Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#41

Post by jcfrei »

csmeder wrote: post #12

"What caused the obesity epidemic?" "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This is analogous to saying: "What caused the increase in car accidents?" "And…

>It makes it sound like we could just cut food production across the board and prevent obesity.

that would actually work.

anyway, let's continue with your automobile parable. I think you're actually spot on with the quality argument. it was necessary to increase safety in passenger vehicles by state intervention (Euro NCAP), and alike the state, in my opinion, needs to chip in if consumers can't control their eating behaviour (just like there always will be irresponsible drivers out there). I'm actually a die hard libertarian, but it is hard to argue that imposing some sort of "fat tax" wouldn't actually reduce obesity (especially since obesity is higher in low income households)

heck - we got the smokers to feel terrible about themselves, I bet we can do the same to fat people... /rant

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#42

Post by wpietri »

saddino wrote: post #19
brd wrote: post #9

The Omnivore's Dilemma (Michael Pollan) goes into more detail on the history of the food boom in the 1970s and its link to obesity. Its a great read for anyone interested. Essentially we got hit with a one-two punch of food price paranoia and the high fructose corn syrup innovation.

I'd also recommend The End of Overeating (David Kessler) which posits that the obesity explosion is due to recent advances in food science re: foods engineered (precise ratios of fat, sugar and salt) to make you want to eat more ("conditioned hypereating"). If you want to lose weight, stop eating packaged food, cut out fast-food and cut back on restaurants/take-out. Make your own food (like everyone did 40 years ago…

I second that. In April I tried an experiment: home-cooked meals at least twice a day, and nothing with a human-boosted glycemic load. E.g., nothing with added sugar, no refined carbs, no fruit juice.

Portion control was much, much easier. I still ate until I felt full; I just felt full a lot sooner, and experienced a big drop in between-meal cravings.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#43

Post by dkarl »

colomon wrote: post #22
howeyc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a documentary on HBO recently that stated this as well. What's going on is that someone who is obese needs less calories per day to maintain their weight than someone who is not obese. Something to do with metabolism rates slowing down when you are overweight. See "Weight of the nation."

Except that's completely backwards to any "calories needed" calculation I've ever heard before. For instance, I just tried http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/calories-goal.php (after googling it out of the blue) with starting weights of 300 and 200, ten pounds to lose both ways, everything else the same. The calculator suggested the 200 pound guy needed to eat 500 calories a day fewer than the 300 pound guy did.

The calculator might assume that your goal is to have a non-overweight physique, so that if you tell it your goal weight is 290, it will assume that you're shooting for a pretty lean 290, not an obese 290. Naturally it recommends more calories for someone who is lean at 290 as opposed to someone who is lean at 190.

For example, suppose it assumes you'll have 15% body fat at your goal weight. If you told it your goal weight was 290 as opposed to 190, it would factor in 85 addition pounds of lean body mass and recommend extra calories to sustain that lean body mass. The article says something different: that the same person lean at 190 will gain less weight from an extra 10 calories per day than the same person obese at 290.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#46

Post by Tichy »

csmeder wrote: post #12

"What caused the obesity epidemic?" "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This is analogous to saying: "What caused the increase in car accidents?" "And…

I don't get your argument. I suppose more cars really lead to more car accidents. Where is the error? You want to have more cars and maintain your old level of car accidents, but it is very unlikely to work out...

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#47

Post by ticks »

lukifer wrote: post #20

Math alone is the wrong tool to solve a problem that is biochemical and behavioral in nature. On an individual level, the fix is straight-forward: eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. I have yet to encounter someone who has done this and not seen dramatic results. It's a trickier problem on a broad sociological level, though. The sugar peddlers have an incentive to create and maintain the addicti…

Those high-carb diets were probably useful several decades ago, especially in countries that suffered from the world wars. I think it had good intentions but due to those commercial influences, the advice wasn't adapted to fit modern lifestyles.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#48

Post by Pressenter »

These articles are so amusing. As a regular cyclist eating too much has never been a problem for me. If people really wanted to be thin they would get their ass out on the bike trail with the rest of us ridiculously fit people instead of sitting in front of the television. Since its pretty lonely out there most of the time its clear what choice people are making and I don't feel one bit sorry for you when you have to live with it. Fatty.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#49

Post by jrockway »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #44

sugary drinks. I've never known someone to drop these and not lose weight. It is SO EASY to consume an extra 500 calories a day of liquid sugar. It has close to zero satiety. A 500 calorie surplus is a pound of weight gain a week.

I gave up sugar a few years ago and there was pretty much no effect. I didn't have much sugar before, and there are plenty of other sources of calories.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#50

Post by [deleted] »

krupan wrote: post #35
potatolicious wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "which is fantastic advice ... and advice that a great many people don't bother to follow" At least a large part of this is due to lack of education. For all the time we spend on math and science in public schools, we spend none of it on some basic principles like nutrition. I was rather obese in high school, and the (Canadian) government foot the bill for nutrition courses and consultations with a dietitian (this…

Actually, I was taught a lot about basic nutrition in school. Low fat was good, complex carbohydrates were good. 4 food groups. Now apparently that is all wrong?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN