Eris235

I don't understand how the first part disagrees with what I said? Many body builders do estimate it close enough to be useful, yes. But, it's still estimates. We have no way of tracking things like 'basal metabolic rate', and how that might change over time and under different conditions (which, isn't to say it can't be estimated). If you are working out or doing physical labor to a large degree, like body builders and professional athletes do, you can make those basal calories and their fluctuations basically negligible, able to be left as just a line item. When professional bodybuilders are eating 5000 calories a day, yeah, deviations in 'background calories' don't really matter.

I don't want to discount the math pros do as unimpressive, or not useful. But there's a lot of it that is 'napkin math', figured out second or third hand, from the data that is able to be tracked accurately.

but I don't think the 'average person' is expected to work out for 6 hours a day, nor would they likely be capable.

Calorie tracking can be useful for some people, yes.

but, that's not the same as CICO. We cannot know nor control actual calories in and actual calories out. Anything we do to estimate them is just that, an estimate. Sure, for some people, those estimates are close enough to be useful. But to bandy CICO around as an absolute is insulting. Unless CICO can be actually measured, it's simply not an absolute rule in any useful sense.

And, its also pretty insulting to say for 'most of us' CICO is the only way to regulate body weight, when that's not really true. There are many many other ways of losing weight outside of tracking or caring about CICO. Yes, technically, at the end of the day, it must be because of CICO, but like, why should we care enough to track that, when we can't accurately track that?

CICO is true. But, it's not useful; we can't measure the actual calories your body absorbs, the actual calories your body burns, nor can we control them. Yes, some actions influence it, but there's many, many reason why 'eating 200 fewer calories and exercising 200 calories worth of work a day' may not lead to 400 calories worth of 'fat loss'.

Ozempic's most important aspects seems to be its effect on the brain (not to say its effect on digestion are unimportant). See the research showing Ozempic helping people with the gambling addictions.

Does anyone suggest being overweight causes no issues? I don't think they do. (well, I'm sure some people do, cause anyone will say anything, but I don't think its a widespread view)

I think the argument is A) the issues are over-exaggerated and over-policed, B) we celebrate some other unhealthy behaviors (such as some aspects of weightlifting and professional sports, and some ED among the celebrity/model crowd), and C) so what if being overweight causes issues? Its not your body

Yes, I agree, sorry if I didn't make that clear or condemn it strongly enough. It is a generally harmful way to frame things.

My point was just that it is 'fundamentally true', and I don't think anyone disputes the core physics of it. The dispute is about its practical applications and usefulness (which, again, is that it is impractical and harmful).

Yes, CICO is a basically thermodynamics, and is, fundamentally, true.

But, I don't think anyone really thinks CICO is basically wrong? Only that its an unhelpful framing. And, there's a lot of other problems in your comment here.

Biggest one is the implication that fat people aren't eating healthy, aren't exercising. Many are! And, 'healthy' vs 'unhealthy' foods I don't think is generally a helpful framing either. Like, I know what you're trying to say with it, but you can lose weight on mcdonalds and gain it eating salads, and its not really the 'unhealthiness' or 'healthiness' that causes weight gain or loss.

Just look at the mess of 'diet info', where there's so many diets whose explanations are directly contradictory with one another, yet some people lose weight doing one, and other lose weight doing the other.

Its the balance with this kind of stuff that's tricky. You don't want to make kids ashamed of having urges. But also, you do want them to act in ways that are socially acceptable (speaking very generally), and of course, porn specifically can easily become pretty mentally unhealthy for adults, let alone teens.

I feel like, especially for 'awkward/nerdy' kids, this kind of shaming can lead them to being anxiety ridden wrecks anytime they are around potentially interested partners, as they think their urges overall are something to be ashamed of.

And, that shame is multiplied if the content is LGBT, generally speaking.

But also, "I'm sorry women" is very funny

I've always rankled at gender-as-a-box. Which, of course, is not what gender is in its totality, but it feels, in a lot of ways, like one of the earliest interactions a lot of people have with gender as a child.

Boys don't do x, girls shouldn't play with y. Wider culture has moved away from 'don't's and 'shouldn't's (though, many families still do), but even without hard barriers, 'culture' clearly still pushes boys and girls into certain boxes.

I'm uncertain if I'm trans or cis or agender or w/e label, much like you. I'm not deeply uncomfortable with my body (though, I don't especially like it either), and while I support transhumanism stuff, I'm personally loathe to change my body (which, is largely tied to my mental illness tbh).

But, presontationally, I default to what could be described as either 'metrosexual' or outright 'visibly queer', just because I have a taste for the clothes I like the styles and colors and accessories, and gender norms be damned. But also also, it feels shitty to take gender-nonconforming-fashion directly into 'trans', it feels like I'd be appropriating a label. And, at work, I'm 'normal masc presenting' simply because A) I work as a tradesman, so its practical, and B) I do want that $, and to not get shit at work, even if that feels cowardly and inauthentic.

Saying that I'm 'cis-ish' also sometimes gets me labelled as an egg online, which while disrespectful, idk, might be right?

they are listed as 'not vegetarian', though I don't actually know what the beef flavoring is

Cause, I do like some Vegan beef/chicken flavoring in stuff, and I think those are largely MSG+treated soy proteins, or something

It's funny too, that their French Fries do still have 'beef flavor ingredients' in the US, so they already aren't vegan

I grew up with an atari 2600, that's still 'retrogames' to me, everything else is 'modern'.

By the time Biden dropped out, yes, she was really the only choice, logistically. I think at that point, 3 months ago, there was basically nothing the dems could have done to have won this. They could have made it closer, but any real shot at a candidate people liked, would have needed to have gotten spooled up a year ago, at minimum, two years ago ideally.

The DNC shares so much blame for overall strategy of the last decade+, but the decision for Biden to insist on aiming for a 2nd term the whole time, despite pressure, and only cave when the saw just how grim those final projections really were, is mostly his, personally.