ITT We argue about how fatties get fat, why they stay fat, and what they should do instead - It's a mystery! It's an obesity sperging containment thread!

[cruelsound]

Her last complaint about Weight Watchers was that they gave her too many points and it caused her to eat too much. She said she struggled trying to get all her points in for the day and she would end up eating a bunch at night. All the veggies were "free" so that caused her to have trouble getting her points in as well. But if she wasn't eating all of her points, she should be losing even more weight, right?

Nope, and that's what I thought at the beginning too. If you don't eat your daily points, it's kind of like "starving" yourself and your body just holds onto whatever you put into it. You should really eat your dailies AND some/all of your weeklies (some people eat them all and lose, some only eat a percentage of them and are still able to lose), you can even get Fit Points that are based on your exercise. You can either choose to use the Fit Points to eat more food, which isn't recommended when you are starting out, or you can just ignore them. Unused points don't roll over and, the more you lose, the less points you have each day/week. Fruits and veggies are considered 0 points for the most part.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here but, if your mental health is the reason that you are overweight, no weight loss program or surgery is going to help.

 

[Five Bladed Knife]

I watched this documentary ...He died of heart failure three years after this documentary

Shit, I didn't know that. Poor guy. That moment he was on the weird floaty treadmill was just beautiful and I hope those 3 years were good for him. Heart failure is part of the danger for really obese people and something that doesn't scare Hamber nearly enough.

Her last complaint about Weight Watchers was that they gave her too many points and it caused her to eat too much. She said she struggled trying to get all her points in for the day and she would end up eating a bunch at night. All the veggies were "free" so that caused her to have trouble getting her points in as well. But if she wasn't eating all of her points, she should be losing even more weight, right?

I just figured she can't count.

Nope, and that's what I thought at the beginning too. If you don't eat your daily points, it's kind of like "starving" yourself and your body just holds onto whatever you put into it.

JFC not this Starvation Mode myth again. It's as bad as the "plateauing" idea and for the same fucking reason. Okay gather round, Knife will explain.

Spoiler: Drunk dietary sperging

Starvation mode is a broscience fatlogic myth that people who "can't lose weight" started to feel better. It's loosely based on some experiment done a while ago in which people were actually fucking starved.

Here is what is really happening to a fatty who swears on a stack of KJV fucking Bibles that they've been totally under TDEE for weeks and tee-hee they just don't knoooooowwww what's happening it must be starvaaaaashun mooooode...

They're either lying about their intake, inaccurately measuring their intake, or flat forgetting some of their intake. (Okay, or some asshat is sabotaging them but I don't think this happens a lot.)

Every fucking time we test a fatty for intake in ways that don't rely on their shitty tracking skills and memories, they turn out to be massively underreporting their intake. We're actually getting good at predicting who is most at danger of doing it, too. People who are really ashamed of their bodies or progress, middle-aged white women, people who think they have conditions that make weight loss difficult, older guys starting exercise programs, etc. But every time, it's just simple inaccurate tracking. And it's really easy to do. We know that the fatter someone is, the worse they are at eyeballing portions and gauging servings--and if they're mindlessly grazing, they'll forget almost all of it.

The upshot is that some fatty boombalatty who skips a meal or even two isn't in starvation mode. Neither is someone in decent shape or even obese who restricts for a brief while. Unless you are very literally starving, you ain't in there and won't be.

That is why third world countries in famine are not full of super-fat people, why no super-fat people stayed in concentration camps that way, why North Korean peasants are skinny as rails, and why the prisoners of war rescued in the fucking Philippines were skinny as hell. No, your body doesn't "hold onto"calories. It does two things with your intake: it burns what needs for fuel right then if it needs it, or it stores excess if you eat beyond immediate needs. There's no little guy in your head squinting and considering what the future will bring. Once energy is stored as fat, the moment it is needed it is burned then. And your body isn't sentient. It can't do anything else.

So if you're not burning fat, it is literally only going to be because you're eating enough that your body, exquisitely- and elegantly-evolved machine that it is, doesn't need to dip into its stores.

Calories in. Calories out. Eat below your needs and you will absolutely lose weight. If you don't for any reason, then you just aren't eating below your needs yet. Figure out the problem and fix it instead of relying on fatlogic and magical thinking and wasting time.

Amber ate way more than her points and wasn't tracking well, or else she indulged in so much caloric shit with free points that she managed to get way above TDEE. That's why I can't stand Weight Watchers. .. that whole point system is so easy to abuse. But whatever, if someone likes it, just not my thing and it sure isn't Hamber's from the sound of it. She needs plain old CICO or she needs to be chained to a very fixed intake system she can't fuck up. But I don't think she'd do either.

 

[HamaBau]

Shit, I didn't know that. Poor guy. That moment he was on the weird floaty treadmill was just beautiful and I hope those 3 years were good for him. Heart failure is part of the danger for really obese people and something that doesn't scare Hamber nearly enough.



I just figured she can't count.



JFC not this Starvation Mode myth again. It's as bad as the "plateauing" idea and for the same fucking reason. Okay gather round, Knife will explain.

Spoiler: Drunk dietary sperging

Starvation mode is a broscience fatlogic myth that people who "can't lose weight" started to feel better. It's loosely based on some experiment done a while ago in which people were actually fucking starved.

Here is what is really happening to a fatty who swears on a stack of KJV fucking Bibles that they've been totally under TDEE for weeks and tee-hee they just don't knoooooowwww what's happening it must be starvaaaaashun mooooode...

They're either lying about their intake, inaccurately measuring their intake, or flat forgetting some of their intake. (Okay, or some asshat is sabotaging them but I don't think this happens a lot.)

Every fucking time we test a fatty for intake in ways that don't rely on their shitty tracking skills and memories, they turn out to be massively underreporting their intake. We're actually getting good at predicting who is most at danger of doing it, too. People who are really ashamed of their bodies or progress, middle-aged white women, people who think they have conditions that make weight loss difficult, older guys starting exercise programs, etc. But every time, it's just simple inaccurate tracking. And it's really easy to do. We know that the fatter someone is, the worse they are at eyeballing portions and gauging servings--and if they're mindlessly grazing, they'll forget almost all of it.

The upshot is that some fatty boombalatty who skips a meal or even two isn't in starvation mode. Neither is someone in decent shape or even obese who restricts for a brief while. Unless you are very literally starving, you ain't in there and won't be.

That is why third world countries in famine are not full of super-fat people, why no super-fat people stayed in concentration camps that way, why North Korean peasants are skinny as rails, and why the prisoners of war rescued in the fucking Philippines were skinny as hell. No, your body doesn't "hold onto"calories. It does two things with your intake: it burns what needs for fuel right then if it needs it, or it stores excess if you eat beyond immediate needs. There's no little guy in your head squinting and considering what the future will bring. Once energy is stored as fat, the moment it is needed it is burned then. And your body isn't sentient. It can't do anything else.

So if you're not burning fat, it is literally only going to be because you're eating enough that your body, exquisitely- and elegantly-evolved machine that it is, doesn't need to dip into its stores.

Calories in. Calories out. Eat below your needs and you will absolutely lose weight. If you don't for any reason, then you just aren't eating below your needs yet. Figure out the problem and fix it instead of relying on fatlogic and magical thinking and wasting time.

Amber ate way more than her points and wasn't tracking well, or else she indulged in so much caloric shit with free points that she managed to get way above TDEE. That's why I can't stand Weight Watchers. .. that whole point system is so easy to abuse. But whatever, if someone likes it, just not my thing and it sure isn't Hamber's from the sound of it. She needs plain old CICO or she needs to be chained to a very fixed intake system she can't fuck up. But I don't think she'd do either.

Dude, what you're saying just can't be entirely true.

Spoiler: dietary rambling

There's so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to start. First of all, you basically suggest that there is no such a thing as metabolism getting slower, but there's proof of that being true. That's the very reason why it's easier to lose weight when you're bigger, your body isn't adjusted to lower clorie intake and processes food the old way which needs to be way faster. Remember that all the mechanisms we have in our body are not working according to our current way of living but for us living like animals. Let's say we didn't have fridges/civilisation and we had to hunt/find our food, there would be moments where we could find a lot of food and moments when we'd have none. Using basic logic you can figure out that storing fat after eating a larger portion of food would be most optimal for survival in a world where you can't expect to have food anytime you want. People in concentration camps, after they managed to survive/run away, would usually die afterwards because of their metabolism being way too slow for processing the food they got from people. Once again, like I said - it's all due to your body adjusting to conditions it lives in. And yeah, they got so skinny but it took months of starvation and if it worked the way you said it does, they'd be dead much quicker.
There's also a thing called yo yo effect (also proving starving mode exists) and it's the exact result of people thinking they can starve themselves, lose weight and be fine. No, you can't do that. You were starving your body and now it's gonna absorb much more calories from what you eat, causing you to gain all the weight back and even more. It really just comes down to survival mode.

Now with fat people - they consume enormous amounts of calories and going on a diet is a huge pain for them because their bodies aren't used to it. I can't understand people suggesting obese people that they should starve or something because it's never gonna work that way. When you're not eating your apetite grows bigger and you stop thinking rationally. It really is the best way for Amberlynn to eat at regular times but healthy and much smaller portions, especially that she is known to have binges. I see a lot of my friend in her. I remember when my friend said she was on a diet, knowing that she was gonna leave the house she didn't prepare any healthy meals for herself and felt good not eating for 5 hours. Except it was a horrible choice because the lack of food made her so hungry she couldn't stop herself from buying a chocolate bar later.

Anyway, I seriously doubt Amberlynn will ever manage to lose all that weight. She only surrounds herself with fat, unhealthy people and she doesn't have any understanding of how normal people eat. Like when she ate the whole pot of soup that was very heavily salted - she doesn't get the fact that normal people use a pinch of salt for that, eat a bowl and it's totally enough. She sees skinny girls posting pictures of ice-cream they had one day but she doesn't get the fact nobody eats that way everyday. She says she's having a cheat day but cheat days were thought of people who go to the gym few times a week and usually never let themselves eat unhealthy food (also she probably has a heat day every few days, when for other people it's like once per week or two). She probably doesn't even know just how big she is and how serious her condition is getting. Actually getting into that diet is basically as if a normal person wanted to be a gymnast one day. It's not impossible but pretty hard to do.

 

[Broken Pussy]

Apparently people need a place to argue about how weight loss and weight gain work. Here you go.

 

[HamaBau]

Apparently people need a place to argue about how weight loss and weight gain work. Here you go.

Okay, sorry. I'll make sure not to do that again.

 

[Broken Pussy]

Okay, sorry. I'll make sure not to do that again.

You can post about it all you want. Here. In this thread I made for it. I don't want you guys to feel like topics are off limits. This is Kiwi Farms. I'm not going to go full O-Ren Ishii on anyone for talking about anything. I just want to keep the existing threads on topic.

 

[cruelsound]

<---- Gave out incorrect info and admits it. Thanks for educating me.

 

[Erica]

I'll also say that while fasting for a long period of time works, the primary reason it seems to not work on my experience with diabetics is people will skip meals thinking they have saved on calories, and then completely gorge on a final meal at the end of the day that was more than all of their previous meals combined.

So "starving" yourself will make you lose weight as you can see with anorexics, but it's not a good strategy and it leads people to make bad decisions. It's best to keep your blood sugar consistent so you don't feel hungry all day.

 

[AnOminous]

I'll also say that while fasting for a long period of time works, the primary reason it seems to not work on my experience with diabetics is people will skip meals thinking they have saved on calories, and then completely gorge on a final meal at the end of the day that was more than all of their previous meals combined.

This is also ass backward because eating a lot at the end of the day before you go to sleep is something you should avoid. If you're going to load up on carbs and fat, it should be in the morning before you do all the activities that burn that up.

 

[Acceptable]

So "starving" yourself will make you lose weight as you can see with anorexics, but it's not a good strategy and it leads people to make bad decisions. It's best to keep your blood sugar consistent so you don't feel hungry all day.

can confirm. anorexia sucks for so so so many reasons but also the fact that when you get down to your goal weight, it will never be enough. because when you loose weight solely on diet, your body will not be toned and it just isn't cute. so even if you get to a weight you are happy with your body will not make you happy. there is some called EDNOS which i had for years until i actually got anorexia, its the most invalidating shit ever because its when you have all the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia, but you aren't skinny enough to be called anorexic.
there are so many myths to weight loss and weight gain.... especially when it comes to water weight and what not.

 

[thejackal]

can confirm. anorexia sucks for so so so many reasons but also the fact that when you get down to your goal weight, it will never be enough. because when you loose weight solely on diet, your body will not be toned and it just isn't cute. so even if you get to a weight you are happy with your body will not make you happy. there is some called EDNOS which i had for years until i actually got anorexia, its the most invalidating shit ever because its when you have all the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia, but you aren't skinny enough to be called anorexic.
there are so many myths to weight loss and weight gain.... especially when it comes to water weight and what not.

you can't just define things how you want them. one of the main criteria for a diagnosis of anorexia is markedly low body weight for age and gender. If you've got an issue with food but aren't significantly underweight, sorry, you aren't anorexic and calling yourself that or wanting that diagnosis is horsefeathers.

there's a lot of lol drama queens and kings (this is thin privilege) that binge and purge but have an overweight or obese BMI but want to be called anorexic, no, sorry. You can have an eating disorder, you can look at cake and associate it with all sorts of dumbass shit but if you aren't underweight you aren't anorexic.

as for how people gain weight it's CICO. This is obvious to anybody that (powerlevel ahead) has kept a food diary and monitored their TDEE verse calories in. When I did that I lost a bunch of weight.

starvation mode isn't a thing until you are literally starving and your body is metabolizing muscle and internal organs in order to sustain itself. what obese people want to claim is that because your BMR goes down as you lose weight that the body is holding onto weight. Oh bullshit.

It's why AL and Boogie are so fucking laughable because at their super obesity their fat cells needs 4-5k cals A DAY to maintain their weight. It's why when so many super obese finally keep a food diary the weight falls off them until their BMR gets down into the 2-3k cals a day range, aka human sized weight, still fat, but no longer a small barn animal.

more powerleveling, but ask any body builder what's harder, going from 20% BF to 12%, or going from 12% to 8%. Much, much harder to do the latter and near impossible without serious discipline. It's because at that body fat level you've already cut out all the easy stuff. Someone at 50% body fat like Boogie, (or hell, even 65%) can lose 2-3 lbs a week on a 2K calorie a day diet. If a normal, 160lb 5-11 male did that they'd maintain or even gain weight if they were sedentary.

 

[BIG DADDY]

I remember watching a documentary of a woman who had been obese but lost the weight and was thin and healthy at an older age. She said she measured the amount of calories she actually burned vs. what a person with a normal metabolism would burn when exercising and it was something like she'd burn 2 for every 5 she should have been burning, because her body wanted to get her back up to obese because that had become the new normal. I'm a lot more inclined to believe this about someone who had overcome it, even if it meant devoting a significant portion of their day every day to keeping it off, than a fatty who just uses it as an excuse not to try. Also, there's evidence that you can have mutations in genes that cause your metabolism to be slower, or even just epigenetic profiles that lead to this effect.

So my thought is that it is more than CICO for some people, but that it's also not an excuse. Life's not fair and not everyone has the same baseline level of skills, talents or abilities. So it sucks if you were dealt a bad genetic hand and have to work harder than others for the same thing, but in the end no matter what you can lose weight. There's a disease out there, Prader-Willi syndrome, where people have a super slow metabolisms and also are constantly ravonously hungry due to a mutation, but even they can be treated... And if they can do it, to me nobody else has any excuse other than that they just don't want to/are lazy (which is fine, but I just don't want to hear that "losing weight is impossible or extremely unhealthy for you" like HAES fatties try and say).

(Also, I should add that the literature suggests that a high fat diet actually damages your hypothalamus over time due to chronic inflammation, which is in charge of helping you regulate when you're hungry. So basically it's better to nip getting fat in the bud because it is harder to lose weight than just keep it off in the first place).

 

[Warden]

Please please please don't let this thread devolve into every post being an autobiography. It's good so far.

 

[Erica]

I remember watching a documentary of a woman who had been obese but lost the weight and was thin and healthy at an older age. She said she measured the amount of calories she actually burned vs. what a person with a normal metabolism would burn when exercising and it was something like she'd burn 2 for every 5 she should have been burning, because her body wanted to get her back up to obese because that had become the new normal. I'm a lot more inclined to believe this about someone who had overcome it, even if it meant devoting a significant portion of their day every day to keeping it off, than a fatty who just uses it as an excuse not to try. Also, there's evidence that you can have mutations in genes that cause your metabolism to be slower, or even just epigenetic profiles that lead to this effect.

So my thought is that it is more than CICO for some people, but that it's also not an excuse. Life's not fair and not everyone has the same baseline level of skills, talents or abilities. So it sucks if you were dealt a bad genetic hand and have to work harder than others for the same thing, but in the end no matter what you can lose weight. There's a disease out there, Prader-Willi syndrome, where people have a super slow metabolisms and also are constantly ravonously hungry due to a mutation, but even they can be treated... And if they can do it, to me nobody else has any excuse other than that they just don't want to/are lazy (which is fine, but I just don't want to hear that "losing weight is impossible or extremely unhealthy for you" like HAES fatties try and say).

(Also, I should add that the literature suggests that a high fat diet actually damages your hypothalamus over time due to chronic inflammation, which is in charge of helping you regulate when you're hungry. So basically it's better to nip getting fat in the bud because it is harder to lose weight than just keep it off in the first place).

Yes there are certain disorders that make you unable to lose weight. For the vast majority of people this isn't true. And yes, people have different metabolisms all over the place, but ultimately if you eat less calories and are active, you will lose weight if you are obese. I found the show "My 600 Lb Life" is actually fairly informative in this regard. Most of the patients who swear to the doctor that they are exercising and sticking to the diet but don't lose weight are caught on camera doing the exact opposite, often with the excuse that they don't feel well, or it's their "cheat day".

The doctor I worked with also found that even sometimes when the patient was telling the truth, they weren't doing enough. Like for example, if you are regularly eating 6000 calories for day, and cut that down to 4000, you are eating much less than you used to, and the patients will say that. But that's still not enough to hit their goals.

But I do agree it's much easier to maintain a healthy weight than it is to fix obesity. You've created so many problems for yourself when you get that heavy that you require a new lifestyle change to fix it.

 

[thejackal]

I remember watching a documentary of a woman who had been obese but lost the weight and was thin and healthy at an older age. She said she measured the amount of calories she actually burned vs. what a person with a normal metabolism would burn when exercising and it was something like she'd burn 2 for every 5 she should have been burning, because her body wanted to get her back up to obese because that had become the new normal. I'm a lot more inclined to believe this about someone who had overcome it, even if it meant devoting a significant portion of their day every day to keeping it off, than a fatty who just uses it as an excuse not to try. Also, there's evidence that you can have mutations in genes that cause your metabolism to be slower, or even just epigenetic profiles that lead to this effect.

There is no real "normal metabolism" it varies quite a bit with height, weight, muscle mass (gender) etc.

What she was probably referencing, in a pseudo-scientific way, is that yes, as you lose weight, your metabolism slows down as your body simply needs less energy at 160lbs as it does at 320lbs. There's a reason you can safely consume 1K calories a day for months, even years, when you're super obese, because the body is burning off the stored fat to provide energy. If a starving person tried that, they'd be dead within that time frame as the body would have no stored energy to consume and would start cannibalizing critical organs and systems.

If she was really onto something and could prove it -- that when exercising she burned only 40% of the calories as say Joe Schmoe Marine Grunt in basic training you'd have every military in the world racing to provide such a logistical advantage to their soldiers, not to mention every pro sports team and bodybuilder out there trying to duplicate her magic, er, results. Tour De France riders would probably literally kill for a trick that could reduce their energy consumption by 60%.

There are disorders that affect a vanishingly small amount of the population (under 1%) that can affect BMR, satiety (food craving) and in general "muh cundishans" -- but unless you believe the genetic profile of Americans has changed incredibly in only 50 years you can't blame the incredible fact that nearly 40% of adults are now clinically obese.

What changed? It wasn't "muh cundishans" it's the access to incredibly cheap empty calories via Starbucks, soda, fast food, gas station chips, etc. These empty carbs and sugar laden foods and drinks lead to increased blood sugar, low satiety levels, and if abused long enough serious issues like brittle bones, fucked up endocrine systems (makes men more like women with increased Estrogen and women more like men with increased T) and loss of lean mass.

Most of the fad diets like paleo, gluten free, keto work because they trick people into following CICO without actually thinking about CICO. Like it's really fucking hard to overeat on bacon and burgers and avocados. You can, but it's entirely easier to eat 2.5K calories via a bag of Doritos then sitting down and consuming 2lbs of ground beef or eating 6 avocados in one sitting.

Part of the problem was / is the demonization of fat in the diet, fat provides satiety in a way that sugar and carbs do not. This is another reason I rec most super obese people try a low carb diet like paleo or try to do Keto.

 

[Lurker]

i'll say this much.

losing weight is only as hard as you're willing to make it.

it is insane how quickly a person can lose weight when they just put the fucking fork down and go for a walk a few times a day.

a person close to me was 5ft and 200lbs. they stopped eating like a fucking cow and they started walking daily, and, in roughly a year, they lost 70lbs.

it is baffling how people end up like amberlynn or the slatons. i am convinced that you have to TRY to get that fat. how someone can ingest 4-5k calories in a day is mindblowing.

 

[thejackal]

i'll say this much.

losing weight is only as hard as you're willing to make it.

it is insane how quickly a person can lose weight when they just put the fucking fork down and go for a walk a few times a day.

a person close to me was 5ft and 200lbs. they stopped eating like a fucking cow and they started walking daily, and, in roughly a year, they lost 70lbs.

it is baffling how people end up like amberlynn or the slatons. i am convinced that you have to TRY to get that fat. how someone can ingest 4-5k calories in a day is mindblowing.

It happens slowly and yet all at once. For someone like Boogie, socially isolated and emotionally fragile, food releases dopamine and gives a sense of well being. But like any substance used in that way there's three main problems 1) it leads to addiction and 2) tolerance builds up and 3) the underlying issues never get resolved that led to the addiction in the first place.

So that means he learns to associate relief from anxiety with food. This is classic "emotional eating" or in some people "bored eating" overlaps with it as well. And over time, and this is the slowly but all at once part (like any drug) his tolerance builds to where he needs increasing amount of food to get the same relief. And before too long, say 3-5 years, he's pretty much passed the point of no return and his hormones are so fucked up and there's so much estrogen and inflammation and circulatory problems in his body that he's hardly, literally, even a human any more: his body can't properly recognize when its full, he can't even do basic things like walk a few miles every day, etc, and the vicious cycle of weight gain + sedentary lifesytle only increases its feedback loop, leading to more cravings, more weight gain, and ritualizing quitting certain "trigger" foods like Mountain Dew in order to try and break the cycle. His problem of course isn't just mountain dew at this point, just like a heroin addicts problem at a certain point isn't just heroin withdrawal but overcoming the fundamental reasons for using -- the shame and guilt that have built up throughout the substance use.

 

[Warden]

i'll say this much.

losing weight is only as hard as you're willing to make it.

it is insane how quickly a person can lose weight when they just put the fucking fork down and go for a walk a few times a day.

a person close to me was 5ft and 200lbs. they stopped eating like a fucking cow and they started walking daily, and, in roughly a year, they lost 70lbs.

it is baffling how people end up like amberlynn or the slatons. i am convinced that you have to TRY to get that fat. how someone can ingest 4-5k calories in a day is mindblowing.

As far as I've learned, regular obesity from poor choices is caused by a combo of skewed normalcy and a "one day at a time" attitude. If you've spent your entire life overeating, that's all you know. Overeating is your normal. It's how people get into a wide variety of bad situations. And we're blind to changes day by day, so overeating for just today will be okay. And then in 24 hours, overeating will be okay for this one day. And so on. The consequences are delayed. I can understand why a whale would say fuck it and find other coping mechanisms, like FA and HAES.

 

[AnOminous]

you can't just define things how you want them. one of the main criteria for a diagnosis of anorexia is markedly low body weight for age and gender. If you've got an issue with food but aren't significantly underweight, sorry, you aren't anorexic and calling yourself that or wanting that diagnosis is horsefeathers.

That's why you have things like ED-NOS (and more generally why there are so many "Not Otherwise Specified" disorders for things that don't fit neatly into some named disorder). It's entirely possible to have an unhealthy relationship with food while being nominally of normal weight, and most anorexics started out with an unhealthy relationship with food well before going full skelly.

 

[Golly]

Hey guys, this is a video posted by @Trasha Pay That A$$ from the Amberlynn thread that I'd like to reply to, but would probably do better going here.

I like a good "look at fatty" video as much as the rest of you guys, but I've never heard of this weight loss philosophy before. Basically, this guy is arguing that the way to lose weight is by cutting out meat and dairy, and eating only fruits, vegetables, and high carb foods. So, basically, a low fat diet à la the 90's.

Is this viable? I remember hearing several times over that low fat diets have been debunked. Also, vegetarian diets can still lead to people gaining a lot of weight. Amberlynn had a vegetarian phase and put on something like 20 lbs from it because she couldn't figure out how to efficiently fill up (not really surprising).

So, in short: Snarky video, but do this guy's views on weight loss hold up? It must be working on a personal level for him, but I just haven't heard of it being done this way.