A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries • Hacker News Board

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#161

Post by readonthegoapp » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

EMM_386 wrote: post #153

readonthegoapp wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obes…

ok, _multiple_ tribes, that -- unlike us westernized/modernized/uncivilized people -- eat _un_processed sugars, _un_processed foods, etc.

i'm all for looking at populations of folks and then looking at the effects of their new diets -- whether they moved to the food, or the food moved to them -- but i don't even see the beginnings of an apples-to-apples comparison here.

to me, a layman, i don't see Nutrasweet and sugar and honey and cookies and apples to be all the same in terms of the effects of their 'sugars' on the body.

i must be missing something.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#162

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #156

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 availabl…

Hey I'm all aboard that. It's under the umbrella of "psychological".

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#163

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #152

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adjust within limits. And the limits are fairly narrow. It's also true that hard exercise will blow away those limits, and require more food. Every single time.

But hard exercise is hard! Folks don't want to do it. They want to stretch and walk around a track and pretend. But they don't want to do 20 miles on a bike. They convince themselves that they can't. Or they try and get aches and pains and decide that's bad. Pretty much throwing up roadblocks right and left, anything to avoid the work.

We all know this. It's why there are 1000 books about tricks and diets and how to fool yourself. Because we want to do that instead. But we can stop enabling that; stop making excuses for small issues about body adjustments and so on.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#164

Post by nradov » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

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.

Soluable fiber does have calories for humans.

https://www.fiberfacts.org/fibers-count-calories-carbohydrat...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#165

Post by MaysonL » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

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…

> That's incredibly hard to do, of course

Only for fat people. People like me find it fairly easy.

Over my adult life[currently 75yo], my weight has fluctuated modestly year to year (as measured by the tightness of my belt). When my abdominal circumference has grown by a couple belt notches, I tend to eat less for a while, until the belt is less tight. THIS REQUIRES ALMOST NO WILLPOWER OR CONSCIOUS ATTENTION ON MY PART. Why????

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#166

Post by oezi » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #130

heax wrote: post #112

I think the simple truth is we simply eat too much. Possible the worldwide most known modern food product is the Big Mac. Named Big Mac, not Best Mac, think about it. And it doesn't stop there, large pizzas, pizzas with a lot on top, XXL Schnitzels, All you can eat Chinese. A lot people make quantity a priority over quality, guess what happens :)

The whole point of the article is that this is an inadequate explanation. First, the author points out that the increase in calorie consumption has been modest compared to the amount of weight gained. Second, why are we eating more? Moral failure and weak will are the popular explanations, but this fails to explain a variety of observations (Why now - haven’t humans always wanted to eat delicious food? Why do some hu…

I wouldn't say 400 extra calories is modest, if you consider Calories in/Calories Out then even a modest increase in calories is leading to a continued accumulation.

By the authors examples eating 1.000 calories extra for 10 days gives you 1kg of weight gain. Assuming that the average diet went from 2.000 to 2.400 calories, it makes sense that people should gain 400*365/10.000 = 15kg per year until that extra body mass is increasing base level energy need or people are more physically active (but 1 hour of physical exercise is only 600 calories for many sports).

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#167

Post by kiba » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #157

kiba wrote: post #145

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. 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.

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.

Several people as in how many out of those that failed. If the statistics tell us that 90% of people failed, then these diets or programs are still an utter failure. By saying it is some kind of moral failing or willpower means we decided to be lazy about investigating the cause of obesity.

Remember, the obesity epidemic is a modern phenomenon. There are countries around the world that are still relatively lean.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#168

Post by nradov » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

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.

In particular phthalates (plastic softeners) are suspected to reduce testosterone. Lower testosterone is linked to fat gain.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#169

Post by kiba » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #163

kiba wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adjust within limits. And the limits are fairly narrow. It's also true that hard exercise will blow away those limits, and require more food. Every single time. But hard exercise is hard! Folks don't want to do it. They want to stretch and walk around a track and pretend. But they don't want to do 20 miles on a bike. They convince themselves that they can't. Or they try and get aches and pains and decide that's bad.…

OK? You and I can do these things, but we are outliers. For example, 750 minutes of exercise per week is a lot is what I estimated from a study for diminishing return for health. That's 12.5 hours, let alone meeting the weekly minimum requirement.

Most people are busy, they have jobs or families or kids. Yet decades ago, these same people aren't fat.

We all know this. It's why there are 1000 books about tricks and diets and how to fool yourself. Because we want to do that instead. But we can stop enabling that; stop making excuses for small issues about body adjustments and so on.

There's certainly no magic trick, but being dogmatic or smug isn't helpful either.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#170

Post by oezi » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

ju_sh wrote: post #108

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 expenditu…

I think there are two things to embrace:

- Saving more than 500 calories per day is very hard, thus you are likely to only loose 1 lb per week/10 days of body fat.

- You need the will power to stay on course and fight off the hunger sensation. This is the hardest of any diet.

I don't believe that people can change their diet mix / macro nutrient split because there isn't enough choice to change your diet fundamentally without becoming bored quickly or being unhealthy or eco-unfriendly (for instance eating more meat).