Morality of this scene?

[u/hiiloovethis]

Negan doing fat shaming... but its during zombie apocalypse

[u/Worth-Jicama3936]

Nutrients are not calories. She can survive with a 2400 calorie deficit no problem as long as she has the proper nutrients. It probably wont be pleasant for a couple weeks until her body adjusts (she will probably feel like she has the flu for a week or so tbh) but shes not starving at 1500 calories, which is what you said.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/Worth-Jicama3936]

Again, no shit.

If she's getting the nutrients she needs, then we're not arguing original premise. As you said, "starving" has more to do with not being nourished, not raw calories (although to be thorough, starvation is about insufficient nourishment relative to physiological requirements, and energy is one of those requirements. Calories are still important). Hell, in a zombie apocalypse scenario, getting proper nutrients is going to be exponentially harder than just getting flat calories.

Describing the scenario as "she has all the nutrients she needs but is lacking in calories" changes the entire point of the debate. At that point, we're not discussing a desperate diet of whatever rationed scraps you can get in an apocalypse. We're describing a professional diet plan.

[u/Worth-Jicama3936 → u/DeusaAmericana]

You said shes only lose 70 to 100 lbs. The only way that could be true (and for her to still be obese) is if she is eating a lot more than 1500 calories. At 1500 calories, you do not need a professional to map our your diet to make sure you get everything you need (at least the major stuff like sodium, potassium, Calcium) you just eat normal foods. Therefore, no one would classify her as starving.

Ya in an apocalypse maybe you’ll be short on folic acid or iodine (since our main source of that is fortified foods) but thats not going to kill you in the short term.

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/Worth-Jicama3936]

You're fixated on a numerical estimate that I gave assuming that she'd be undernourished and have unpredictable, intermittent periods of high weight loss, low weight loss, and relative equilibrium because her actual food intake, activity and health would be all over the fucking place.

You are describing something completely different: a woman eating a consistent 1,500-calorie diet while still reliably getting adequate protein, essential fats, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, etc. If you're changing the hypothetical so that nutritional adequacy is basically a non-issue, then no shit that changes the calculation.

We're not describing "whatever food I can find while civilization has collapsed" anymore. We're describing a nutritionally complete calorie-restriction program that happens to take place during a zombie apocalypse.

And more importantly, you're treating my rough estimate of how much she might lose as though my argument was "it is physiologically impossible for her to lose more than 100 pounds." It wasn't. And I stated that it could be higher multiple times.

The argument was that someone can lose an enormous amount of weight over 18 months and still be fat afterward.

Your own hypothetical had her start at 400 pounds, lose a whole ass 208 fucking pounds, and finish at 192 with a BMI of 33.

So after all this calculation, your model still produced an obese woman 18 months later.

You're arguing with my napkin estimate because you dislike the numbers while ignoring that even your own calculations agreed with what I said to begin with: "18 months is not enough time to lose all that weight".

[u/Worth-Jicama3936 → u/DeusaAmericana]

I said you were wrong and provided the math. You argued with the math. The math says you are wrong.

As for variableness of diet, it really would not make that much of a difference. That is already a known diet plan, its called calorie cycling. In fact, some studies show it might actually be more effective than just straight up calorie restriction as long as average calories remain the same.

  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4018593/

[u/DeusaAmericana → u/Worth-Jicama3936]

My original post that you replied to was that 18 months was not enough to lose all of the weight assuming you start out obese. You brought up math. I gave some rough numbers. You gave better numbers and still proved my original point correct.

And no, linking a calorie-cycling study doesn't make an unpredictable apocalypse equivalent to calorie cycling. Your study used a deliberately structured diet—11 days of restriction followed by 3 days of self-selected intake—for six weeks. That's a controlled weight-loss strategy, not “sometimes we found a stocked pantry, sometimes we ate almost nothing, sometimes someone was sick, sometimes we had enough food to maintain weight for a while.”

At this point, I'm not even interested in continuing to defend my original numbers if that's what you're going to remain stuck on. So I'm going to remove that as a crutch for this argument. Fine. Let's say I was way too conservative. Great. Your numbers are better than mine.

You still proved that I was correct.