Live data from Hacker News

A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

slimemoldtimemold.com

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#21
post #2

And the 2nd. part: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/

That was an interesting read.

I just left this comment in the site (maybe it would interest somebody here too):

"Have somebody checked a correlation between breast feeding vs. infant formula in early infancy and hungry feelings in adulthood (or weight as a proxy of that)?

It’s just an random idea, but it seems to me that the timeline of increasing obesity and increasing of use of infant formula could be correlated."

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#22

People are getting fat because they are consuming more calories. And they are consuming more calories because processed foods are engineered to make you overeat them. To lose weight, stop eating processed foods and learn to cook simple foods from scratch, minimizing the use of sugar, salt, and oil, three common appetite stimulants.

For most people there's no particular need to minimize salt and oil in order to avoid getting fat. However certain oils, especially vegetable oils, tend to have other bad health effects.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#24
The lipostat theory is quite interesting. This is pure conjecture, but its already known that plastics can impact estrogen levels, I wonder if plastics also have some, yet unknown, impact on metabolism that is upsetting lipostatic homeostasis.

Estrogen, cortisol and testosterone all operate in a delicate, interrelated balance, so it's not too big a leap.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#26
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.

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, the calories stored and the calories expended. It’s unfair to reduce it down so far.

It leads to fat shaming by people whom have never struggled with their weight who justify their cruelty by parroting “calories in calories out”.

Even worse, some of those will do silly experiments where they put on weight really really fast and then lose it just as fast, totally ignoring the fact that their body has been in the original state for a long time.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#27
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.

In some way, you're right, but I think there's more to it. Let's ignore for a moment whether it's true. I've seen it said in the sense that if you eat too many "good" calories (from salads or other healthy foods) and spend the same, you'll get just as fat as from bad calories. So the money analogy in a way works - if you get $100 cash, you'll be just as rich/poor as if you get them via a bank transfer.

All of that glosses over a million details, like how full you'll be feeling after 1000 cal from salad vs 1000 cal from Coke, but that's a whole another can of worms.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#28
The obesity epidemic, as the author describes it, isn't a good thing, and for us to have BMI tendencies similar to those of late 19th century Americans would probably be better (excepting of course their other major health problems from that time) but in relative terms, I'd consider today's obesity problems in most of the population much better than the near starvation that most of humanity lived in during the vast majority of history, even up to the early 20th century.

For all but our most very recent ancestors, periods of chronic hunger was just a missed crop or bad harvesting season away and mass starvation was only slightly more distant. Famines were common in most of the world and often killed many millions per year, almost every year during millennia, of all ages, including children and infants. Obesity-caused deaths are still deaths but at least they tend far more towards killing later in life and are much more in the hands of any given individual to avoid, as opposed to starving because your whole region no longer has enough food to keep you living regardless of your dietary choices.

Generations of people prior to all but the last century or so of history would be amazed, and possibly even envious at how abuntantly and cheaply most of the population can feed itself today, even to the point of chronic obesity.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#29
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s true that people eat more calories today than they did in the 1960s and 70s, but the difference is quite small. Sources have a surprisingly hard time agreeing on just how much more we eat than our grandparents did, but all of them agree that it’s not much. Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010. The USDA Economic Research Service es…

Increased calorie intake and conversion to fat is the problem but why do humans increase their calorie intake and decide to convert their calories into fat? What button are they pressing that says "I want to be fat!".

Funny Wild speculation time: In ancient times, when the times got rough, there was always a pre-crisis-phase, aka you witnessed something traumatic, but were not yet impacted by it yourself.

Stressing yourself out and triggering that "horror"-phase (movies/ evening news) makes your body go into the "binge" for reserves during crisis mode.

Testable Hypothesis: End of the World screaming makes you fat, Continuous bored calm and mental safety feelings make you thin.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#30
post #14

> Mystery 8: Diets Don’t Work As an obese person who tried several times to follow medical advise, this does not surprise me, not at all! Every diet is about calories and sport, which cannot hurt. But every diet completely misses the elephant in the room: hunger! Any medical procedure is only worth pursuing if it gives you a higher quality of life in the long term. A constant hunger cannot compensate for any weight l…

The Satiety Index is for measuring how satisfied you are with various food. Enter the humble potato. https://scottabelfitness.com/potato-and-the-satiety-index/

I did a sweet potato diet for a month a couple of years ago for medical reasons.

I was never hungry.

Post reply on HN