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

Always Hungry? Here’s Why

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#51

Post by sgift »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #26

People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws. I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoidin…

The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people. THAT's thinking like an Engineer.

> The flaw is in the people.

Reminds me of a story (no idea about historical accuracy): When the chief propagandist of the UDSSR was invited to a scientific conference he talked about all the positive effects of socialism, how it will solve all problems and so on. When his talk was finished the scientists unsurprisingly questioned him about his talk, because of all the prominent problems with socialism. His answer was simple:

"The system is perfect. The people are the problem."

If your system is 'perfect', but the people are the problem, maybe your system is shit. No one would use an engine that could go near the speed of light but killed all passengers in the process.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#52

Post by TillE »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #26

People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws. I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoidin…

The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people. THAT's thinking like an Engineer.

It's factually correct, but completely useless as advice. It's someone saying "just do X" with a wave of their hand, without ever bothering to think about how to actually implement X.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#53

Post by robert_tweed »

Udo wrote: post #3

There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplific…

I'm not sure I agree that this article falls short and does the popular simplification thing. It's the first widely accessible article I've seen that clearly refutes (with data and a citation) the oft-repeated assertion that "a calorie is a calorie".

Because the science is still incomplete, the article unsurprisingly ends on a "more research is needed" note, but I completely agree with that!

While your point about fat cells, ghrelin and leptin has some factual basis, precisely how these hormones affect eating patterns and are themselves affected by bodyfat, carbohydrate intake and insulin resistance, are among the things that need more carefully controlled studies.

I'd also like to see more science into the effects of intermittent fasting. There is IIRC only one actual study on this, far from enough to back up all the various protocols and broscience articles on how "fasting is good for you". Anecdotally, it seems to be very effective for some people but I don't think we yet have a very good understanding of why that is, or indeed whether it is even true under controlled conditions.

I personally suspect that carb restriction and intermittent fasting both have very similar effects on this group of 3 hormones, while sugar has basically the opposite effect. What's lacking however is clear scientific evidence of this.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#54

Post by dlp211 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #26

People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws. I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoidin…

The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people. THAT's thinking like an Engineer.

If you read the article, you would have realized that calorie deficits do not necessitate weight loss, for a variety of reasons.

Thinking like an engineer, one should ask the question that is our underlying assumption, that is: is a calorie a calorie. The truth is, there are good calories and bad calories, and by eating good calories (fat, fiber, and protein) instead of bad calories (sugars and other non-fiber carbohydrates) you can lose weight.

Now if you are eating 1500 extra calories a day then your body burns, then switching diets is not the only answer, but for most people this isn't the case.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#55

Post by tpeng »

dlp211 wrote: post #42
tpeng wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently went from bulking to cutting and went from 3500 calories per day to 2000 per day. You are massively underestimating caloric intake shifts that are possible or necessary.

You are assuming that the average person is a weight lifter like yourself. Most people aren't, most people get very little structured exercise. The truth of the matter is that most people don't have the time to go throw 45's around a gym for an hour a few times a week, and that diet and metabolism are the two main factors in a persons weight. Edit: Also, most people aren't eating 3500 calories a day. They are probabl…

I haven't changed my exercise routine, so my total energy expenditure has not changed. Cutting calories is just as difficult for me as it is for anyone else

I am not sure how common insulin resistance is, but given that it is a metabolic disorder, I don't think you can draw general conclusions about metabolism from those individuals.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#56

Post by tpeng »

HarrietJones wrote: post #45
dlp211 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day." I'm sorry, but that is not a marginal effect. That is the difference between weight gain and weight loss. Also, if you read the article you would have noticed that a calorie deficit is not the only thing that necessitates weight loss, in fact, it might not help at all. There are good calor…

200 calories a day equates to one pound loss every 16 days, but to reach that level of metabolic slowdown, you need to be thin, and you need to cut your caloric intake down by about 1000 calories a day. So yeah - it's a marginal effect.

I was also being quite generous in that 200 estimate. While many people do anecdotally report that their maintenance level seems to be lower when cutting, I suspect that it's largely due to changes in physical activity as individuals are more easily exhausted on caloric deficits.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#57

Post by jusben1369 »

exratione wrote: post #2

Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Its a pernicious, harmful urge most often on display in courtrooms and discussions on weight and diet. Unfortunately reality is what it is: if you eat without consideration and control in this modern world of low-cost calories, then you will get fat. Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you…

This argument can really be filed under the "I want to wash my hands of the whole affair by stating fat people simply should eat less and it's all their fault" Obesity rates have soared. Inquisitive minds want to know what is driving that change? It appears to be more than simply "oh a whole new generation just doesn't have the will power of people as recently as 20 or 25 years ago"

As this article points out people who are trying to lose weight and following the advice of 'experts' may have been doing the wrong thing Staying hungry eating grain bread, pastas and fruit and not satiating themselves with enough fats or proteins. Jump in and join the discussion don't try and dismiss it with a disdainful wave of the hand.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#58

Post by dandelany »

joel_perl_prog wrote: post #49
Mexxer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are getting downvotes because developers don't care about their health. It's because you are saying that ONE smoothie is changing lives... which is a ridicolous statement. And it honestly sounds like an attempt for self promotion.

It is not a claim about the future. It's a fact, referring to the past. Of course I will not, but I could easily fish out thank you letters and comments about positive change from a private forum. I promote your health, sir. Not myself. Forget about me. Think about you. And in particular, note that I don't have any ads on my video. It's really about you. If you can believe that. Sometimes people try to do good for it…

"You will feel better" is certainly and obviously a claim about the future.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#59

Post by joel_perl_prog »

dandelany wrote: post #58
joel_perl_prog wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a claim about the future. It's a fact, referring to the past. Of course I will not, but I could easily fish out thank you letters and comments about positive change from a private forum. I promote your health, sir. Not myself. Forget about me. Think about you. And in particular, note that I don't have any ads on my video. It's really about you. If you can believe that. Sometimes people try to do good for it…

"You will feel better" is certainly and obviously a claim about the future.

Lol. Well you got me on a technicality.

Fine. "Everyone who has tried this, and it's about 20 people at this point, from local people (my family, for example, local friends) to those I only know online--every single one of these people has experienced benefits and shared their happiness with me."

How's that? Don't be a cynic. Don't be too far above it all. Don't "know it all" already. Just try it. Because, while the video is new-ish (I used to have a different one, years ago), my doing this is years in the making. Years. This is no fly-by-night experiment.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#60

Post by igravious »

morgante wrote: post #46
igravious wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time. How is it ridiculous? It's not a personal slur on you. Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds generally suffer more from overweight issues and obesity? Wouldn't you say that people from this type of background are less likely to consume their mass media in the form of the New York Times? > Being overweight is in no way equivalent to…

> How is it ridiculous? Because you're taking a correlation and eliminating the lower data point. Yes, people with better educations tend to eat better, but not by much. In fact, for adult males there is no correlation between education and obesity prevalence. [1] I, and the many other overweight NYT readers, certainly exist. We could also benefit from this article. Should we not get access to it because of your faul…

I know you didn't say that. Which is _why_ I said, "I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment)" and then I posted the link to the comment which said it. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with that comment so you need to go read it if you want to debate that. I probably shouldn't have rolled two viewpoints into the one post as it seems to have totally confused the issue.

The opening paragraph of the piece you linked to says, "People with higher levels of education and higher income have lower rates of many chronic diseases compared to those with less education and lower income levels, according to Health, United States, 2011 – the government’s annual comprehensive report on Americans’ health." which seems to back up my viewpoint,

Which is all that I've been saying. I'm sorry if it offends you but I'm going to stick by what I've said - (in general terms) the type of person who might most benefit from this article in the New York Times is less likely to be the type of person to read the New York Times. Note that I am _not_ saing that overweight people do not read the New York Times, if you got that from what I said I'm sorry I didn't word it better but I'm not taking it back.

Post reply on HN