Live data from Hacker News

The Obesity Era

aeonmagazine.com

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: The Obesity Era

#41
post #37

My friends, I have discovered a miracle cure for weight gain. It's simple, painless, and you don't have to cut out whole food groups. Best of all, I'll tell you what it is - here and now - at no charge! Here it is... A SMALL PLATE. That simple. Go out and buy a really individual side-plate, and make that what you always eat off. If you need seconds, OK - but after a few days you'll find that you can actually get by q…

> I started putting on weight when I was 40,

A late bloomer, huh... did you stay active your whole youth and then stopped for some reason? Or did you have an I-can-eat-anything-I-want metabolism in your youth which then petered out a little? I do wonder...

Re: The Obesity Era

#42
post #26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did read that point and find it perplexing. The "fat virus" theory would perfectly explain it. If some of our co-evolved viruses and bacteria have been making us more prone to accumulate fat and it's contagious , the lab animals caught it too. So their metabolism slows down to allow them to accumulate weight on the same diet that used to be merely sufficient for sustenance. On a personal note: I also lost 30 poun…

No, it isn't. Unless you're saying you gained weight again while still eating the same diet , you solved the problem, you just failed at implementing the solution.

A diet people consistently can't keep to doesn't constitute a solution to the problem.

It's also worth noting that people who have gained a bunch of weight and lost it have a slower metabolism than people who stayed at the same weight. The Hacker's Diet - being based on calories in/calories out - did not account for this factor. The claim it made was that you could lose weight by keeping a calorie deficit for a while, then once you've lost enough weight you could stop the deficit, go back to basically eating at the level you did before and still stay at the new weight. Which doesn't work.

Dieting seems to work because your body takes a long while to adapt to new conditions. Eventually you get hungrier and less active; progress tends to stop and reverse whether or not you keep "trying".

Temporarily losing weight is "a solved problem". But losing weight without reducing metabolism and thereby making yourself more likely to gain weight in the future, is not.

Re: The Obesity Era

#43
post #15

The article points to by-products of industrialization (namely industrial chemicals and artificial lighting) as potential culprits in the case of rising obesity, but the distribution of obesity doesn't match level of industrialization across countries. Obesity is seemingly focused in North America plus other anglophone countries, while mostly absent in other highly industrialized countries like Japan and Norway. Red…

Hmm, well one thing I've noticed is that people in Tokyo walk/bicycle a lot more than most people in any American city I've lived in. Not intentionally, really, but simply as a side-effect of the non-car-oriented transportation system and urban design that results in highly walkable environments. Anecdotally, co-workers who had temporary assignments to other locations where they drove everywhere complained of gaining 5-10kg over the year or so they were there.

I regularly see things in Japan like dressed-up women in high-heels, elderly people, and other non-particularly-athletic-looking types, sprinting up long staircases to make the train. In the U.S. I would be quite surprised to see anyone sprinting in public...

Portions also often seem to be smaller. While of course it's easy enough to order large portions in Japan ("oomori kudasai!"), there's far less of the feeling of hard-to-avoid excessively large portions I often seem to get in the U.S. In Japan, "small" always seems to be on the menu, and is often the default; in the U.S., not so much...

I think it's important that such things are not unusual and "intentional" actions that you have to remember to do (and can easily shirk), but rather are a side-effect of the environment, and so happen all the time, even when you're tired, even when you're busy, even when you're out with friends to play, etc.

Re: The Obesity Era

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701

Thank you for insinuating that I'm lying. :)

I didn't insinuate that you were lying. I was insinuating that you are under-estimating your daily caloric intake.

Re: The Obesity Era

#45
post #26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did read that point and find it perplexing. The "fat virus" theory would perfectly explain it. If some of our co-evolved viruses and bacteria have been making us more prone to accumulate fat and it's contagious , the lab animals caught it too. So their metabolism slows down to allow them to accumulate weight on the same diet that used to be merely sufficient for sustenance. On a personal note: I also lost 30 poun…

No, it isn't. Unless you're saying you gained weight again while still eating the same diet , you solved the problem, you just failed at implementing the solution.

You know, if your algorithm worked on the first few test cases you threw at it but after that you kept on finding holes in it, you wouldn't say it had solved the problem, would you?

12 years ago, I lost 55 pounds in six months. All I had to do was carefully monitor everything I ate and burn 1000+ calories exercising six days a week.

Thing is, that was a solution that worked very well for me when I was self-employed 30-year-old single man. It has not worked at all for me as a 42-year-old married man with a child. I don't have the time for 90 minutes of exercise every day. There is always loads of food around I shouldn't be eating. I have vastly more stress in my life than I had then. And my body very definitely reacts differently to food than it used to.

What I'm trying to say is, I found a great hack for losing weight quickly back in the day. I did not find a solution to keep my weight down in the long term.

Re: The Obesity Era

#46
post #45
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. Unless you're saying you gained weight again while still eating the same diet , you solved the problem, you just failed at implementing the solution.

You know, if your algorithm worked on the first few test cases you threw at it but after that you kept on finding holes in it, you wouldn't say it had solved the problem, would you? 12 years ago, I lost 55 pounds in six months. All I had to do was carefully monitor everything I ate and burn 1000+ calories exercising six days a week. Thing is, that was a solution that worked very well for me when I was self-employed 3…

The long term solution to keeping your weight down is to eat at your maintenance level. If you do not eat more than your your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE), you simply will not gain weight. If you eat less than your TDEE, you will lose weight. This might not be easy, but it's pretty simple.

Re: The Obesity Era

#47
post #45
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. Unless you're saying you gained weight again while still eating the same diet , you solved the problem, you just failed at implementing the solution.

You know, if your algorithm worked on the first few test cases you threw at it but after that you kept on finding holes in it, you wouldn't say it had solved the problem, would you? 12 years ago, I lost 55 pounds in six months. All I had to do was carefully monitor everything I ate and burn 1000+ calories exercising six days a week. Thing is, that was a solution that worked very well for me when I was self-employed 3…

>>You know, if your algorithm worked on the first few test cases you threw at it but after that you kept on finding holes in it, you wouldn't say it had solved the problem, would you?

The parent said he lost 30 pounds over 6 months. This is not a "test case." He implemented the solution effectively. What he ended up doing however was to change the input variables (literally) by increasing the amount he was eating. Therefore the solution he implemented failed, and he gained the weight right back.

Re: The Obesity Era

#48
post #3

Interesting read; I've encountered many of the problems signaled out here. I'm overweight, and I've changed my life and my diet to try and fix it. When I took note of where I was, I was drinking between 4 and 8 mountain dews a day. I ate candy in prodigious amounts, and constantly ate until I was full. Since then, I altered my diet and eating habits to where I drink no pop, and rarely have any kind of sugary treat. I…

>>I eat only until I'm satiated

Yes, but what do you eat?

You can eat a whole bunch of processed carbs and starches until you're satiated, or you can eat chicken and broccoli until you're satiated. The results will be tremendously different.

Avoiding sugar is good, but by itself it is not sufficient - especially if you are still consuming copious amounts of carbs.

Re: The Obesity Era

#49
The mechanics of weight gain and loss are fascinating. Every time I read an article like this it makes me appreciate the complexity of the human body even more.

That said, the issue as a whole is not rocket science, and should not be treated as such. While it is very interesting to examine and discuss how the human body treats various types of calories, at the end of the day the closed system that is the human body is still governed by calories in minus calories out. It is impossible for someone to continue to gain weight if they are eating less calories than they are consuming. Literally. Impossible.

The problem is one of human psychology, both at the calorie consumption side and calorie burning side.

On the consumption side, there are two main causes. First, for overweight and obese people, the act of putting food in their mouths and drinking high-calorie drinks has become so second nature that their minds simply stop registering it after a while. This is why in scientific studies and surveys that examine the topic, overweight and obese participants massively under-report what they ate throughout the study while those who have trouble putting on weight (the so-called "hardgainers") over-report it. The mind underplays the importance of events and situations it is familiar with (such as eating) and vice versa.

The second reason is that even when people do pay attention to how much they are eating and count the calories at that moment, they are terrible at estimating their daily or weekly intake. They try to do "mental accounting," the most common example being "I ate a salad at lunch today, so it's OK for me to order some fries at dinner." For obvious reasons, this approach fails hard.

There's also the calorie burning side. Just like most people are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, they are also terrible at estimating how much they are burning. For example, walking counts as exercise for a surprisingly large number of people, yet walking for an hour straight at moderate pace burns only about as many calories as in a slice of bread. And yet the mental accounting comes into play afterward during dinner and they justify their bad habits by telling themselves they exercised that day.

There are other issues, such as the way food companies manufacture their products in very specific ways so as to maximize their consumption, or the way they market to children. But in my opinion these are at the periphery. Ultimately the matter is about the individual. It's about how much they individual eats. Not what they say they eat, but what they actually eat.

Re: The Obesity Era

#50

The preponderance of evidence is that net caloric balance predicts weight. http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm... Given the choice between "astonishing phenomenon never before detected in history" and "record-keeping errors", I know which horse Occam is telling me to bet on. And it's not that HFCS has more Higgs bosons.

Have you actually looked at the studies cited, and checked the fat—protein—carbohydrate ratios used?

For example, this 2009 study used the following ratios to conclude "low-carb" diets aren't better than regular reduced-calorie diets:

20%—15%—65%

20%—25%—55%

40%—15%—45%

40%—25%—35%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

None of these are actually low-carb. The recommended ketogenic ratio is:

60%—35%—5%

Try Peter Attia's Eating Academy for some highly informative reading:

http://eatingacademy.com

Post reply on HN