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

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#181

Post by ajuc »

Pyramus wrote: post #20

This series of blog posts is a fascinating read into conjectured factors behind the obesity epidemic. I wish the author had continued their rigor in reasoning throughout the two blog posts. Step by step the author is lured into proving a single factor explains the rise in obesity. That maybe a futile attempt from the outset. To make an example, the author notes, correctly and to the point, > "Calories are involved in…

Dunno the relationship seems pretty straightforward to me:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51308115221_02f244737d_o...

There is certainly some diminishing returns effect but it seems much less important than kcal in-kcal out.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#182

Post by ajuc »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #63

I know exactly why I'm fat. I consistently continue eating after already feeling full. Regardless of whether it's socially designated as a "health food" or "junk food". Most of the pleasure of eating and drinking comes from the first few bites and sips, after that the senses start dulling and diminishing returns start to set in, so it's really no big loss to stop when full. Certainly not worth getting indigestion ove…

Check this out - https://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/ helped me a lot (I lost 23 kg since March).

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#183

Post by tomerv »

briefcomment wrote: post #102

> "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 expl…

I feel that this was covered by the article (there's a second part) with the conclusion that this cannot be the main factor of the obesity epidemic. Margarine consumption was much higher in the 1970s than today, but obesity today is much higher.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#184

Post by brazzy »

readonthegoapp wrote: post #151
brazzy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Read. The. Fucking. Article.

Then argue against the factual evidence it cites, not against some silly strawman.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#185

Post by tsimionescu »

nradov wrote: post #160
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…

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.

Here's the information from Wikipedia [0]:

> The basic metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue size of highly energetic organs such as the brain.

So this study [1] claims ~25% difference in BMR that is NOT explained by sex, weight, height, lean body mass etc. That can mean some people can eat an extra burger a day compared to others without gaining more weight.

It's also important to note that BMR is not the only biological component here. Both CI and CO are biologically determined, they are not under 100% rational control. There are clear differences in people in terms of appetite/hunger reaction, and in terms of desire for physical activity, that we don't have a known explanation for (psychology? endocrinology? metabolic causes? gut biome? other?). This is, in fact, the biggest biologically determined component of obesity that is usually entirely ignored and blamed entirely on the individual's self-control.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of...

[1] https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fajcn%2F82.5.941

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#186

Post by tsimionescu »

gadders wrote: post #120
jwdunne wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, really, you agree that science cannot justify the cruelty of fat shaming? As you said, it’s value neutral. Which part of my comment says I’d like science to spare people’s feelings? Show me the science that justifies fat shaming and inappropriate behaviour. Fat shaming somebody because “science” doesn’t make you any less of shit person. In fact, you can’t really use any science to excuse poor behaviour. So I thin…

I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.

> Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No.

What precisely do you mean by Calories in/Calories out? Do you mean the very basic observation that eating significantly more or less than you eat today will help increase or decrease your weight, all things being equal? This is clearly true, but doesn't explain why some people naturally overeat, while others naturally undereat, and why overeating has been significantly increasing all over the world.

Or do you mean that people gain a pound for every 3.5k Cal that they eat? Because these sorts of numbers are pure gunk - there is huge variance between individuals in terms of how much overeating will cause how much weight gain. The relationship is also highly non-linear.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#187

Post by gadders »

tsimionescu wrote: post #186
gadders wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.

> Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. What precisely do you mean by Calories in/Calories out? Do you mean the very basic observation that eating significantly more or less than you eat today will help increase or decrease your weight, all things being equal? This is clearly true, but doesn't explain why some people naturally overeat, while others naturally undereat, and w…

The former. In animal farming, they measure "food conversion ratio" i.e. they want animals that will get as close as possible to turning 1kg of food into 1kg of body weight. Some animals within the same type can vary in this value. I've often wondered if something similar happens in humans.

No-one said monitoring and reducing your calories is easy, but it is simple.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#188

Post by gadders »

jwdunne wrote: post #126
gadders wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that the phenomena of fat shaming should not be used to suppress the fact that calories in/calories out is how you lose weight and works. Would I run up to a morbidly fat person and shout "Calories in/Calories out"? No. Would I contradict an obese person who said "Calories In/Calories Out" was wrong? Yes.

Okay, which part of my comment says that fat shaming should be used to suppress science? Which part of my comment says that it’s wrong? It IS a simplified view and there ARE many more variables that influence the success of dietary change. And there are even more that influence the wider obesity problem. But that doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. As you said, the sky is blue. Is that wrong? No. Is it simplified? Ye…

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

You literally said it here.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#189

Post by JoeAltmaier »

kiba wrote: post #169
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

No. We're not outliers. Except from the psychological point of view, sure. Which is where this started. We've got 1000 voices reinforcing the view that some magic pill exists, and that has its effect.

Smugness is nowhere in sight. More like resignation and sadness.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#190

Post by gadders »

gadders wrote: post #54
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.

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).

Just in case anyone is interested: I have a Withings/Nokia scale that syncs to my phone, and then used the Android App Libra to plot a trendline for my intended weight loss and compared that in the app against the trendline it drew through my actual weight loss. I also used the free Samsung Health App to get the calorie values for what I ate, or used the ones on the packet.
Post reply on HN