A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity • Hacker News Board

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#91

Post by redwood » Wed, May 16, 2012, 5:41 AM UTC

koeselitz wrote: post #57

"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This doesn't actually follow logically. I know Mr Chow is implying that there's a lot of data that this interview obviously doesn't present, but there are serious problems with this thesis on the face of…

The rich can afford to eat at restaurants with routines that simulate a robust meal without truly ingesting too many calories, and because it's healthy to do so, this is precisely what the rich do. This is why portions are so tiny at gourmet restaurants so the middle class balks at them as a total rip-off. In a sense you pay to be given pomp and circumstance and less food!

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#92

Post by redwood » Wed, May 16, 2012, 5:47 AM UTC

its_so_on wrote: post #23

I disagree with the article, and don't believe mathematics has the answer to obesity. However, if someone would like to start a diet-centered startup with me, I believe I have an insight that invalidates every diet book on the planet. Every diet book on the planet makes one very false assumption. Before we get to the assumption, let's review something uncontroversial: - You put on fat by eating more calories than you…

Do you want to either have some kind of coach who forces you to change? or to pay people to change? what?

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#93

Post by redwood » Wed, May 16, 2012, 5:48 AM UTC

its_so_on wrote: post #23

I disagree with the article, and don't believe mathematics has the answer to obesity. However, if someone would like to start a diet-centered startup with me, I believe I have an insight that invalidates every diet book on the planet. Every diet book on the planet makes one very false assumption. Before we get to the assumption, let's review something uncontroversial: - You put on fat by eating more calories than you…

Do you want to either have some kind of coach who forces you to change? or to pay people to change? what?

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#94

Post by robomartin » Wed, May 16, 2012, 6:25 AM UTC

Drbble wrote: post #77

robomartin wrote: post #28

"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." Overproduction? Does a factory intentionally produce more cars than it can sell? Probably not. How about a baker? Does a baker produce more cookies than she can sell? Not for long. Maybe a farmer? No. Not really. That is not an economically sustainable position t…

Http://begthequestion.info

I know. I went back to edit that but it was too late. I meant to say "raises the question" but fell into an all-too-common trap. This is easy to do in English if you are not on your toes because the word "question" has two meanings and "beg", in my opinion, makes it even more confusing. In other languages, for example, Spanish, the equivalent phrase is not ambiguous at all: petición de principio

I actually studied Logic in Spanish while my family was living abroad. Sometimes that does a number with my brain because I actually think about the fallacies in Spanish!

Thanks for pointing that out.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#95

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, May 16, 2012, 12:03 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #91

koeselitz wrote: post #57

"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This doesn't actually follow logically. I know Mr Chow is implying that there's a lot of data that this interview obviously doesn't present, but there are serious problems with this thesis on the face of…

The rich can afford to eat at restaurants with routines that simulate a robust meal without truly ingesting too many calories, and because it's healthy to do so, this is precisely what the rich do. This is why portions are so tiny at gourmet restaurants so the middle class balks at them as a total rip-off. In a sense you pay to be given pomp and circumstance and less food!

Theories like this fail to take into account that the children of rich people don't get fat, even if they are poor themselves. Consider, grad students, interns, artists, etc, none of whom can afford to eat at gourmet restaurants.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#96

Post by glenra » Wed, May 16, 2012, 1:05 PM UTC

byoung2 wrote: post #10

Almaviva wrote: post #2

"An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one." It needs to be explained how he determined that this isn't related to _why_ they are obese in the first place, i.e. whether these are purely correlational facts. It would be nice if the New York Times wasn't susceptible to elementary statistical fallacies like this but... well this is nutrition after all.

It needs to be explained how he determined that this isn't related to _why_ they are obese in the first place I agree that more explanation is needed...the thinner person may be thin because she is more active, and the obese person may be obese because she is more sedentary. An extra 10 calories would seem more likely to put more weight on a sedentary person than an active one.

The reverse claim has just as much explanatory power. That is to say: The active person may be active because she is more thin, and the sedentary person may be sedentary because she is more obese.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#97

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Wed, May 16, 2012, 1:36 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #91

koeselitz wrote: post #57

"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This doesn't actually follow logically. I know Mr Chow is implying that there's a lot of data that this interview obviously doesn't present, but there are serious problems with this thesis on the face of…

The rich can afford to eat at restaurants with routines that simulate a robust meal without truly ingesting too many calories, and because it's healthy to do so, this is precisely what the rich do. This is why portions are so tiny at gourmet restaurants so the middle class balks at them as a total rip-off. In a sense you pay to be given pomp and circumstance and less food!

With a degustation you'll probably have quite a few courses. 9, 10 maybe more. Maybe matching wines.

If you are just fine dining you will get larger portions but will still go starter, entree, main course, dessert.

The portions are small because you cannot eat that much. The prices are high because at a good restaurant they are serving food that is hard to make and they do it well.

A lot of fine food can be very rich. So I am not sure about not ingesting too many calories. Perhaps relative to eating an entire pizza on my own. But not to eating a regular balanced meal.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#98

Post by paul-woolcock » Thu, May 17, 2012, 12:42 PM UTC

getsat wrote: post #70

paul-woolcock wrote: post #27

The "calories in/calories out" argument is based on the assumption that the human body is a closed system. This is simply not the case, and touting it as a diet strategy is irresponsible. You might lose weight if you lower your caloric intake by only eating 1 McDonalds cheeseburger a day instead of 2, but in the end you are still eating crap food "product", and you won't be as healthy as you could be by focusing on t…

There's a few National Institute of Health studies that back the calories in vs calories out argument. Keep your calorie intake below your BMR (basal metabolic rate) + what you burn during the day if you want to lose weight. Very simple. You don't have to "balance saturated and unsatured fats", get ten hours of sleep per day, or whatever other ridiculous microoptimisations people come up with. Eat 500 calories below…

That makes sense. I suppose I just think of something different than I should when I hear "weight loss." When someone says "weight loss," I hear "body composition change," which is obviously different than weight loss.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#99

Post by its_so_on » Thu, May 17, 2012, 6:48 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #92

its_so_on wrote: post #23

I disagree with the article, and don't believe mathematics has the answer to obesity. However, if someone would like to start a diet-centered startup with me, I believe I have an insight that invalidates every diet book on the planet. Every diet book on the planet makes one very false assumption. Before we get to the assumption, let's review something uncontroversial: - You put on fat by eating more calories than you…

Do you want to either have some kind of coach who forces you to change? or to pay people to change? what?

Sorry, I've waited a day before this reply since I think the mods didn't like that I seemed a bit like an infomercial. I don't have one single idea, but rather a whole collection of ideas which can be executed by a single company with rigor.

They're all based on the premise I've outlined. Kind of like there are a whole lot of different alarms (and strategies, like - for me - placing the alarm across the room) that all 'do something' beyond waking you up long enough that you turn the alarm off before falling back asleep for good. There's not one strategy here.

To me, diet and exercise-based books are like strategies for waking up: they think that having a strategy like "When the alarm wakes you up enough that you turn it off, do turn it off, but don't go back to sleep!" Well, yeah, that's the "super-strategy!" All strategies are equivalent to this, just like all strategies are equivalent to "use more calories than you consume". It doesn't help someone who wakes up just long enough to turn a 'naive' alarm off.

If there is some way to reach you I'm happy to share a complete list.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#100

Post by its_so_on » Thu, May 17, 2012, 6:49 PM UTC

Drbble wrote: post #80

its_so_on wrote: post #23

I disagree with the article, and don't believe mathematics has the answer to obesity. However, if someone would like to start a diet-centered startup with me, I believe I have an insight that invalidates every diet book on the planet. Every diet book on the planet makes one very false assumption. Before we get to the assumption, let's review something uncontroversial: - You put on fat by eating more calories than you…

You aren't wrong, but you could cut 70% of the words from your post without losing the point. Trim the fat.

Sorry, I've waited a day before this reply since I think the mods didn't like that I seemed a bit like an infomercial. see sister post, you may also be interested.