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

A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

slimemoldtimemold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#51

Post by eukaryote »

RobertoG wrote: post #21
petemir wrote: post #2

And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/

That was an interesting read. I just left this comment in the site (maybe it would interest somebody here too): "Have somebody checked a correlation between breast feeding vs. infant formula in early infancy and hungry feelings in adulthood (or weight as a proxy of that)? It’s just an random idea, but it seems to me that the timeline of increasing obesity and increasing of use of infant formula could be correlated."

It is an interesting idea, but Australia has a breast feeding rate of around 90% and a large obesity problem

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#52

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

ginko wrote: post #43
mads wrote: post #38

There is something I dont understand about this. Is it really true that carb consumption has gone down? My own anecdotal experience is that people are drinking way more sodas and eating way more candy than they used to (in 70/80'ies my childhood). Like where I live now every other street corner has those "mix-your-own candy bag" shops, where you pay by the 100g. There must be someone buying that stuff, since they kee…

>My own anecdotal experience is that people are drinking way more sodas and eating way more candy than they used to (in 70/80'ies my childhood). This doesn't seem to match the data: https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-...

Maybe “energy drinks” (Monster et al) aren’t counted as soda? There are also several other sugary non-soda drinks I now see in most convenience stores: sweet tea, Frappuccinos & other cold coffee drinks, slurpees, hot sugary coffee and cocoa, etc.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#53

Post by black_puppydog »

MrPatan wrote: post #13

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

> "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor.

Actually many programs for social welfare are exactly based on the idea that it is more complicated than that.

The proponents of universal basic incomes for example have been fighting tooth and nail to even get this "tautological" fact accepted, and it is only now taking hold. The consequences of that would be that "simply" giving people money makes them less poor. It sounds simple when put like that, but it is a real struggle to have the conclusions of that be put into policy.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#54

Post by gadders »

MrPatan wrote: post #13

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

It helped me. I wanted to lose 16kg by a certain date. I put my details into the Precision Nutrition calorie calculator. It told me how many calories I would need to consume per day to hit my goal.

I tracked my calories, and stuck to the daily allowance it recommended. I lost nearly all the weight by the agreed timeline (I lost 14.9kg in the end).

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#55

Post by DJBunnies »

jwdunne wrote: post #26
MrPatan wrote: post #13

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

It also assumes that the human body is a machine with singular inputs and singular outputs, as though it’s a pure function. But it’s more complicated than that. Especially when you bring homeostasis into it, where the body will adjust calorific expenditure downwards in response to sustained reduced calorific intake, as just a single example. But there’s lots of things going on that influence the calories coming in, t…

It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#56

Post by Raidion »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #46
defaultname wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's the fundamental, most basic truth. If there is anything that people who want to lose weight should do, it's eat less . Skip the snack. Smaller portions. That's incredibly hard to do, of course, and easier said than done, but ultimately it is behind virtually all successful weight loss. What is behind an enormous number of failed weight loss attempts are waving that away and believing some specific macronutri…

TFA, and particularly the second part (link near the bottom) does quite a bit to refute this. It’s worth reading it all the way through.

I mean, I think you can make a case that calories in calories out might not make as much sense for some thinner people in that, almost regardless what they eat, they can find ways to either burn or not process the calories. I don't think he does such a good job making the case it doesn't apply the other way. A body needs a set amount of energy to function, you reduce intake enough and weight drops. No lack of figeting or slightly lower core temp is going to be able to outweigh the lack of calories going in. That being said...

I think the real question raised by this article is why eating at the level required to maintain a specific body weight is second nature to some and torture to others. 'Calories in calories out' starts to sound a lot like 'if you don't want to be addicted don't do drugs'. It's much easier said than done by someone who doesn't understand addiction. In fact it's almost worse than addiction, as someone hooked on heroin or booze can do rehab or some other form where you just can't get ahold of those. But if you're addicted to food, you have to deal with the subject of your addiction 3 meal times a day (plus advertising!). That's a hard place to be.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#57

Post by guerrilla »

captainmuon wrote: post #37
MrPatan wrote: post #13

Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor. It's tautologically true but doesn't help anybody.

I've never understood calories. Sure if you eat less but keep the food composition and exercize the same, you loose weight. That's trivial. But calories is energy and weight is mass. I've joked if you eat a bar of plutonium you won't gain a ton. And if you eat a kg of sugar, you'll get a stomach ache but won't suddenly gain a lot. I think something that is often neglected is: What portion of the calories you eat is u…

When people say calories they mean calories that can be converted to ATP. This is why fiber is not considered to have calories (for humans, but is for cows) despite containing forms of energy.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#58

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

I was thinking it could be partially due to food getting cheaper in recent years, but the data doesn’t show a big decrease in total amount spent on food during the recent period of increased obesity. The big changes happened much earlier:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#59

Post by throwawaycities »

defaultname wrote: post #45
pydry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It no more fundamental or surprising than the "truth" that giving up smoking is done by not smoking cigarettes.

The point is that it's entirely unsurpising . It's the most basic, trivial thing possible. But there are massive industries[1] that exist to tell people that no, it's really that you aren't eating enough food that is red. Or that fell to the ground. Or whatever. Whatever magical, simple fix means that they can still eat an excess of calories. These diets have a failure rate approaching 100%. The US is the most diet f…

Your fundamental truth is based on a false premises that the goal is weight loss as opposed to health, more specifically metabolic health.

But lets assume it all boils down to calories in/calories out, your solution is singularly focused on calories in (eating less), that in a vacuum has no effect of calories out except generally a negative effect (your body will adapt and try to burn less calories). Thus, you are ignoring that the form of calories in directly effects the calories out, and that there are better ways to balance the equation by increasing calories out without necessarily reducing calories in, or in some cases increasing calories out might even require a caloric surplus (such as muscle building).

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#60

Post by Pyramus »

kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #49
pedrocr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It seems like a VERY significant increase, yet the author glided right by it. How much would he have considered to be ‘jaw-dropping’?

This issue caught my eye as well, and I find the argumentation quite sloppy in some parts. Also see my other post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27808936

Now take several of these "insignificant" factors, add interaction effects, and we potentially get a much richer picture.

Post reply on HN