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

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#151

Post by readonthegoapp »

brazzy wrote: post #25
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 cites evidence showing that this is simply not true.

bold statement. i wonder why you're so completely convinced?

is it that the author is The Smahtest Guy To Evah Live?

or....i mean, s/he has a long list of Nobel Prizes in Physiology?

or maybe just some long history of unbelievably incredibly insightful comments/writing/literature/research on this or any other topic?

i figure i've read and listened to at least dozens but probably hundreds of articles, books, youtubes, etc. over the past few years, and i'm not convinced i have the answer, but one blog post citing one tribe and you're all in? seems strange to me.

i suspect a plurality of folks would say that there are multiple contributing factors to obesity, something like:

  - sugar (in particular, highly processed sugar in all its forms/delivery mechanisms), 
  - highly processed foods generally (don't send 'full' signals to the brain, lack of fiber, etc.), 
  - modern lifestyle/quick eating/lack of exercise, cheap sugary/processed/fatty foods, etc.
...but to rule out sugar....bold.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#152

Post by kiba »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #149
tsimionescu wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 word 'psychological' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. We have no reason to believe it is more or less likely for overeating to be caused by psychological rather than metabolic or…

Yes of course. But its a fact: a given person can restrict calories from where they are at, and lose more. That's physics. Anything getting away with that simple algorithm is fairly classed under "psychological".

Your body adjusting itself to burn less energy is also physics.

It's like having a thermostat that adjust the temperature to 70 degrees, and you want it to be 75. So your solution is to bring in more heat while ignoring the thermostat. The thermostat adjust by engaging the air conditioner. Which certainly will work, but also very inefficient.

Your body isn't that stupid and it's not certainly a dumb engine.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#153

Post by EMM_386 »

readonthegoapp wrote: post #150
EMM_386 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you have a lot of confidence in a theory that sugar is not a main or the root cause of obesity, all based on...a single tribe? that eats unprocessed sugar? including that found in fruits??

The article clearly explains all of this. It's more than one tribe.

Part II is equally interesting.

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

> We can further cite the fact that many cultures, such as the Hadza of Tanzania, the Mbuti of the Congo, and the Kuna of Panama all eat diets relatively high in sugar (sometimes as high at 80%), and yet none of these cultures have noticeable rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#154

Post by tsimionescu »

defaultname wrote: post #65
throwawaycities wrote: post #59

Earlier 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…

> 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.

I take great issue with you saying 'they claim to starve themselves'. The entire point is that people who are obese can feel that they are starving while eating twice the calories that they should. Some other people feel full after eating half the calories that they should. This is the almost the entire problem, the unexplained difference.

And, despite your claim, there are also demonstrable differences in the base metabolic rate between people. One of the most basic is the difference between men and women, which is usually estimated to be about 25% — men are generally accepted to have to eat about 2500 Cal per day to keep their weight, while women should only eat about 2000 Cal (for example, by the NHS [0]). There is no reason to think that, if there can be a 25% difference in the BMR between men and women, there can't be similar differences between individuals as well. Of course, you won't find anyone who eats 10k Cal and is not gaining weight (outside professional athletes, perhaps), or anyone who is eating 100 Cal and not losing weight. But it's quite plausible for someone to eat two extra pizza slices and still lose weight compared to someone else.

[0] https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/wha...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#155

Post by readonthegoapp »

guerrilla wrote: post #57
captainmuon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're saying fiber content is actually stripped out of calorie counts on packaging?

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#156

Post by tsimionescu »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #149
tsimionescu wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 word 'psychological' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. We have no reason to believe it is more or less likely for overeating to be caused by psychological rather than metabolic or…

Yes of course. But its a fact: a given person can restrict calories from where they are at, and lose more. That's physics. Anything getting away with that simple algorithm is fairly classed under "psychological".

It's true, but uninteresting. Insisting on this truth is harmful, because it makes an assumption that people can just choose to eat less without any negative consequences. People love pretending that calories in is simply a matter of rational choice, not a complex result of our inner machinery.

We are biological machines, and the amount we eat is biologically determined by our bodies (assuming food is widely available). We can somewhat influence that with rational thought, but to a limited degree, just like we can choose to breathe in faster or slower, but we can't maintain that for any length of time.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#157

Post by nradov »

kiba wrote: post #145
defaultname wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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. It is uncontroversial that by reducing calories in one's diet that it will cause weight loss. The controversy is centered around weight control, whether an individual can keep the weight at…

Almost all diets succeed, if you actually follow them instead of just complaining. But it requires making a permanent lifestyle change. I know several people who have done that over the long run.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#158

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

tsimionescu wrote: post #146
defaultname wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is well known and undisputed." Unfortunately, loads of people in this very thread are disputing it. This submission is based upon the bizarre hope that there's a mysterious external influence that's actually causing people to gain weight, and not the merely coincidental simultaneous rise in caloric intake. The psychological element is complex and profoundly difficult. That is without question.

It's very possible that there is an external influence that's causing people to feel the need to eat more and gain more weight from what they're eating - this is precisely my point, and the point of the article. The fact that you can force yourself to eat less than you feel the need to and lose weight in the process does not prove, as you seem to think, that weight gain is simply explained by people being weak willed…

Where did they say it had to do with being "weak willed"? That's your projection.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#159

Post by readonthegoapp »

neonnoodle wrote: post #93
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?

I'm assuming dark humor.

But prob also true.

Or, truthy.

Think something like 'HFCS', or 'remove all the fiber', etc.

If you put enough power/money/ideology behind something, people will believe it, or not question it, etc. Probably, they/we, won't even be able to 'see' it.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#160

Post by nradov »

tsimionescu wrote: post #148
defaultname wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 word 'psychological' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. We have no reason to believe it is more or less likely for overeating to be caused by psychological rather than metabolic or…

Except in rare cases of severe disease, basal metabolic rates only vary by a few percent between people with the same sex, height, and weight. Some people are too quick to blame a "slow metabolism" for gaining weight. I always recommend they quantify it will a simple resting metabolic rate test. Those are cheap and non-invasive.
Post reply on HN