have anything further to gain from this exchange until you do. Have a good one.