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

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#81

Post by sdenton4 »

Pyramus wrote: post #20

This series of blog posts is a fascinating read into conjectured factors behind the obesity epidemic. I wish the author had continued their rigor in reasoning throughout the two blog posts. Step by step the author is lured into proving a single factor explains the rise in obesity. That maybe a futile attempt from the outset. To make an example, the author notes, correctly and to the point, > "Calories are involved in…

The short term overeating studies produce what we might call highly nonlinear results, which also undermines CICO (which is a linear equation). It's pretty obvious the body has other ways to dump exceeds calories than turning them into fat stores. Those studies, and the obvious tendency of diets to fail in the long term, are strong support for some kind of lipostat system, to my mind.

Others have mentioned gut biomes... My uneducated guess is plastics or some other chemical that was introduced into industrial use in the 20th century. The cross species effect (lab and zoo animals getting father on the same controlled diets) is also a really big clue that were dealing with a molecule. And, as with lead poisoning from gasoline, perhaps a hard to pinpoint one due to prevalence.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#82

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

pedrocr wrote: post #4
petemir wrote: post #2

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

>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…

Not to mention that jobs are more sedentary on average than they were in the 60s and 70s. So not only did we increase intake but also likely reduced expenditure.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#83

Post by yissp »

swamp40 wrote: post #71

The sad part is, there exists some tight-lipped 90+ year old former Philip Morris chemist, who moved over to General Foods and discovered/invented some chemical that inhibits satiety, just to increase their bottom line. And now every big food company uses it.

Details? This sounds interesting.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#84

Post by sdenton4 »

defaultname wrote: post #73
Raidion wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I think you can make a case that calories in calories out might not make as much sense for some thinner people in that, almost regardless what they eat, they can find ways to either burn or not process the calories. I don't think he does such a good job making the case it doesn't apply the other way. A body needs a set amount of energy to function, you reduce intake enough and weight drops. No lack of figetin…

We've known for decades that cigarettes are addictive. We've known that opiates are addictive. We know that alcohol in excess can be addictive. Loads of people took in that information and never became addicted (at least until the medical industry tricked them into addiction). The information "if you don't want to be addicted don't do the thing that is sure to get you addicted" is very good advice. It is irrefutable…

None of this explains the cross species effects, though. Zoo and lab animals are also seeing a rise in obesity under controlled diets. There's clearly an additional environmental and/or chemical effect involved here.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#85

Post by ajuc »

> Kitavans didn’t even seem to gain weight in middle age. In fact, BMI was found to decrease with age. Many lived into their 80s or 90s, and Lindeberg even observed one man who he estimated to be 100 years old. None of the elderly Kitavans showed signs of dementia or memory loss. The Kitavans also had no incidence of diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, or cardiovascular disease, and were unfamiliar with the symptoms of these diseases. “The only cases of sudden death they could recall,” he reports, “were accidents such as drowning or falling from a coconut tree.”

Maybe it's survivorship bias? Without modern medicine only healthiest people survive to adulthood so later they live long healthy lives. In modern society these people would be healthy too, but they would be a small percentage of the whole society.

This would also explain why domesticated animals show similar problems. Because we keep them alive :/

And then since it's at least partially inheritable - the effect would compound with each generation. With unsettling implications.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#86

Post by throwawaycities »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #74
throwawaycities wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your fundamental truth is based on a false premises that the goal is weight loss as opposed to health, more specifically metabolic health. But lets assume it all boils down to calories in/calories out, your solution is singularly focused on calories in (eating less), that in a vacuum has no effect of calories out except generally a negative effect (your body will adapt and try to burn less calories). Thus, you are ig…

> Your fundamental truth is based on a false premises that the goal is weight loss as opposed to health I think you're the one with the misconception. Obesity is consistently a contributor to health problems. Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less . Period. Full stop. There are strategies for eating less that may or may not be more effective for most p…

> Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less. Period. Full stop.

What if someone eats the same but creates the caloric deficit through increased exercise? Will they lose weight?

Just like OP you want to simplify things as calories in/calories out while entirely ignoring calories out.

Losing weight is not healthy in and of itself, even in obese people, however, losing weight can be a byproduct of making healthy dietary and lifestyle changes.

Calories is just a unit of measurement of metabolic energy, that energy comes in 3 forms fat (ketones), glucose, and alcohol and is metabolized into energy (adp), but that energy production (metabolism) is more a measurement of health than a measurement of the total number of calories in. That is what you are ignoring.

Edit: I’m sure you have lost your weight through eating less. But have you changed and improved the actual foods you consume also? Have you begun to burn more through improved dietary metabolism and/or increased exercise? I have a hard time believing one day you were eating nutritionally deficient and caloric dense foods and lost 150 by making no other changes than simply eating less of the same calorically dense and nutritionally deficient food. Even more unlikely would be you being obese eating low calories nutritionally dense foods, and lost 150lbs reducing the calories.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#87

Post by dobin »

EMM_386 wrote: post #75

Fascinating read. At first I was thinking things like the introduction of high fructose corn syrup, or microwave dinners, but that doesn't completely explain all of those data points. This is an interesting comment someone left ... it's one of the only ones that could potentially explain all of the results, outside of some outliers like the altitude effect. > With these premises it seems almost obvious to attribute t…

I've heard something of overuse of antibiotics destroying the gut microbes

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#88

Post by dobin »

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.

If someone can't eat less calories than he expends, thats usually called addiction (boredom, food as reward etc.), and should be treated accordingly

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#89

Post by EMM_386 »

gadders wrote: post #54
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 helped me. I wanted to lose 16kg by a certain date. I put my details into the Precision Nutrition calorie calculator. It told me how many calories I would need to consume per day to hit my goal. I tracked my calories, and stuck to the daily allowance it recommended. I lost nearly all the weight by the agreed timeline (I lost 14.9kg in the end).

It really is as "simple" as that. While there are many biological processes that try to maintain homeostasis and weight, if you ingest less calories you will eventually lose weight.

Think of it this way ... if you were thrown in prison today and they gave you only essential nutrients to survive, you'd lose a lot of weight. Your body might go into starvation mode first and try to fight against it, but without any calories coming in, you will lose weight 100% of the time.

I decided after years of wanting to lose weight, but doing nothing about it, I would just give up and do 1,000 calorie max / day for 3 months.

I lost 20 pounds to bring my BMI in-range without any other changes, and I'm middle aged.

That's not the healthiest way to go about this, but it does work.

Re: A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

#90

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

throwawaycities wrote: post #86
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your fundamental truth is based on a false premises that the goal is weight loss as opposed to health I think you're the one with the misconception. Obesity is consistently a contributor to health problems. Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less . Period. Full stop. There are strategies for eating less that may or may not be more effective for most p…

> Losing weight is definitely healthier for anyone who is obese and the way you lose weight is to eat less. Period. Full stop. What if someone eats the same but creates the caloric deficit through increased exercise? Will they lose weight? Just like OP you want to simplify things as calories in/calories out while entirely ignoring calories out. Losing weight is not healthy in and of itself, even in obese people, howe…

> What if someone eats the same but creates the caloric deficit through increased exercise? Will they lose weight?

Yes, but there's a reason for the saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". I get it though, you're technically correct and that's the best kind according to meme science.

> I’m sure you have lost your weight through eating less. But have you changed and improved the actual foods you consume also?

Yes, because that's one of the things that makes it easier. Some foods are more satiating than others. And yes, I did increase in exercise. In fact, the exercise preceded the weight loss because the activity I took up (rock climbing) was what finally provided enough motivation for me to overcome my desire to eat more.

> I have a hard time believing one day you were eating nutritionally deficient and caloric dense foods and lost 150 by making no other changes than simply eating less of the same calorically dense and nutritionally deficient food.

It's harder, but definitely possible: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/....

My point being, you can add all the exercise you want but if you're not paying attention to your caloric intake then chances are you're just going to eat more to make up for the expended calories.

Post reply on HN