McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels • Hacker News Board

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#111

Post by meric » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:32 AM UTC

Steuard wrote: post #95

meric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically removing the consequences of gluttony is likely to increase demand for food products and therefore increase its price, reducing available food supply and increasing world hunger. Food supply can be temporarily boosted by farming the land more intensively, but in the long run will also be detrimental to food production. Until our food production can be dramatically increased with minimal effect on the envi…

You're doubling down on the "obesity is a moral disease" stance here ("gluttony" is explicitly a moral judgement). I've come to suspect that it really isn't as simple as "lack of self-control": too many people I know have gained significant weight due to medications or medical conditions, or despite sincere and sustained efforts to bring their weight under control. (I'm also quite intrigued by claims that even broad…

    "Once something is this common, it just stops being reasonable to blame the individuals rather than broader factors."

You are introducing one additional broad factor of world hunger through increase in food prices. And that is not something I would like to be morally responsible for.

I'm OK with people overeating - as long as they receive the consequences of doing so. They are adults who can make their own decisions with the trade-off between food consumption vs weight. Removing the consequences? That's where my moral judgement is - at all those people who think indulging our senses and removing consequences to those who do without thinking about the cost to everyone else - and not just the moral cost.

And, it looks like that includes you.

    ""gluttony" is explicitly a moral judgement"

'gluttony' is a word. Whether it's a moral judgement is in your mind. In it's most technical terms it means "over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste." It's like "goto". It's only bad if used with judgement - which I did not - only saying the utility of mankind would be greater if we do not artificially increase our metabolism to remove the consequence of overeating.

    " too many people I know have gained significant weight due to medications or medical conditions, or despite sincere and sustained efforts to bring their weight under control."

Then that is the medication's problem. Why is obesity a much smaller problem in other countries? Why are so many people taking anxiety medications, for example?

And that is closer to the core problems in society than solving obesity via medication - obesity is just a symptom and by removing the appearance of the symptom you never get to solve the core problem, and additionally, make the world worse off by introducing more unintended consequences further away from what is really wrong with society.

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#112

Post by ryanobjc » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:34 AM UTC

kaybe wrote: post #103

rtpg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

access to fresh food is more expensive now that the industry has gone more and more into processed foods. People have to eat, and if you can't afford to get high-quality food, you're gonna buy low-quality food.

Only in terms of time, at least here in Europe. If you get noodles, flour, rice and in-season vegetables and fruit (and don't choose these for wants but for price, there are some ridiculous deals sometimes), plus some more expensive ingredients such as eggs and milk sparingly, it is very cheap. There's no way processed food can beat that.

See, you are assuming that noodles, flour, rice are healthy for you.

There is good evidence that in fact, it is not. Many of those things are inflammatory. Also, following advice they get from doctors, they are using more and more poly-unsaturated fats. Which as we are discovering are actually substantially LESS healthy for you than saturated fat!

And in terms of time, you are ignoring the only thing people have a fixed amount of. By ignoring that, you're ignoring a very important factor that causes people in to bad eating choices. Not that they even know what good vs bad are (as I hinted above, so-called 'healthy' food for you isn't!)

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#113

Post by ryanobjc » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:35 AM UTC

twobits wrote: post #73

zackmorris wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching "Feeding Frenzy: The Food Industry, Marketing & the Creation of a Health Crisis" on LinkTV last night and they talked about how obesity is rising in 3-6 year olds. The point being that children in that age group are no less active today than in the past, so something else is causing obesity, type II diabetes and other problems. The most likely culprit is processed food, where nutrients are not used in…

TL;DR: Capitalism solves everything. /sarcasm. Some day humanity will realize that the freedom to say and pursue a different opinion, is not the same as "competition". The freedom to a diff opinion, and pursuing it, is good. Cooperation and sharing, is good. Competition, is bad. It focuses on "wining" and not on solutions and improvement. PS: Yeah, I know, I live in a wrong, fucking, century :-(

Bah to your sarcastic pessimism. Doesn't help you, doesn't help the world.

Here, read this and upgrade your thinking on the subject of failings of capitalism and why they are so: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#114

Post by meric » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:36 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #104

swombat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case you mention is clearly exceptional. It does not explain the huge rise in obesity over the last few decades. To clarify: when I say "obesity is a moral disease" I'm talking about obesity as a social trend, not a specific overweight person - those can have very good explanations... but the majority don't, imho.

So you think the population just got less moral recently? How about the fact that cheap food has less nutrition per calorie, and people have less money available in their food budget now. So they eat more calories because high-calorie food is what they can afford.

People are so eager to consume anything and everything they have little to no money left to spend on good food.

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#115

Post by ryanobjc » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:37 AM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #79

tempestn wrote: post #37

I don't really understand the comments here, and especially on the article itself, deriding this research because "people should just get off their butts and exercise" or similar. I'm sure the researchers wouldn't dispute the benefits of exercise. But if there really is a safe, effective way to improve the metabolism and make it easier to keep off fat, why exactly is that a bad thing? (Naturally the research is far t…

I actually find it surprising here given the large number of people here sympathetic to the transhuman/singularity/quantified-self/life-hacker type ideals. Does it not occur to them that findings like this, combined with a good diet and exercise, are the most likely candidates for actually living longer and staying healthy further into your old age? I don't care what lazy people will "get away with", I want these adv…

What's healthy?

I switched my diet to substantially up my saturated fats, increased my red meat intake by 4x and ended up losing weight, improving my lipids, and blood pressure and a lot more.

Basically, what I'm saying is, by ignoring ALL the advice of medical professionals and the USDA/etc was I able to change my life and establish a new, sustainable (as in for me to keep doing it), diet.

So, tell me again about what good diet is?

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#116

Post by ryanobjc » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:47 AM UTC

meric wrote: post #111

Steuard wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doubling down on the "obesity is a moral disease" stance here ("gluttony" is explicitly a moral judgement). I've come to suspect that it really isn't as simple as "lack of self-control": too many people I know have gained significant weight due to medications or medical conditions, or despite sincere and sustained efforts to bring their weight under control. (I'm also quite intrigued by claims that even broad…

"Once something is this common, it just stops being reasonable to blame the individuals rather than broader factors." You are introducing one additional broad factor of world hunger through increase in food prices. And that is not something I would like to be morally responsible for. I'm OK with people overeating - as long as they receive the consequences of doing so. They are adults who can make their own decisions…

Your argument over 'gluttony' is silly. Without shared meanings behind words, we cannot communicate.

The common, shared, understanding of gluttony comes with moral failing. After all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony

Which states: "Derived from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow, gluttony (Latin, gula) is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste."

Now, I highly doubt you have a different definition in mind. You are only backtracking now that people are heavily calling you out for it.

So why are you backtracking here? The rest of your comments indicate are really consistent with someone who is in fact judging people who are obese.

If you really aren't judging them, perhaps instead of arguing that 'gluttony' is a morally neutral word (it isn't), choose a different word? That's the nice thing about english, it has a lot of expressivity.

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#117

Post by meric » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:58 AM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #116

meric wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Once something is this common, it just stops being reasonable to blame the individuals rather than broader factors." You are introducing one additional broad factor of world hunger through increase in food prices. And that is not something I would like to be morally responsible for. I'm OK with people overeating - as long as they receive the consequences of doing so. They are adults who can make their own decisions…

Your argument over 'gluttony' is silly. Without shared meanings behind words, we cannot communicate. The common, shared, understanding of gluttony comes with moral failing. After all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony Which states: "Derived from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow, gluttony (Latin, gula) is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of wast…

I had looked it up before I used it. It was a deliberate choice of a word. I'm not Christian and the use of the word "gluttony" was used to precisely mean the over-consumption of food. There is no backtracking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony

"Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy."

My original comment states:

"Technically removing the consequences of gluttony is likely to increase demand for food products and therefore increase its price"

---

I am morally against removing the consequences of gluttony, because it will increase human suffering through hunger as an unintended consequence.

---

People can call me out on it, threaten me with all kinds of abuse, I will not take one inch back from my statement.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_...

Which level are you?

Are you perceiving me as judging those who are obese, and so is judging me for it?

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#118

Post by freshhawk » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 2:35 AM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #115

freshhawk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually find it surprising here given the large number of people here sympathetic to the transhuman/singularity/quantified-self/life-hacker type ideals. Does it not occur to them that findings like this, combined with a good diet and exercise, are the most likely candidates for actually living longer and staying healthy further into your old age? I don't care what lazy people will "get away with", I want these adv…

What's healthy? I switched my diet to substantially up my saturated fats, increased my red meat intake by 4x and ended up losing weight, improving my lipids, and blood pressure and a lot more. Basically, what I'm saying is, by ignoring ALL the advice of medical professionals and the USDA/etc was I able to change my life and establish a new, sustainable (as in for me to keep doing it), diet. So, tell me again about wh…

Is that the question we're talking about? I was referring to the comments casting being overweight as moral failing and viewing this research as negative in some way. I found it quite silly and I have never been overweight or even had immediate family members with weight issues.

I've always gone with "Eat food (not food-like products), not too much, mostly plants." as a baseline for what a good diet is. Its likely not the best, and there are likely completely different diets that are as good or better, but we don't know what they are.

And I sacrifice a fair amount to get a lot of physical activity. And pay attention to what you eat, don't let habit or compulsion have too much control of your eating. Incidentally this is why most diets work at the beginning, starting to pay attention to what you eat has more benefit than anything else.

Macro-nutrient adjustment diets seem particularly untrustworthy to me - there are healthier cultures around the world with diets of all macro-nutrient balances, and the fact that the "good ones" change every ten years for diet fads looks exactly like what happens when people demand answers from science when it doesn't have them but has to give their best guess.

Also, the idea that food or a certain diet is simply healthy or not healthy is a childish simplification. Your body is complex, and the same food will have different consequences on different organs and systems in your body. What makes something a net negative or net positive depends on the current state of your body and how you weight different effects.

That's basically it, I have no strong opinions because there is no strong evidence.

So no, I can't tell you what a good diet is specifically, and anyone who says they can is a liar.

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#119

Post by rasz_pl » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 4:08 AM UTC

Otik wrote: post #93

rasz_pl wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very surprised about fat blaming in this article too. Its common knowledge* that high amounts of hydrocarbons in the died decrease metabolism. When you eat food that is easy to burn your body switches to that and stops trying to burn stored fat. *not 'grandmas wisdom', but something you can test on yourself with Ketogenic diet in 1-2 months.

I think the word you were looking for was "carbohydrates", not "hydrocarbons". They're not the same thing.

yep, wrong language, in mine those two sound almost the same :/

Re: McMaster researchers may have found a way to restore metabolism to youth levels

#120

Post by kaybe » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #112

kaybe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in terms of time, at least here in Europe. If you get noodles, flour, rice and in-season vegetables and fruit (and don't choose these for wants but for price, there are some ridiculous deals sometimes), plus some more expensive ingredients such as eggs and milk sparingly, it is very cheap. There's no way processed food can beat that.

See, you are assuming that noodles, flour, rice are healthy for you. There is good evidence that in fact, it is not. Many of those things are inflammatory. Also, following advice they get from doctors, they are using more and more poly-unsaturated fats. Which as we are discovering are actually substantially LESS healthy for you than saturated fat! And in terms of time, you are ignoring the only thing people have a fi…

Well, you can also get lentils, whole-grain bread/noodles/rice/flour, chickpeas and other things as cheap staples (if one leaves the meat out as in my example it's not even optional), but I guess that's not what you mean? What would be your suggestion as staple?

There's a problem with nutrition research in that it changes recommendations every once in a while. The only constant seems to be 'Eat food, mix it up - naturally colourful things are good, don't eat too much of it', so I'm going with that for now.

Concerning time.. it's maybe more of a knowledge and organisation thing, which takes time to aquire. Unless you want really fancy food like sushi.