Domino Quartz's Delightfully Quaint Random Banter Thread #248

[Bartmanhomer]

One thing you should know about me is that I'm an extrovert.

[Rater202]

I barely actually pay attention to this kinda stuff since a lot of what I eat is based on vibes.

The only thing I can really add to this conversation is: eating "unhealthy" foods is not bad. That's not how health problems happen. You don't actually get diabetes based on what you're eating, despite everything ****ty doctors do tell you.

Eh.. Kinda. Excessive consumption of unhealthy food, especially at the expense of more nutrient-dense options, will cause you to gain weight or develop deficiencies and while diabetes is genetic, type II diabetes is much more likely to occur in people who consume excessive sugar or who are significantly overweight—there are in fact documented cases of Type II going into remission because the patient lost a significant amount of weight.

Moderation in all things is important.

Also, I got more fan art

Again, this probably makes no sense to anyone here and I think the artist is under the impression that a certain pair of cameo characters are going to play a bigger role than they are but I can't say I don't appreciate it.

[Bartmanhomer]

Eh.. Kinda. Excessive consumption of unhealthy food, especially at the expense of more nutrient-dense options, will cause you to gain weight or develop deficiencies and while diabetes is genetic, type II diabetes is much more likely to occur in people who consume excessive sugar or who are significantly overweight—there are in fact documented cases of Type II going into remission because the patient lost a significant amount of weight.

Moderation in all things is important.

I agree with you on moderation.

[Peelee]

I barely actually pay attention to this kinda stuff since a lot of what I eat is based on vibes.

The only thing I can really add to this conversation is: eating "unhealthy" foods is not bad. That's not how health problems happen. You don't actually get diabetes based on what you're eating, despite everything ****ty doctors do tell you.

****ty doctors, maybe. But good doctors and medical studies? Those I'll listen to. And they say the opposite.

Sure, you can eat "unhealthy" foods without issue if you moderate. But everything is moderation.

[Rater202]

****ty doctors, maybe. But good doctors and medical studies? Those I'll listen to. And they say the opposite.

Sure, you can eat "unhealthy" foods without issue if you moderate. But everything is moderation.

You know that Super Size Me Documentary where the guy tries to make a point about fast food by doing an experiment where he ate nothing but McDonalds for a month but he also changed a few extra variables, his results couldn't be replicated, he did that thing where fat people are presented as ignorant and stupid, and he eventually came out and admitted that he was off the wagon when he made it and apologized for his dishonesty(apparently the sequel about lies in the chicken industry is better.)

There's another Documentary called Fat Heads that was made by someone else in direct response to Super Size Me that, in addition to talking about proper nutrition instead of just saying "fast food bad" and also explaining how nutritional guidelines are changing all the time due to both the science getting better but also certain food industries putting their thumb on the scale in places..

But the main thrust of the documentary was an experiment: For thirty days the man making the documentary ate nothing but fast food and lost weight.

Now, he's quick to point out that this is not, by any means, a "healthy" diet and he's noticeably malnourished by the end of it, but I feel the point stands. Especially since part of the problem was that his all fast food deit ironcially enough didn't have enough fat in it.

[LaZodiac]

Okay yes, yes, I forgot to specify the fact that moderation is what matters, not necessarily what you eat, because eating too much salad is just as bad as not eating anything because you don't want to "eat unhealthily". I should have included more nuance. That's my bad.

Also cool fanart Rater. God the Super Size Me "doc" sucks. Was a miserable time to be alive in, when that was considered gospel.

[Rater202]

Okay yes, yes, I forgot to specify the fact that moderation is what matters, not necessarily what you eat, because eating too much salad is just as bad as not eating anything because you don't want to "eat unhealthily". I should have included more nuance. That's my bad.

Also cool fanart Rater. God the Super Size Me "doc" sucks. Was a miserable time to be alive in, when that was considered gospel.

The first time I watched it in high school, something I had to do several times since I failed Health the first time on a technicality and it came up in a couple of other biology adjacent courses, I immediately pointed out that the experiment was inherently compromised when he admitted that he was also cutting down on his number of steps per day since most people who eat McDonald's regularly dont walk everywhere the way he does.

Like, he changed two variables but he was only testing for one. The experiment is already trash.

And then he's not exactly making an honest attempt at fairly evaluating the "McDonald's Diet" when he forces himself to eat when he's full and goes back to eating after throwing up and I always thought it was weird that he was eating two sandwiches for every meal.

and what they don't say is that h was on a mostly vegan/organic diet before that and as anyone who understands the science of nutrition will tell you, sudden extreme changes in diet can have all sorts of negative effects on your body and it doesn't really get more extreme than that.

The fact that he was off the wagon when he made it explains a lot. You don't make good choices when you're either drunk or in withdrawal which explains the lack of scientific integrity and also the bit where he pulls out his camera and starts filming when he thinks he's having a heart attack, and uh... Either he was binge drinking off-screen and adding a whole ****load of calories that weren't accounted for in the experiment which would account for his disproportionate weight gain, the delivery damage(that the doctor explcitly compared to a hard drinker) and, depending on what he was drinking, possible also the erectile dysfunction that his girlfriend felt the need to bring up for some reason.

On the other hand, if he wasn't drinking that would explain some of the other negative symptoms because alcohol withdrawal is a hell of a thing to go through.

(And that's assuming that he didn't alternate between binging and going cold turkey throughout the month)

Apparently the sequel's better and he gets points for eventually coming clean but still.

[Peelee]

You know that Super Size Me Documentary where the guy tries to make a point about fast food by doing an experiment where he ate nothing but McDonalds for a month but he also changed a few extra variables, his results couldn't be replicated, he did that thing where fat people are presented as ignorant and stupid, and he eventually came out and admitted that he was off the wagon when he made it and apologized for his dishonesty(apparently the sequel about lies in the chicken industry is better.)

There's another Documentary called Fat Heads that was made by someone else in direct response to Super Size Me that, in addition to talking about proper nutrition instead of just saying "fast food bad" and also explaining how nutritional guidelines are changing all the time due to both the science getting better but also certain food industries putting their thumb on the scale in places..

But the main thrust of the documentary was an experiment: For thirty days the man making the documentary ate nothing but fast food and lost weight.

Now, he's quick to point out that this is not, by any means, a "healthy" diet and he's noticeably malnourished by the end of it, but I feel the point stands. Especially since part of the problem was that his all fast food deit ironcially enough didn't have enough fat in it.

I agree, the point of "30 day diets performed by single-case-study comedians with zero focus on long-term effects are inherently unscientific" does indeed stand. I am all for not blindly following whatever the newest documentary that can cherry-pick whatever evidence supports the agenda the filmmaker wishes to espouse claims. Me, I prefer scientists doing science.

Convincing evidence showed that higher consumption of UPF [ultra-processed foods] was associated with around a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease-related death, a 48% to 53% higher risk of anxiety and common mental health disorders, and a 12% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Highly suggestive evidence indicated that higher UPF intake was associated with a 21% greater risk of death from any cause, a 40% to 66% increased risk of heart disease-related death, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and poor sleep, and a 22% increased risk of depression.

ETA: Not that I'm saying you or anyone else here blindly accepts what these documentaries put out. I'm just exhausted at this point of people i deal with IRL trying to refute scientific studies with anecdotal stories and my frustration with that may be leaking out here. Sorry if i ruffled any feathers.

[LaZodiac]

The first time I watched it in high school, something I had to do several times since I failed Health the first time on a technicality and it came up in a couple of other biology adjacent courses, I immediately pointed out that the experiment was inherently compromised when he admitted that he was also cutting down on his number of steps per day since most people who eat McDonald's regularly dont walk everywhere the way he does.

Like, he changed two variables but he was only testing for one. The experiment is already trash.

And then he's not exactly making an honest attempt at fairly evaluating the "McDonald's Diet" when he forces himself to eat when he's full and goes back to eating after throwing up and I always thought it was weird that he was eating two sandwiches for every meal.

and what they don't say is that h was on a mostly vegan/organic diet before that and as anyone who understands the science of nutrition will tell you, sudden extreme changes in diet can have all sorts of negative effects on your body and it doesn't really get more extreme than that.

The fact that he was off the wagon when he made it explains a lot. You don't make good choices when you're either drunk or in withdrawal which explains the lack of scientific integrity and also the bit where he pulls out his camera and starts filming when he thinks he's having a heart attack, and uh... Either he was binge drinking off-screen and adding a whole ****load of calories that weren't accounted for in the experiment which would account for his disproportionate weight gain, the delivery damage(that the doctor explcitly compared to a hard drinker) and, depending on what he was drinking, possible also the erectile dysfunction that his girlfriend felt the need to bring up for some reason.

On the other hand, if he wasn't drinking that would explain some of the other negative symptoms because alcohol withdrawal is a hell of a thing to go through.

(And that's assuming that he didn't alternate between binging and going cold turkey throughout the month)

Apparently the sequel's better and he gets points for eventually coming clean but still.

Yeah no he was drinking constantly, overeating severely, and doing some heavy drug use during that time. The results of that "doc" of his are so skewed that I genuinely don't think we can even safely say the chicken one is better- though I've heard nothing for or against it, or even what it's about beyond chicken.

I agree, the point of "30 day diets performed by single-case-study comedians with zero focus on long-term effects are inherently unscientific" does indeed stand. I am all for not blindly following whatever the newest documentary that can cherry-pick whatever evidence supports the agenda the filmmaker wishes to espouse claims. Me, I prefer scientists doing science.


ETA: Not that I'm saying you or anyone else here blindly accepts what these documentaries put out. I'm just exhausted at this point of people i deal with IRL trying to refute scientific studies with anecdotal stories and my frustration with that may be leaking out here. Sorry if i ruffled any feathers.

To be clear, my main issue with this is that a lot of people take these studies as gospel, and reason to abuse others for what they eat. The issue is the situations folk are in that force them to have to eat this food is what is ultimately at fault, not the occasional fast food burger. The article you linked even goes into that a bit; the fact that people cannot eat healthier due to the life circumstances is what makes food that isn't perfect for as negative as it is. Causation is not fully confirmed in these studies, and I think it is abundantly clear that it's not solely the fault of people "choosing to eat bad" that these problems happen.

That was all I was getting at, is all.

[halfeye]

My experience has been that diet is wierd. You eat a lot and very little happens if it's just one day, but eat a little over the margin for a week and a lot of weitht goes on, and eating less kicks in the <I'm starving> syndrome and weight goes on again.

Getting it rigbt is difficult and painful.

[DataNinja]

Sure, you can eat "unhealthy" foods without issue if you moderate. But everything is moderation.

Ah, I see, those are the mod superpowers I've heard so much about. But what about for the rest of us peons?

[LaZodiac]

My experience has been that diet is wierd. You eat a lot and very little happens if it's just one day, but eat a little over the margin for a week and a lot of weitht goes on, and eating less kicks in the <I'm starving> syndrome and weight goes on again.

Getting it rigbt is difficult and painful.

Diets are pretty much bull****, especially fad diets. Adjusting what you eat isn't the sole factor of stuff like this, it's your behavior and your environment as well- and if you have an active life style there isn't anything wrong with eating "bad".

Starving yourself is also the best way to gain weight- your body will go into conservation mode, trying to hold onto everything it can get, and eventually you'll break and start eating too much. This is what diets almost always have a slingshot effect of losing a lot of weight and then regaining it just as quickly.

[Rater202]

I agree, the point of "30 day diets performed by single-case-study comedians with zero focus on long-term effects are inherently unscientific" does indeed stand. I am all for not blindly following whatever the newest documentary that can cherry-pick whatever evidence supports the agenda the filmmaker wishes to espouse claims. Me, I prefer scientists doing science.


ETA: Not that I'm saying you or anyone else here blindly accepts what these documentaries put out. I'm just exhausted at this point of people i deal with IRL trying to refute scientific studies with anecdotal stories and my frustration with that may be leaking out here. Sorry if i ruffled any feathers.

I think my reason for citing the follow-up documentary didn't come across particularly well.

Super Size Me makes the claim that. Essentially, fast food in and of itself is what makes people fat.

Fat Heads refutes this claim by showing a man getting less fat on an all-fast food diet, and asserts that it's more an issue of environmental factors, lifestyle, and nutrition.

Obviously, one documentary is only a single data point, but the thing is that Super Size Me was making an absolutist statement and the thing about absolute statements is that one data point to the contrary is all it takes to debunk it: If it is possible to lose weight on only fast food, then fast food in and of itself is not the sole factor as to what makes someone fat.

[Peelee]

Yeah no he was drinking constantly, overeating severely, and doing some heavy drug use during that time. The results of that "doc" of his are so skewed that I genuinely don't think we can even safely say the chicken one is better- though I've heard nothing for or against it, or even what it's about beyond chicken.



To be clear, my main issue with this is that a lot of people take these studies as gospel, and reason to abuse others for what they eat. The issue is the situations folk are in that force them to have to eat this food is what is ultimately at fault, not the occasional fast food burger. The article you linked even goes into that a bit; the fact that people cannot eat healthier due to the life circumstances is what makes food that isn't perfect for as negative as it is. Causation is not fully confirmed in these studies, and I think it is abundantly clear that it's not solely the fault of people "choosing to eat bad" that these problems happen.

That was all I was getting at, is all.

Ah, i getcha. And i agree completely. Hell, I originally had the parts about why many people are trapped into eating almost exclusively stuff like that (i think it comes right after where i cut off the blurb), and only cut it out because it made the quote block/overall post too long for my tastes.

Ah, I see, those are the mod superpowers I've heard so much about. But what about for the rest of us peons?

Everything is moderation. Even you good people who make my job possible (mostly by letting me be lazy by rarely breaking any rules so i just focus on spam). There are no peons.

[Bohandas]

I wish low calorie foods were easier to eat. I think that's what it comes down to. A bag of potato chips is so convenient to snack on and lettuce isn't, because it's wet and floppy and has to be stored in the refridgerator. I wonder if dehydrating it would help. (I know switching to something like carrot sticks would help but I'm thinking about plain lettuce because I've got it and another salad is going to be too much salad dressing for the day)

[Anonymouswizard]

Been replaying Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney because I realised they were on Steam and I've never actually played the other games.

Which is how I notice that the villain for Case 2 has the exact same strategy as the villain for Case 4, just with a lot less preparation put in. Then I get penalised twice for presenting the correct piece of evidence before the game lets me.

...also at what point are Phoenix and Miles confirmed to be in a romantic relationship? There is no way this isn't canon, especially as Phoenix is basically canonically bi anyway.