A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
slimemoldtimemold.com
A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#2And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#3And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
> A popular theory of obesity is that it’s simply a question of calories in versus calories out (CICO).
> (...) I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model.
It is popular on HN too, as evidenced by the replies I got here:
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#4And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
>It’s true that people eat more calories today than they did in the 1960s and 70s, but the difference is quite small. Sources have a surprisingly hard time agreeing on just how much more we eat than our grandparents did, but all of them agree that it’s not much. Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010. The USDA Economic Research Service estimates that calorie intake in the US increased from 2,016 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,390 calories per day in 2014. Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases.
A 20% increase in food intake seems huge. The data I could find on weight over the same period puts people at only 15% heavier, so this seems to be underselling the difference.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#5I remember some HN threads about impossible burger and other imitation meat. There were comments about how food engineering can produce food that tastes even better than regular meat. That was shocking to me. We already have hyper palatable processed food and they want it to be even worse?
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#6And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
> A popular theory of obesity is that it’s simply a question of calories in versus calories out (CICO). > (...) I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model. It is popular on HN too, as evidenced by the replies I got here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27777157
It's popular because it's thermodynamics but it completely ignores that our body doesn't know how to count calories. It only knows how to count macro nutrients and how full your stomach is and palatable food is engineered to avoid the feeling of satiation.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#7And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
>It’s true that people eat more calories today than they did in the 1960s and 70s, but the difference is quite small. Sources have a surprisingly hard time agreeing on just how much more we eat than our grandparents did, but all of them agree that it’s not much. Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010. The USDA Economic Research Service es…
Increased calorie intake and conversion to fat is the problem but why do humans increase their calorie intake and decide to convert their calories into fat? What button are they pressing that says "I want to be fat!".
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#8I don't know about this, there's a lot of factors listed individually here but not in comnination. It could be something like "eats lots of sugar and doesn't move", like are those honey and starch eaters as sedentary as us?
Then again, it woildn't totally surprise me if it were something like indoor lighting or something.
Edit: The second article accounts for some combinatiins but not to my satisfaction. Also:
> The USDA Economic Research Service estimates that calorie intake in the US increased from 2,016 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,390 calories per day in 2014. Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases.
That does seem like a jaw-dropping increase if sustained over time and other varianles are held constant. So, huh?
I have another idea though since it talks about lipostat theory: Isn't it known that cortisol exposure causes weight gain? What if it's simply that our life is morr stressful despite being objectively less chaloenging in some sense. This could be due to anything from less cardio to a bad news diet.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#9It's not just calories.
It's how fast those calories get into bloodstream as a glucose.
"Fast" carbohydrates are extremally efficient in this regard; you can eat a ton before hunger leaves you. And this is a big gotcha as we constantly overeat being fooled by our mind and carbohydrates with high glycemic index.
So, it is not just calories: it's the amount and speed of insulin response to those calories.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A popular theory of obesity is that it’s simply a question of calories in versus calories out (CICO). > (...) I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model. It is popular on HN too, as evidenced by the replies I got here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27777157
It's popular because it's thermodynamics but it completely ignores that our body doesn't know how to count calories. It only knows how to count macro nutrients and how full your stomach is and palatable food is engineered to avoid the feeling of satiation.
So much this.
Simple self experiment: If you are super hungry, try compare:
1. Eat a bowl of plain steamed rice (in hot water can make it go down easier) - you will very very quickly become satiated and stay that way, probably on less than a small bowl.
2. Eat cake, croissants, stuff that is sweet but not too sweet that you can keep eating it... initially you will stop, but then you will feel hungry again and keep going back for more - you can just keep eating on this stuff, even though the energy density is way higher.
The other difference is the speed at which the energy is released, the rice will keep you going through the day, your body gradually extracting energy from it... the cake and stuff get's absorbed almost instantly and so your body has nothing to do but make fat with it - the only way your getting that energy back is through ketosis, which wont happen so long as you keep eating cake.
It makes a lot of sense when you start to think about how things have been modified from their natural state, even orange juice is kinda bad in this sense - you can drink a glass of orange juice pretty easily, but there is no way you will be able to eat the number of oranges it took to make it in a single day.