Live data from Hacker News

A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

slimemoldtimemold.com

61–70 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#61
post #24

The lipostat theory is quite interesting. This is pure conjecture, but its already known that plastics can impact estrogen levels, I wonder if plastics also have some, yet unknown, impact on metabolism that is upsetting lipostatic homeostasis. Estrogen, cortisol and testosterone all operate in a delicate, interrelated balance, so it's not too big a leap.

I don't think you have to go all the way to plastics and chemicals (not saying that they aren't potentially playing their part).

Take a simple model with a combination of all the factors the author discusses (type of diet, sugar, trans-fats, caloric intake, processed foods, exercise, genetics etc), allow interaction between the factors, and have the lipostat as the dependent variable. I.e. several factors together will, over time, upregulate the lipostat.

A relatively simple model that evades the authors objections, yet might fit the data.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#62
It is not really a mystery any more. There was a heart disease epidemic in the mid 20th century (the rate doubling every decade). A scientist named Ansel Keys did an epidemiological study comparing rates of heart disease to fat intake in 6 different countries and found a strong correlation: countries that ate more fat had higher rates of heart disease. Therefore fat causes heart disease.

This is the lipid hypothesis, which still drives nutrition advice and laws today.

Ansal Keys joined the board of The American Heart Association which adopted the lipid hypothesis and started telling everyone to cut out fat and eat more carbohydrates (carbs are sugars strung together which are quickly chopped up and metabolised as sugar, what could go wrong? ;). Numerous clinical trials, involving tens of thousands of people, all failed to find a link between fat and heart disease (often actually finding the opposite). The government ignored these trials and supported Ansal Keys instead.

The Mcgovern senate committee was tasked with creating a national nutritional policy in 1977, but when scientists told the commission that there was no evidence supporting the low fat/high carb diet and that more research was needed to confirm the hypothesis, they where told that the government does not have the luxury of waiting for scientific research [0] and in 1980 the USDA published the dietary pyramid that we still use today, recommending that people get the bulk of their calories from carbs.

The single epidemiological study by Keys was all they had to go on at that time. Since then, there have been many more rigorous diet trials which failed to confirm the lipid hypothesis and actually show a strong link between carb consumption and obesity. So the scientists introduced an entirely new scientific method, now called teleoanalysis[1][2] to prop up the lipid hypothesis. No causative link between dietary fat and heart disease could be found in controlled trials. But, they did find an association between fat and cholesterol, and then they found an association between high cholesterol and heart disease. So now using teleonalysis we can say that fat is associated with high cholesterol and high cholesterol is associated with heart disease therefore fat causes heart disease.

The American government officially supports the lipid hypothesis and promotes the high carb diet pyramid at all contact points. Schools, universities, government agencies all must promote the lipid hypothesis or be sacked or defunded; "The dietary dogma was a money-maker for segments of the food industry, a fund raiser for the Heart Association and busy work for thousands of fat chemists... To be a dissenter is to be unfunded because the peer-review system rewards conformity and excludes criticism"[3]

Carbs have low nutritional content and most vitamins are fat soluble so by eating less fat you feel more hungry because your body needs those nutrients and you are forced to eat more. When you eat a lot of carbs, your liver gives you an insulin shot. Insulin tells your fat cells to absorb the carbs to bring the body back to balance. So your fat cells swell and then divide, making your body bigger, and a bigger body requires more food to sustain it.

The result is that obesity and heart disease have increased about 10x since 1980 [4]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c

[1] https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/teleoanalysis-...

[2] https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/65372/what-is-wron...

[3] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CxKQ2Ak6_p4C&pg=PA144&lp...

[4] https://www.ahajournals.org/cms/asset/d4e7b1a9-3093-4507-984...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#63
I know exactly why I'm fat. I consistently continue eating after already feeling full. Regardless of whether it's socially designated as a "health food" or "junk food".

Most of the pleasure of eating and drinking comes from the first few bites and sips, after that the senses start dulling and diminishing returns start to set in, so it's really no big loss to stop when full. Certainly not worth getting indigestion over.

A few weeks of disciplined eating seriously diminishes the urge to overeat, but all it takes to settle into old habits is a single slip-up. I think making food artificially unpalatable by cutting salt, fat, or whatever ingredient is currently being vilified is just unproductive. It will just make the experience frustrating and unsatisfying no matter how much or little you eat.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#64
post #24

The lipostat theory is quite interesting. This is pure conjecture, but its already known that plastics can impact estrogen levels, I wonder if plastics also have some, yet unknown, impact on metabolism that is upsetting lipostatic homeostasis. Estrogen, cortisol and testosterone all operate in a delicate, interrelated balance, so it's not too big a leap.

Also the increase in thyroid disease, especially among women, may be related.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ig…

Obesity has an extremely high correlation with poor health. But that's irrelevant as this thread is specifically on weight.

"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)"

This is comically overstated. No, your body doesn't magically become super efficient. This is, again, feel good pablum to make people feel better about their situation, sure it is an unwinnable battle without Magic Product or System ("buy my new book and subscribe to my It's Everyone Else's Fault newsletter!"). But the feel good stuff clearly is astonishingly ineffective. This tact hasn't worked.

Find any person who is overweight but claims they starve themselves and log and count calories. In 100% of cases you will find a calorie excess, likely significant. Find someone who is a healthy weight but claims they "eat anything they want". In 100% of cases -- okay 99.9% maybe they have a big tapeworm -- they will have a lower caloric intake.

The latter is someone who likely skips meals. They don't snack. They don't drink giant sugary drinks. And then when it's pizza day they have four slices and all of the high BMI sorts lament how they wish they had such a "high metabolism" and that they can "eat anything". It's all bullshit.

There is a significant, very difficult psychological component to eating in excess. It is a very hard problem. But I'll take every angry downvote by people who seriously want to refute the core, fundamental truth about calories, likely while parroting nonsensical myth.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#66
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.

Absolutely. CICO is the kind of thing that is so obviously true that anyone claiming it isn't shouldn't be taken seriously. I wouldn't say CICO doesn't help anyone though, because there's a whole lot of people out there trying to make money by telling you you can ignore CICO with this one simple trick. CICO is a useful thing to keep telling yourself when trying to lose weight because the calories are everything and there's no cheating it. Trust me, I have tried.

Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off until the pandemic where I gained about 30 of it back. Stress is a bitch.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#68
post #14

> Mystery 8: Diets Don’t Work As an obese person who tried several times to follow medical advise, this does not surprise me, not at all! Every diet is about calories and sport, which cannot hurt. But every diet completely misses the elephant in the room: hunger! Any medical procedure is only worth pursuing if it gives you a higher quality of life in the long term. A constant hunger cannot compensate for any weight l…

I've always been a somewhat active person (at least 10 hours spent walking/cycling every week). Did it just because I liked it, but it never helped with weight loss.

Switching cardio for resistance training (5x5) helped immensely with no changes in diet. My weight has dropped slightly, but my body composition changed a lot. Cardio became much easier after building some muscle mass.

There is also something addictive to increasing the weight you can lift, fits right in with gamer/nerd mentality.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#69
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.

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…

I'm not surprised to see your comment in the grey even though everything you're saying is absolutely true. I've lost >150lbs and kept it off[0] and I can assure everyone that the one thing that absolutely 100% works for losing weight is eating less. It's also the most difficult thing, which is why everyone wants to believe bullshit marketing that says otherwise.

[0] put about 30lb on during the pandemic period that I'm working off again.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#70
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 a lot. It was very easy to use, and by not having any off-limits foods or similar, just a calorie target, it helped me find meals that I enjoyed while keeping me full.

It also was a nice perspective to have in mind for me. Calories in, calories out means it doesn't really matter what I do today, it's what I do each day that matters.

Post reply on HN