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

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#101

Post by derbOac »

faichai wrote: 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.

For some reason when I read the lipostat section I was reminded of decreases in average body temperature trends over time -- probably because of the temperature analogies.

I've sometimes wondered if microbiome factors are in play, and by extension, things like antibiotic use (maybe there are some studies about antibiotic exposure and weight gain?). I've usually thought of it in terms of microbiome -> gut -> digestion though, and the lipostat section made me wonder if it's more like microbiome -> "immune response" -> caloric expenditure.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#102

Post by briefcomment »

> "Something seems to have changed. But surprisingly, we don’t seem to have any idea what that thing was."

We have ideas. Polyunsaturated fats (shortening, margarine, soybean oil, canola oil, even chicken fat) is a promising culprit. Consumption of those have skyrocketed in the last half of the 20th century [1]. Full study here [2].

It seems that polyunsaturated fats induce hibernation like symptoms, which could explain weight gain. This blog is a fascinating look at some of the literature [3]. Good summary post [4].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076650/figure/...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076650/

[3] https://fireinabottle.net/every-fire-in-a-bottle-post-from-t...

[4] https://fireinabottle.net/are-you-in-deep-torpor-scd1-theory...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#103

Post by runnerup »

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.

Enough people read all the ingredients on every food package that if there was a common theme like this, it would be common knowledge. I don't know of a singular ingredient in common among the category of foods which would be targeted for this enhancement. Charitably, perhaps you are thinking of the "ingredient" of complex food engineering, which is any concerted effort by food engineers/scientists to modify "cafeteria food" to be more addictive and harder to stop eating.

This focuses more on ingredients, which is relatively common knowledge. But it does go into some history with interesting backstories from board rooms to flesh it out: "NYT: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food" - https://archive.is/DJ0fC

This one I find super fascinating. It focuses less on ingredients and more on the physical forces/sensations of the foods: sound, crunchiness, meltiness, airiness, and how those drive compulsion to grab another handful: "Food cravings engineered by industry" https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/food-cravings-engineered-by-i...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#104

Post by jwdunne »

DJBunnies wrote: post #55
jwdunne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#106

Post by kiba »

defaultname wrote: post #42
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.

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 don't try to measure how much calories I eat. I just skip meals. Turn out it's a lot easier than eating less per meals. Fasting is much easier for me to do.

However, when your parents constantly ask you if you want to eat, it's a bitch to resists the temptation.

I had lost 20 lbs without needing to keep track of how much food I eat, as opposed to how many meals I eat.

Anyway, I doubt reduction of calories is how you're going to keep your desired weight. CICO in the long term is a failure. Partly, because our model is actually wrong. Exercise is basically useless for reducing calories, because it's both very hard to do a lot of it, and your basal metabolism adjusts in the long run by adjusting itself to be lower. You should still do exercise, and if you can around 750 minutes per week, which is when you start hitting diminishing return.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#107

Post by elliekelly »

EMM_386 wrote: post #75

Fascinating 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 t…

You might find Tim Specter’s “The Diet Myth” interesting. He’s a geneticist specializing in twin studies who sort of stumbled into the role of the microbiome in obesity. It’s been a while since I’ve read it but IIRC he points to pasteurizing as one of the contributors to America’s obesity compared to Europe.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#108

Post by ju_sh »

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.

Losing fat without any attempt to track calories in vs calories out is like trying to improve the performance of an algotighm without profiling it or tracking how the changes made affect the outcome.

If you’re serious about losing fat, it’s essential helps to track the calories you eat, calories you burn, macro nutrient split (carbs, fats, proteins) and your weight.

- Calculate your TDEE (Total daily energy expenditure, also known as `maintenance calories`) There are many online calculators to do this - Calculate your daily calorie intake to lose weight (Subtract 15-20% from your `maintenance calories`) - Decide on a rough macro nutrient split (40% protein, 40% carb, 20% fat is a good place to start) - Track the calories you eat and burn. There are apps for this that make it very easy (myfitnesspal is one example) - Weigh yourself regularly and record it (Daily is better, first thing in the morning, without clothes and after any restroom activity) - If you’re not losing weight, increase your daily exercise or reduce your calories by a further 5% until you see your weight going down - Note: A healthy weight loss strategy is to aim to lose 1-2 lbs per week

You can absolutely loose fat without doing any of this but it’s 100x harder and will take much longer.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#109

Post by defaultname »

kiba wrote: post #106
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…

I don't try to measure how much calories I eat. I just skip meals. Turn out it's a lot easier than eating less per meals. Fasting is much easier for me to do. However, when your parents constantly ask you if you want to eat, it's a bitch to resists the temptation. I had lost 20 lbs without needing to keep track of how much food I eat, as opposed to how many meals I eat. Anyway, I doubt reduction of calories is how yo…

> Anyway, I doubt reduction of calories is how you're going to keep your desired weight

People at a healthy weight consume less calories. Caloric intake has a perfect correlation with obesity. The psychological element is hugely difficult, but the science of "if you eat more you're going to be heavier" is very firm.

The Japanese eat, on average, 25% less calories than Americans. They have an obesity rate of 4% versus 36% in the US. This despite eating loads of "bad" calories like simple carbs (white processed rice).

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#110

Post by gadders »

jwdunne wrote: post #104
DJBunnies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure if science ever justifies the cruelty of fat shaming mate?

It's value neutral. It's just a fact. It's like saying the sky is blue, or the earth is a sphere. How people react to that information is up to them.

What other science would you like prevented to spare people's feelings?

Post reply on HN