Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You say sin, I say disease

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#51

Post by Evgeny »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #45
Evgeny wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I have to agree - the fact that I can manipulate my weight at will and either stay at the target weight or adjust it if I want to does give me some feeling of superiority in this particular aspect . And I have learnt a few things on the way - for example, that slight hunger is not a sign that you should rush to the fridge. That a 24 or 36 hours fast will not kill you, but is rather good for you. That if I want…

>That a 24 or 36 hours fast will not kill you, but is rather good for you. I did a fast of 40hours once, I thought I was going to pass out. I grew weak, struggled to stay upright through dizziness and seriously felt very ill. I've often gone a day without food (not always by choice) but I'm not planning on fasting any longer than that again.

Maybe you should start with shorter ones and increase the duration gradually (assuming you're interested in the benefits of intermittent fasting, of course). The human body is quite well adopted to the prolonged periods of fasting and has resources to support itself for literally weeks without food (it is not an advice to starve oneself for weeks, just a note to show that 40 hours is quite a short period).

The longest I ever did was 72 hours, and I only did this once, but without any noticeable negative effects. I noticed also that the most discomfort was psychological - when the time to eat comes and goes, and I did not have anything, I felt more of a psychological need to eat, rather than physical. Also, the 2nd and 3rd day were way easier once I got a bit used to the fact that I'm not eating when I'm supposed to.

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#52

Post by Evgeny »

zeemonkee wrote: post #44
Evgeny wrote: post #8

I don't find it surprising at all that the rats that feed on the scraps of human food are getting obese - they get the same trans fats, refined carbs and sugars and other stuff that people get. Laboratory animals, again, are fed by humans. Are they fed strictly following the natural diet of fresh food they would eat in the wild? I doubt that - most likely at least some of it is substituted with cheaper option. From m…

> searching for a malicious virus that somehow makes us obese or some other obscure reason is just overcomplicating the issue. Either there is a malicious virus contributing in some way to obesity, or there is not. Let the scientific evidence speak for itself. If that makes the issue more complicated than we'd like, then so be it.

It is still not black and white, even if there is a contributing virus. What if, for example, the virus increases the chance to become obese by 0.25%? Or 0.025%? How serious should the counter actions be in this case, how much should be spent on searching for cure, compared, for example, with educating people on aspects of proper nutrition and physical exercise?

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#53

Post by Semiapies »

archgoon wrote: post #30
Semiapies wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in "Modern Europe" have they banned all the unhealthy foods?

Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bovine growth hormone, etc. I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.

So, nowhere.

I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.)

I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#54

Post by Semiapies »

archgoon wrote: post #40
jonhendry wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats" Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.

Really not particularly relevant. Funny, but misses the point that regulating food does not make you into a totalitarian state.

Misses the point that "regulating food" and "banning all the unhealthy foods" are not at all the same thing.

As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#55

Post by archgoon »

Semiapies wrote: post #53
archgoon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bovine growth hormone, etc. I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.

So, nowhere. I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.) I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.

So... we don't actually know where banning all unhealthy foods leads since no one has actually tried it? Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement, and I was not supposed to actually look at the real world because it isn't actually applicable because no one has ever done this in full.

I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian State (arbitrary laws with no support from anyone [including commercial interests]), than yes, it is Totalitarian, but that would have nothing to do with the food ban itself.

So, since that interpretation seemed to not be relevant, I assumed that if you were to actually look at a future where the US had banned foods, it would have had to gone through the standard process. You'd have the usual fake grass-roots movements, coupled with some legitimate ones, coupled with the standard conflicting commercial interests which would push for exceptions and loopholes, which over time gathered support and eventually would stop being a liability for a politician to support.

At which point, you would either have it accepted by the majority, like transfats bans in applicable locations, or it would be felt to be overly restrictive and be rebelled against, like prohibition in the 1920's (existence of spectrums are of course acknowledged). None of these situations make the resulting state totalitarian (unless you want to claim that the US was totalitarian under prohibition). Creepy that people are being manipulated? Sure, but that's doesn't make a state totalitarian.

So I looked at countries that had implemented _some_ amount of food bans (the 'real' reasons are irrelevant, politicians claim health, so if anything, is more representative of what we can expect to happen), to get an idea as to which way it would go in this case. It seemed like a reasonable way to answer the question 'Where does this road lead to?'

My apologies if there was some other, more obvious interpretation, but that was how I read the sentence. I also apologize for not expanding in full my point earlier, since it seems to have been misintrerpeted.

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#56

Post by [deleted] »

archgoon wrote: post #55
Semiapies wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, nowhere. I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.) I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.

So... we don't actually know where banning all unhealthy foods leads since no one has actually tried it? Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement, and I was not supposed to actually look at the real world because it isn't actually applicable because no one has ever done this in full. I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian…

[deleted]

Re: You say sin, I say disease

#57

Post by Semiapies »

archgoon wrote: post #55
Semiapies wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, nowhere. I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.) I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.

So... we don't actually know where banning all unhealthy foods leads since no one has actually tried it? Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement, and I was not supposed to actually look at the real world because it isn't actually applicable because no one has ever done this in full. I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian…

"Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement"

The only thing I'm telling you that you're both full of shit and rapidly backpedaling. But you don't need to continue backpedaling, as I am not at all interested in your further noise.

Post reply on HN