[Handsome Creepy Eel]

From the author David Wong of Cracked.com, already famous for tainting the funny climate of the website with some bizzaro hamster-feminist articles comes this gem:

Quote:

Fat is officially incurable (according to science)
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-o...rc=fanpage

Let's get this straight: The number of people who go from fat to thin, and stay there, statistically rounds down to zero.
Every study says so. No study says otherwise. None.
Oh, you can lose a ton of weight. You'll gain it back. Here's one study running the numbers. Here's a much larger analysis of every long-term weight loss study they could find. They all find the exact same thing: You can lose and keep off some minor amount, 10 or 15 pounds, for the rest of your life -- it's hard, but it can be done. Rarer cases may keep off a little more. But no one goes from actually fat to actually thin and stays thin permanently.
------

So please remember this the next time the subject comes up at the office or on some message board and you get bombarded by thin 20-year-olds insisting the obese need to just "cut out the junk food" or "take care of themselves" or "do some exercise." The body physically won't allow that for a formerly fat person.

"Well, just stop eating so much!" Sure, kid. To feel what it's like, try this: Go, say, just 72 hours without eating anything. See how long it is until the starvation mechanism kicks in and the brain starts hammering you with food urges with such machine gun frequency that it is basically impossible to resist. That's what life is like for a formerly fat person all the time. Their starvation switch is permanently on. And they're not going 72 hours, they're trying to go the rest of their lives. Don't take my word for it. Here's a breakdown of the science, in plain English. It's like being an addict where the withdrawal symptoms last for decades.

As that article explains, the person who is at 175 pounds after a huge weight loss now has a completely different physical makeup from the person who is naturally 175 -- exercise benefits them less, calories are more readily stored as fat, the impulse to eat occurs far, far more often. The formerly fat person can exercise ten times the willpower of the never-fat guy, and still wind up fat again. The impulses are simply more frequent, and stronger, and the physical consequences of giving in are more severe. The people who successfully do it are the ones who become psychologically obsessive about it, like that weird guy who built an Eiffel Tower out of toothpicks.

Oh I found some impulse in this article...

[Hannibal]

Cracked is a business, and part of business is giving your customers what they want. Since fully one third of America is fat as hell, it only stands to reason that they're going to cater to these fat fucks who have nothing better to do than sit down and browse the internet.

There's only so much business you can get from dick jokes. They're just cashing in on the ridiculous amount of softcore feminists and broken people who blame everything else but themselves for their own quality of life.

These people happen to be the ones spending a lot of time on the internet bitching about their problems, not really doing anything about it, and reading the kind of garbage that reinforces their mediocre ideals.

There's less money to be made by writing "sack the fuck up" and "you may not have caused your problems, but you can end them through hard work". So why not binge Cheetos and Diet Coke, read some Cracked, and rationalize all your problems to be the cause of some greater boogieman that you have no control over? Remember kids, it's not your fault that you're fat, unloved, or broke. It's society, man.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

"you may not have caused your problems, but you can end them through hard work"

Agree 100%. Motivating people to good things doesn't need to be cruel. It's just a firm, honest and kind statement. But they won't take even that.

[Hannibal]

They're too invested in being pieces of shit. That just lowers the bar for guys like us who actually work to improve ourselves.

I just finished reading Enjoy the Decline, so I'm feeling a lot more upbeat about this kind of shit than I usually do.

[The Beast1]

He's a fucking idiot.

When you're trying to lose weight, you don't go starve yourself. Your body goes into famine mood and keeps the fat on longer.

You need a diet change and also need to do free weights and cardio to tone up the body.

The majority of "lose weight" crap in cosmo and online is bunk. You really need to research your body type and how nutrition plays into losing weight and getting fit. Most pop culture diets are crap and don't apply to people who are overweight.

In fact, it's easier to lose weight and look good than it is to put it on. I hate being a hard gainer!

/reached the max level of gains in my routine because of diet.

[eradicator]

(05-08-2013 11:17 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

He's a fucking idiot...

The entire article is satire.

[The Beast1]

(05-08-2013 04:59 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 11:17 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

He's a fucking idiot...

The entire article is satire.

Guess then i'm an idiot?

[augen sehen]

I can spend one day with any given fat person and point out the exact reasons they are fat, most of which originate in their fridge and their slothful exercise habits.

And I'm talking about girls who are only 10-15 (or 15-20 for white girls) overweight. The more overweight she is, the less time I need.

They just don't want it bad enough to give up their Doritos and beer (or shitty wine and shitty canapes).

This website obviously hasn't seen one of the numerous transformation threads on fitness forums around the web. People, both men and women have been taking the advice of real people, not fucking Cosmopolitan and Shape, for a while now and they've been getting real, tangible results.

[emuelle1]

I used to love Cracked, but something changed earlier this year and the articles just didn't seem as funny anymore. I guess they ran out of dick jokes.

David Wong is hit or miss. About half his articles are hilarious, the other half are SWPL apologetic.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

The entire article is satire.

It doesn't sound like satire. If anything, the author is known for pushing some of the worst and most feminist articles that Cracked.com has ever seen. If he reveals himself as just a masterful troll I'll congratulate him, but I think he really believes this crap.

[JimNortonFan]

I agree. he believes it. He's posted other Blue Pill garbage.

[xsplat]

Umm, why is the article related to a pill color? Is what he says true or not?

[Timoteo]

The key to losing weight and keeping it off is LIFESTYLE change. If you don't do that, and drift back to the habits that got you fat, of course you'll put the weight back on. If you do some fad diet, get quick gains then plateau, yes, you'll get discouraged, quit, and go back to the same old habits. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that made the commitment to changing their lifestyle and kept the weight off. The problem with the piece is that he resorts to absolutes. The example he uses of not eating for 72 hours is stupid. Of course you'll gorge yourself if you're starving. And yes, the body gets used to a certain amount of intake and burning a certain amount. If you take in less, in response, the body will burn less and keep more in reserve. I'll agree that keeping weight off can be difficult, but to claim that NO ONE has ever done it?

[Young T.R.]

I have a friend who is a fat dude. Think he almost hit 400 at one point, he's also pretty tall though. When you see his kitchen you can see why: four different flavors of ice cream in the freezer, 12 packs of every type of soft drink in the fridge (why have coke AND pepsi???). There was some other crazy shit too that I can't remember at the moment.
No one can tell me that if he didn't change his eating habits that his body wouldn't change. Even if he just started eating real food there would be a difference.

[eradicator]

(05-10-2013 07:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

The entire article is satire.

It doesn't sound like satire. If anything, the author is known for pushing some of the worst and most feminist articles that Cracked.com has ever seen. If he reveals himself as just a masterful troll I'll congratulate him, but I think he really believes this crap.

I should rephrase: the entire site is satire-not just that article. Same for cracked magazine and MAD magazine. It is not meant to be taken literally or seriously.

[Hades]

I can almost guarantee that nothing on that site is satire. I tried writing comedy for those guys and while they do tailor their views a little bit, it's just an exaggerated version of beliefs they already have. There's a significant and vocal population of feminists.

[Wutang]

I have noticed that a lot of these Cracked articles seem to have a defeatist vibe from them. The world sucks, you can't do nothing anything about it, everyone who actually accomplished something was either lucky or was a criminal or was born with a silver spoon in his mouth etc.

[Wutang]

(05-12-2013 08:00 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

The entire article is satire.

It doesn't sound like satire. If anything, the author is known for pushing some of the worst and most feminist articles that Cracked.com has ever seen. If he reveals himself as just a masterful troll I'll congratulate him, but I think he really believes this crap.

I should rephrase: the entire site is satire-not just that article. Same for cracked magazine and MAD magazine. It is not meant to be taken literally or seriously.

Wrong. Satire would be something like the Onion where they intentionally write ridiculous and over the top stuff that the writer obviously doesn't believe in himself but is instead using the material to mock someone else's view. In the case of Cracked, the writers do actually believe in but they just throw in some pictures with whacky captions and dick jokes and hyperbole as a way to get cheap laughs.

I think I must have enjoyed like the first 5 Cracked articles I've read before I quickly got tired of the formula they use over and over again. I'm not just talking about how everything is in list format and bullet points but the style of the writing itself.

[Samseau]

Quote:

As that article explains, the person who is at 175 pounds after a huge weight loss now has a completely different physical makeup from the person who is naturally 175 -- exercise benefits them less, calories are more readily stored as fat, the impulse to eat occurs far, far more often. The formerly fat person can exercise ten times the willpower of the never-fat guy, and still wind up fat again. The impulses are simply more frequent, and stronger, and the physical consequences of giving in are more severe. The people who successfully do it are the ones who become psychologically obsessive about it, like that weird guy who built an Eiffel Tower out of toothpicks.

This is where the author reveals his bias. If body acceptance is the goal, then why does he shame the fit? Smells like a fatso passively-aggressively lashing out against the world. Totally narcissist.

The article also argues that fat people have trouble losing weight because it changes the neuro-chemistry in such a way that you'll always feel like your starving hungry until you're back to your old levels of fat.

That may be true - but this just makes it more important never to let people get fat in the first place. Only childhood obesity should be considered as transitional.

[BortimusPrime]

At high body fat levels your body is rather cavalier about burning calories. Triglycerides practically leak out of your bloated fat cells and your blood is chock full of fatty acids, sugar, and diabeetus. Body heat is a good example of this, ever notice how fat-asses always want the AC on? Their chubby little mitochondria just keep humming along with all that sugar, keeping those flabs hot and sweaty.

The reality of it is that the very phenomenon that fat people claim means they can't ever lose weight (because as their weight drops their energy reqs drop) is actually their bodies trying to keep them from making that final push from obesity to morbid obesity.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Here's a fun little story for you all:

My dad was always overwright. He got cancer. The pain pills made him nauseous so he didn't eat much. He lost weight. Then he lost more weight. He got over the cancer, but stayed thin because he eats less.

He'd tried to get thin all his life but couldn't. After this, he came up with a theory: if you want to lose weight eat less or don't eat. Who would have ever thought of such a thing?!?!

Seriously, even though this VERY SIMPLE lesson should be evident from seeing pics of starving people around the world, feminists and the assholes at Cracked.com are apparently too stupid to understand this. Since feminists (and their lapdog apologists) are pig-ignorant about topics ranging from sex to rape to education, it makes sense they'd get this wrong too.

By the way, I dropped ten pounds in 2011 just by cutting out soda and chocolate and not doing anything else.

[xsplat]

I hear people saying that the cracked article is wrong because people can in fact lose weight by eating less.

But is the cracked article at the same time true? Is it actually describing the world as it is?

And are those who are irritated with it irritated because it is not describing the world as it should be? Is this a should vs is contest?

Is it true that in the real describable world that people do not actually in fact tend to keep off the weight that they lose? Never mind should or could or would. Is that the is?

[Mage]

This article is actually right. No one who is fat can become thin. But the author of this article is missing one thing.

To become thin one must become a different person. One must have different thinking, different interests, different dreams, different habits, different paradigm, sometimes one must change his job, his spouse, his religion, his friends, his country or all of that to become another person.

The problem with people who fail at any type of self improvement is that they are afraid to let go of their former inferior selves. They want to be the same person who just endures some little session of miracle training or miracle diet. This is impossible. To change yourself you must change your heart. No shortcuts.

[Gmac]

Jared from Subway?

[Wutang]

(05-13-2013 02:52 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

I hear people saying that the cracked article is wrong because people can in fact lose weight by eating less.

But is the cracked article at the same time true? Is it actually describing the world as it is?

And are those who are irritated with it irritated because it is not describing the world as it should be? Is this a should vs is contest?

Is it true that in the real describable world that people do not actually in fact tend to keep off the weight that they lose? Never mind should or could or would. Is that the is?

Might have to re-read again but from what I read the article seems to claim it is just plain physically impossible to keep off weight. If what you are saying that most people re-gain weight they lost because they lack willpower and most people just aren't mentally enough tough do what it takes then I would agree. Now if you were saying that you just simply can't do it no matter what then that's where we'll have to disagree.