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

31–40 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#31

Post by getlawgdon »

tomxor wrote: post #10
imtringued wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's popular because it's thermodynamics but it completely ignores that our body doesn't know how to count calories. It only knows how to count macro nutrients and how full your stomach is and palatable food is engineered to avoid the feeling of satiation.

So much this. Simple self experiment: If you are super hungry, try compare: 1. Eat a bowl of plain steamed rice (in hot water can make it go down easier) - you will very very quickly become satiated and stay that way, probably on less than a small bowl. 2. Eat cake, croissants, stuff that is sweet but not too sweet that you can keep eating it... initially you will stop, but then you will feel hungry again and keep go…

Not explanatory. White rice has a high GI and brown rice still has a moderately high GI.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#32

Post by guerrilla »

joseluis wrote: post #23

Insulin is the big elephant in the room that's barely talked about. Everybody should watch this lecture https://youtu.be/RuOvn4UqznU

Could you do more to motivate us to watch the nearly 1.5 hour video than "insulin"? Who is this guy and what's the thesis? Summary?

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#33

Post by taneq »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #29
imtringued wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Should be able to see a significant uptick in BMI across the population between 2019 and now if this is the case...

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#34

Post by skinkestek »

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.

> Saying "Calories In Calories Out" is what makes you fat is as interesting as saying "Money In Money Out" is what makes you poor.

But that is not what anyone I've heard is saying.

At least I think of "calories in / calories out" is a an attempt to defend against people believing in miracle diets or that they "cannot" lose weight.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#35

Post by Ueland »

pif wrote: 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…

> But every diet completely misses the elephant in the room: hunger!

And this is why a new drug just approved in the US for obesity is hailed as a game changed, NovoNordisk's semaglutide. (Wegovy) The "only" thing it does is mange the hunger levels in your body so you dont feel hungry all the time.

I think there was a study back in February for it which gave something like a 15% weight loss after a year, *on average*.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#36

Post by LQexplanation »

pif wrote: 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…

Metformin and myo-inositol solved this issue for me. Only after solving issues with pre-diabetes I was able to start losing weight without constant hunger.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#37

Post by captainmuon »

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.

I've never understood calories. Sure if you eat less but keep the food composition and exercize the same, you loose weight. That's trivial. But calories is energy and weight is mass. I've joked if you eat a bar of plutonium you won't gain a ton. And if you eat a kg of sugar, you'll get a stomach ache but won't suddenly gain a lot.

I think something that is often neglected is: What portion of the calories you eat is used, what portion is stored, and what portion is discarded? It seems there is an adjusting screw that makes us store more of the consumed calories than before. If we just eat less calories total, we also gain less (sure), but we often won't have enough power to go around.

I can't find the source anymore, but I read a theory about high fructose corn sugar, or glucose-fructose sirup. Many debunkers say there is no problem with glucose-fructose sirup over sucrose (plain sugar), since sucrose is just split in the body into glucose and fructose, so it's the same. But the theory went that the body regulates sugar intake by regulating the breakdown of sucrose. If it is already broken down, there is nothing stopping the cells from taking all the simple sugars and using them.

I don't know if there is any merit to that idea - it doesn't matter, it's just the pattern of the argument I find interesting - that you have to understand the metabolic pathways and what the body does with the nutrients, rather than just count calories.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#38

Post by mads »

There is something I dont understand about this. Is it really true that carb consumption has gone down? My own anecdotal experience is that people are drinking way more sodas and eating way more candy than they used to (in 70/80'ies my childhood).

Like where I live now every other street corner has those "mix-your-own candy bag" shops, where you pay by the 100g. There must be someone buying that stuff, since they keep popping up.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#39

Post by mysterypie »

> We should start seriously considering other paradigms. If diet and exercise are out as explanations for the epidemic, what could possibly explain it? And what could possibly explain all of the other bizarre trends that we have observed?

> [Next Time: A CHEMICAL HUNGER]

That's the part I really wanted to see. I've now bookmarked it so I can read the next instalment. I expect to hear some fascinating theories -- perhaps some modern equivalent of lead poisoning of ancient Rome.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#40

Post by phreeza »

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.

It's obvious to scientifically literate folks, but not to everyone.

Much weight loss advice is equivalent to saying "spending money in cash is fine, credit cards are what make you poor", which actually may contain a grain of truth but kind of obscures the actual mechanism.

Post reply on HN