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

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#91

Post by EMM_386 »

Ueland wrote: post #35
pif wrote: 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…

> But every diet completely misses the elephant in the room: hunger! And this is why a new drug just approved in the US for obesity is hailed as a game changed, NovoNordisk's semaglutide. (Wegovy) The "only" thing it does is mange the hunger levels in your body so you dont feel hungry all the time. I think there was a study back in February for it which gave something like a 15% weight loss after a year, *on average*…

One such study is here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#92

Post by defaultname »

sdenton4 wrote: post #84
defaultname wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of this explains the cross species effects, though. Zoo and lab animals are also seeing a rise in obesity under controlled diets. There's clearly an additional environmental and/or chemical effect involved here.

It isn't clear at all.

a) Humans are spectacularly efficient at turning solar energy into bioavailable calories. This impacts virtually every animal.

b) Lab and zoo diets have dramatically changed. For instance in the lab there was a change from specific portioned diets to the notion that food should always be provided. Any study that claims that there was some mysterious rise in obesity is simply lying. And again there is a push for controlled, restricted diets because having sedentary rats and mice who can eat whenever they want is yielding unhealthy subjects.

c) The study this article links was lead by a guy who is an advisor to Coca-cola, Kraft, Frito-Lay, the Restaurant Association, among others. It is a profoundly corrupt industry, and yeah the notion that some mysterious unknown cause is to blame is convenient in that situation.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#93

Post by neonnoodle »

swamp40 wrote: post #71

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.

Are you serious about this? Or just dark humor?

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#94

Post by EMM_386 »

readonthegoapp wrote: post #17

I thought we already figured out at least part of the problem or the main problem Sugar Yutkin Lufkin Etc Book: Pure, White, and Deadly

The article covers this, and sugar is not the root cause:

> A Tanzanian hunter-gatherer society called the Hadza get about 15 percent of their calories from honey. Combined with all the sugar they get from eating fruit, they end up eating about the same amount of sugar as Americans do. Despite this, the Hadza do not exhibit obesity.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#95

Post by andylei »

garganzol wrote: post #9

It'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.

This is covered in the second part of the article: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#96

Post by defaultname »

throwawaycities wrote: post #86
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

> Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less. Period. Full stop. What if someone eats the same but creates the caloric deficit through increased exercise? Will they lose weight? Just like OP you want to simplify things as calories in/calories out while entirely ignoring calories out. Losing weight is not healthy in and of itself, even in obese people, howe…

How does it ignore it while specifically citing it, over and over again?

However the basic reality is that it's a lot easier/achievable to significantly change calories in. Simple keeping your body and brain operating is actually a pretty energy expensive function, such that dramatically increasing your activity is only going to mildly increase your daily energy use.

You can not eat that muffin....or exercise on the stair climber for an hour, for instance. As an aside, loads of exercise equipment and guides effectively lie about this by including basal calories with active calories, grossly overstating the calories "burned" by activities.

So again, exercise. Eat healthy. But most importantly of all, eat less.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#97

Post by andylei »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #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,…

the author of the post refutes the carbohydrate hypothesis here:

https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-p...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#98

Post by qvq »

sdenton4 wrote: post #84
defaultname wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of this explains the cross species effects, though. Zoo and lab animals are also seeing a rise in obesity under controlled diets. There's clearly an additional environmental and/or chemical effect involved here.

It's likely there's another factor but no evidence this would cause a human to go from normal BMI to obese on a controlled diet.

It seems like the decrease in satiety has a stronger effect.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#99

Post by dobin »

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’?

If people before 1970 eaten approximately their TDEE (2000 calories?), than a 20% increase in calories eaten means something like 400 calories over TDEE per day - every day, all your life. Of course people get fat like this.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#100

Post by gadders »

EMM_386 wrote: post #89
gadders wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It really is as "simple" as that. While there are many biological processes that try to maintain homeostasis and weight, if you ingest less calories you will eventually lose weight. Think of it this way ... if you were thrown in prison today and they gave you only essential nutrients to survive, you'd lose a lot of weight. Your body might go into starvation mode first and try to fight against it, but without any calo…

I actually wanted to lose the weight for my 50th birthday, so I'm not some 25-year old with the metabolism of a greyhound.
Post reply on HN