The sad part is, there exists some tight-lipped 90+ year old former Philip Morris chemist, who moved over to General Foods and discovered/invented some chemical that inhibits satiety, just to increase their bottom line. And now every big food company uses it.
A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
71–80 of 201 posts
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 read the article to the point where it awaits the next, sure-fire cure-all outing. It is filled with the same delusions and misrepresentations that virtually every snake-oil, magical diet fix is. Haven't people gotten a little less gullible about this stuff yet? Look, some tribe had fruit on the ground and they weren't obese. Stuff that pizza is your mouth while we get to the bottom of this. The reality is that cal…
> The reality is that calories have never been as available and cheap.
Don't forget addictive. We've become incredibly good at making food that makes you want to keep eating more of it. Once you pop, you can't stop.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 figetin…
We've known for decades that cigarettes are addictive. We've known that opiates are addictive. We know that alcohol in excess can be addictive.
Loads of people took in that information and never became addicted (at least until the medical industry tricked them into addiction). The information "if you don't want to be addicted don't do the thing that is sure to get you addicted" is very good advice. It is irrefutable advice.
Once you're addicted it's an entirely different, much more difficult problem. But it isn't a better understanding of addiction to say "Whoa, look I used heroin at a bunch of parties and now I crave heroin, therefore you shouldn't tell people to not do drugs". It doesn't follow.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#74Earlier 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…
> Your fundamental truth is based on a false premises that the goal is weight loss as opposed to health
I think you're the one with the misconception. Obesity is consistently a contributor to health problems. Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less. Period. Full stop.
There are strategies for eating less that may or may not be more effective for most people, but it when it gets right down to it anyone telling you that you don't have to eat less is a snakeoil salesman.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#75Fascinating read. At first I was thinking things like the introduction of high fructose corn syrup, or microwave dinners, but that doesn't completely explain all of those data points.
This is an interesting comment someone left ... it's one of the only ones that could potentially explain all of the results, outside of some outliers like the altitude effect.
> With these premises it seems almost obvious to attribute the obesity pandemic to an external factor – for instance, virus or bacteria. My money is on gut bacteria being altered by some bacteria/virus, of which transmission is relatively hard (but it persists), which spread like wildfire in the last forty years and which thrives on cafeteria diets (which would explain its emergence in the second half of the 20th century).
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#76Saying "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.
How do you know the calories of home-cooked or restaurant meals to estimate the targets accurately?
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
It angers me that your comments have been consistently grey. As I've mentioned elsewhere I've lost significant amounts of weight (>150lbs, about half my peak body weight) and so am excruciatingly painfully aware of the absolute truth of what you're saying.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#78Insulin is the big elephant in the room that's barely talked about. Everybody should watch this lecture https://youtu.be/RuOvn4UqznU
Could you do more to motivate us to watch the nearly 1.5 hour video than "insulin"? Who is this guy and what's the thesis? Summary?
Ok, I didn't realize it might be necessary, since the speaker is so good and engaging since the first minute but I'll try.
He basically exposes the underlying physiological mechanisms of fasting and nutrition. And puts it in context of our biological evolution and current first-world diseases. Explains the enormous power fasting has for healing the physiology, regulating insulin levels, even reverting insulin resistance, how when you stop eating for a day the body activates the expression of certain genes in every cell for producing all the antioxidants known to man, promote autofagie of dead cells, producing growth hormones, start growing bone marrow cells, stem cells... How insulin is a key piece in that mechanism, how in western societies are junkies of processed food, specially sugar, carbohidrates and, and how by eating too often and too much we keep our insulin leves always high, which impedes our body to begin that innate process of self-healing we have, and we instead just saturate the body with things it doesn't really need and don't give it the opportunity to get rid of them, deriving in preventable diseases.
He speaks about 24h, 36h, 3day and 7 day fasting... How it affects multiple things, including response to chemoterapy, diabetes, dementia...
He has a previous talk called "The bittersweet truth" where he dives more deeply on how exactly fructose basically poisons the body and talks more about insulin, fructose, nutritional myths... Just one fascinating fact after another, supported by data, studies and clinical experience. He tryes to relate the facts in order to give you a very powerful big picture.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How do you know the calories of home-cooked or restaurant meals to estimate the targets accurately?
You measure everything as best you can, and generally avoid restaurants.
Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries
#80> 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…
>> 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 loss.
As long as you're consciously making that trade off. Hunger vs shorter life, health conditions etc. I think that's a personal choice for the individual.