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

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#121

Post by tzs »

defaultname wrote: post #42
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.

But it's the fundamental, most basic truth. If there is anything that people who want to lose weight should do, it's eat less . Skip the snack. Smaller portions. That's incredibly hard to do, of course, and easier said than done, but ultimately it is behind virtually all successful weight loss. What is behind an enormous number of failed weight loss attempts are waving that away and believing some specific macronutri…

People in the 2000's weighed about 10% more than people in the '80s who ate the same amount of calories, with the same micronutrient distribution, and did the same amount of exercise [1].

And what about non-humans? Animals are getting fatter, too [2]. Some of this can be explained by humans eating more, hence making more food available to those animals that eat human leftovers or steal human food. But this weight gain has also been noted in laboratory animals which are on controlled diets.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-wa...

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.628

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#122

Post by inglor_cz »

defaultname wrote: post #115
tsimionescu wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is well known and undisputed. The question is: when can you stop eating less than your body is telling you that you should? Did you ever get rid of the hunger? I lost about 30kg (105 -> 75) by eating less, excersing more, all in about the span of a year. I never stopped feeling hungry overall for this period, constantly had to fight the urge to eat more. In periods where high stress reduced my willpower, I start…

"That is well known and undisputed." Unfortunately, loads of people in this very thread are disputing it. This submission is based upon the bizarre hope that there's a mysterious external influence that's actually causing people to gain weight, and not the merely coincidental simultaneous rise in caloric intake. The psychological element is complex and profoundly difficult. That is without question.

I am not sure whether we can reduce this to psychological elements. After all, laboratory rats and wild animals that eat our food leftovers grow fatter too, not just us humans. Arguably, rat or raccoon psychology is rather different from ours.

I believe that the problem is not that different from the problem of alcoholism. Everyone lives in a society soaked with alcohol, some people do not feel an urge to drink at all, some people manage to keep their consumption in healthy limits for 50 years, some end up as hopeless wretches in 10 years.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#123

Post by syamilmj »

What about stress?

Elevated cortisol level induces over-eating; moreover, increases craving for high-sugar, high-fat foods.

The big change in human behavior in the last 2 decades is that now people consume more information that leads to depression, anxiety and stress.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#124

Post by fredophile »

syamilmj wrote: post #123

What about stress? Elevated cortisol level induces over-eating; moreover, increases craving for high-sugar, high-fat foods. The big change in human behavior in the last 2 decades is that now people consume more information that leads to depression, anxiety and stress.

The article also talks about changes in the weight of zoo and lab animals. Stress may be a factor in weight gain in humans but it wouldn't explain the animal data so I don't think it's the only, or primary, factor.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#125

Post by dawnerd »

Since bing on Keto for a few months I've noticed a lot of the keto friendly processed foods are close enough to the real thing that it really makes me wonder why companies are not making their products lower carb to begin with. Obviously it costs more, but maybe at scale it doesn't. I suspect companies want higher carbs so people feel hungrier and eat more which in turns means they buy more.

Take for instance this Nick's brand ice cream. It's 7 net carbs per pint and texture and flavor is pretty much identical to 'real' ice creams out there.

Franz makes a wonderful 0 net carb bread (and hamburger and hotdog buns now which are honestly just as good as the regular cheap buns).

Not saying companies need to strive to be 0 carb, that's crazy. If they just stopped putting 50g of sugar in everything that alone would go a long way. Ps: Allulose/Psicose is amazing.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#126

Post by jwdunne »

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.

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? Yes, sometimes it’s grey. Sometimes it’s a deep blue. Sometimes it’s pretty much black. But, generally speaking, yeah it’s blue.

Is CICO the solution to the obesity epidemic? No, because it’d have worked to reduce the epidemic by now. It’s clearly _not_ the only thing we need to solve the epidemic. There is a difference between the method to lose weight and the solution to the obesity epidemic. The latter has many more variables in play.

Next time you contradict an obese person who “says CICO is wrong”, make sure they’re actually saying it’s wrong.

I am, however, glad you wouldn’t run up to people and shout “calories in / calories out”. That‘s a relief.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#127

Post by jpitz »

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 thought polyunsaturated fats ( fish, soybean ) were fairly prevalent in Japanese diets?

How does that square up with the lower prevalence of obesity there?

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#128

Post by fredophile »

DJBunnies wrote: post #55
jwdunne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also assumes that the human body is a machine with singular inputs and singular outputs, as though it’s a pure function. But it’s more complicated than that. Especially when you bring homeostasis into it, where the body will adjust calorific expenditure downwards in response to sustained reduced calorific intake, as just a single example. But there’s lots of things going on that influence the calories coming in, t…

It’s not cruel, it’s science. If it’s not working it’s not being done correctly. I struggled when I was younger.

It's science but it doesn't give very useful actionable things you can do to change your weight. Generally people interpret it to mean you get two inputs you can change, food intake and exercise, and they're independent. Unfortunately, those two things are not independent. Increased exercise often leads to increased hunger which leads to increased eating for many people in the real world. Just saying "eat less" in this context is about as useful as telling someone to be better at their job. Many people will not have the willpower to sustain eating the diet they currently eat but eat less of it. Decreasing calories consumed can lower basal metabolic rate. You can easily google for data on this from the Biggest Loser contestants.

There are also other ways to modify those two parameters that don't involve food and exercise. Are you a type 1 diabetic and want to lose weight? Just under dose your insulin and the pounds will fly off. Want to lose weight but you aren't diabetic? Take a little DNP. Want to lose weight faster? Take a little more DNP. Just don't take too much or instead of losing weight you'll die of hyperthermia. Taking DNP or under dosing insulin are not things I would ever recommend anyone do but they are both examples of non food and activity related ways to affect calories out.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#129

Post by GordonS »

dawnerd wrote: post #125

Since bing on Keto for a few months I've noticed a lot of the keto friendly processed foods are close enough to the real thing that it really makes me wonder why companies are not making their products lower carb to begin with. Obviously it costs more, but maybe at scale it doesn't. I suspect companies want higher carbs so people feel hungrier and eat more which in turns means they buy more. Take for instance this Ni…

> it really makes me wonder why companies are not making their products lower carb to begin with

Cost has got to be one of the biggest factors, but I'd also say the overwhelming majority of people still have "fat is bad" firmly ingrained into them - it's going to take a very long time to diminish that.

And of course, people like sweet things.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#130

Post by elil17 »

heax wrote: post #112

I think the simple truth is we simply eat too much. Possible the worldwide most known modern food product is the Big Mac. Named Big Mac, not Best Mac, think about it. And it doesn't stop there, large pizzas, pizzas with a lot on top, XXL Schnitzels, All you can eat Chinese. A lot people make quantity a priority over quality, guess what happens :)

The whole point of the article is that this is an inadequate explanation. First, the author points out that the increase in calorie consumption has been modest compared to the amount of weight gained. Second, why are we eating more? Moral failure and weak will are the popular explanations, but this fails to explain a variety of observations (Why now - haven’t humans always wanted to eat delicious food? Why do some hunter gatherer societies with surplus food not experience the same thing? Why are wild animals also effected?).
Post reply on HN