>I’m able to bike and swim but weight training and treadmill are severely limited do to pain so I do what I can do.

And yet obviously not:

>I eat right but I do love beer so if you’re not able to work it off you will gain weight.

The WHO concluded that there is no safe level for consumption of alcohol.

You have most likely gone from a food addiction to a work-out addiction without proper instruction as to how to do it safely. Excess weight plus vigorous movement puts strain on weak bones(ankles).

Diet interventions are more effective for losing weight.

No. Yes.

"Weight Inclusivity: Accept and respect the inherent diversity of body shapes and sizes and reject the idealizing or pathologizing of specific weights."

This is anti-science. The available data indicates that obesity raises risks of most diseases.

"Health Enhancement: Support health policies that improve and equalize access to information and services, and personal practices that improve human well-being, including attention to individual physical, economic, social, spiritual, emotional, and other needs."

But they want to suppress information regarding how much a healthy person should weigh.

"Respectful Care: Acknowledge our biases, and work to end weight discrimination, weight stigma, and weight bias. Provide information and services from an understanding that socio-economic status, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and other identities impact weight stigma, and support environments that address these inequities."

There is certainly a weight stigma, just like there is a smoking stigma and a concussion stigma. None of these preventable factors promote health.

"Eating for Well-being: Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."

Hunger is a a horrible metric for healthy eating since obese people are hungrier than a healthy person. This is partly why people without discipline find it so difficult to lose weight. "But I was hungry".

"Life-Enhancing Movement: Support physical activities that allow people of all sizes, abilities, and interests to engage in enjoyable movement, to the degree that they choose.”

This is cool. but the biggest intervention regarding weight loss is dietary. You can always eat more calories than you burn.

>But everyone is different and everyone’s issues with food are different. Some people thrive on being bullied and proving people wrong, some people are very very hurt by that and it has the opposite effect. Health at every size provides a more gentle and holistic approach to working towards a healthier body. No matter what size that body is.

While telling people anti-science like"you can be healthy at 400 pounds". We know this isn't true. All other factors being equal, being obese raises the risk of heart disease by 28%.

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/39/5/397/4081012?login=false

It also does not help that obesity increases the risk of other issues like: Diabetes, Cancer and Arthritis.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

Prepare yourself, the "healthy at any size"-mob is on it's way. We still have some time since, you know... It takes them a while to get around.

Edit - Seems like they got here.

I find it incredibly sad that you are not allowed to poke harmless fun at a movement that is actively promoting a dangerous lifestyle that contributes to the rampant obesity epidemic.

"Naturopathy as a whole lacks an adequate scientific basis,[5] and it is rejected by the medical community.[5] Although it includes valid lifestyle advice from mainstream medicine (healthy sleep, balanced diet, regular exercise),[15] it typically adds a range of pseudoscientific beliefs.[22] Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse.[22][58][59] Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings.[15][16] Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability.[60] According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease".[16] According to Britt Hermes, naturopath student programs are problematic because "As a naturopath [student], you are making justifications to make the rules and to fudge the standards of how to interpret research all along the way. Because if you don't, you're not left with anything, basically".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy#Evidence_basis

"Maladaptive behavior can occur in members of either sex, but there are
often gender differences that arise. Research suggests that men are more
physically aggressive than women, while women prefer social and
relational aggression. Malevolent creativity, or using creative ideas to
lie, bully, blackmail, assault, defame, or play mean pranks on people
is linked to other maladaptive traits such as narcissism and
psychopathy."

​

So now researchers use the term "gender" to denote biological sex? Great, this is exactly what the trans lobby assured us would never happen.

"You guys ever had Tasty Wheat?"

Swings and roundabouts. Eat tough fibrous food or food that feeds bacterium in the mouth?

Maybe we should all eat a flavorless mush I call rootmarm?

Could be why it gives you diarrhea.

Nevermind you were just wrong.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/what-causes-depression

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/symptoms-causes/syc-20356007

Not really.

Fertility research is related to the process of getting a woman pregnant. Not necessarily preventing any and all complications of pregnancy and carrying a child to term.

I thought most depression was caused/made worse by inflammation...

Except an increased risk of:

Preeclampsia.
Gestational diabetes.
Premature birth or low birth weight.
Expecting twins.
Miscarriage.
Down syndrome or other genetic disorders.
Cesarean section (c-section).
Stillbirth.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/in-depth/pregnancy/art-20045756

Yeah cause that is what the planet and humanity needsright now: more geriatric mothers...

"Thorough" always comes at a price.

So what you are saying is we have free will because we can't predict what action a person might make?

Sure. Agency is just the state of being active. Any robot, machine or stone rolling down a hill has agency.

The issue is that we are all just small portions of the big machine or lifeform of the universe. You can imagine us as individual blood cells within the body of the universe. The universe programmed our brains bound by physical determinism and set us off.

We are only experienceing what the universe set in motion eons ago.

There is nothing to argue? Great take here on r/science...

>It's on a spectrum Perhaps we have some limited form of agency which is deterministic and yet unpredictable/undecidable Basically.

If you have to do what the diceroll/random number generator/coin flip tells you, you do not have free will. You have random will. Sure if you redefine free will to mean not free will you can have all the free will you want...

"I argue like a five year old and think it is a mic-drop."

Yes, but not free will does not equal free will right?

Nor does theoretical mathematics provide any evidence to suggest that free will exists. Or am I wrong?

Edit - Actually no, 1.9999... only equals 2 if we assume that infinity exists. If we have a limited number of "nines" the equation does not equal 2.

So to make the claim that 1.999 recurring equals 2 you would first have to prove the existence of real infinity, not just a theoretical/mathematical infinity.

Pretty close to 1 does not equal 1. This is r/science provide evidence to support the existence of free will or accept that you have no cause to believe in it.

Edit - Actually no, 1.9999... only equals 2 if we assume that infinity exists. If we have a limited number of "nines" the equation does not equal 2.

So to make the claim that 1.999 recurring equals 2 you would first have to prove the existence of real infinity, not just a theoretical/mathematical infinity.

And unpredictability does not imply freedom.

Yupp. No such thing as free will.

Edit - Prove me wrong.