5 ms·

There's an endless search for blame, but it's almost always about food intake. Types of food, amounts of food, level of activity. In modern society, people gen

There's an endless search for blame, but it's almost always about food intake. Types of food, amounts of food, level of activity. In modern society, people generally eat ridiculously calorie dense overprocessed garbage food that ravages insulin sensitivity and then they remain inactive for 23+ hours a day, barely shuffling from a car to a desk to a car to a couch. Unsurprisingly, they gain weight.

commentzorro 10y ago
Congratulations on completely not understanding the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years. You win all the prizes.
- DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  With that kind of vapid nonsensical comment I can tell you're a true expert on at least part of the topic.
  - commentzorro 10y ago
    What you cannot see is still there if only you let the light stream from your eyes. Be well second half.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't post uncivil or unsubstantive comments, even when provoked. It just makes the thread worse.
    - mSparks 10y ago
      please take your life somewhere else.
- dang 10y ago
  We ban accounts for being uncivil like this (and below), so please don't do this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, and post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - commentzorro 10y ago
    I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than like I did. How should I, assuming the following: -- The literal part of the comment was misinformation. -- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats. -- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.) -- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further. My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution. What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?
    - dang 10y ago
      Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither. Here's how I look at it: "Congratulations on completely not understanding" --> snark and personal swipe—definitely uncivil. "the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years" --> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as saying anything substantive about it. "You win all the prizes" --> more snark and personal swipe Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good comment, it could have begun like this: Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there's a lot more to this. For example, ... and then add something specific. Consider how much more polite and specific KirinDave's reply was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354.
KirinDave 10y ago
There is some element of this, but that cannot possibly be the only story. We know it cannot be because some drugs have a side effect of weight gain even if diet is held constant. Raw calories in calories out surely plays a part, but many people eat 1.5x their daily burn with no discernable weight gain. Obesity, like most human conditions including "sick" and "cancer" are actually a family of related conditions with overlapping symptoms.
- DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  Sure, there is sometimes a hormonal component, ask any woman on birth control about that. But mostly it's about overeating garbage food which harms the bodies natural ability to handle insulin and glucose. Also, dietary guidelines for caloric intake are far too high for a modern sedentary lifestyle. There was actually a study about this recently discussed here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-made-now-calorific-modern-lifestyles/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-mad... And yes very rarely there may be some underlying condition. But that is indeed rare. Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago. Even in 1962 (54 years ago) the prevalence of adult obesity was 13% in the US -- and it has increased steadily since -- so it was very far from "practically non-existent" 50, and even moreso 40, years ago; to the extent you might have some legitimate point, ludicrous hyperbole like this tends to obscure it.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    If there ARE mitigating factors then they need to be examined and understood! I'm not sure why you feel safe assuming that CIN/COUT is always an explanation. It's extremely easy to say, "Oh those people are fat because they're sedentary." Re-examine this though, because it's a variant of a common "you get what you deserve" mindset that plagues health issues for many people contracting conditions that cause society to look down on them. It's also untrue that obesity didn't exist in the 50s, however even if it was less prevalent ... it's simply not true that people were substantially less sedentary in the extremes back then. If anything, employment was MORE demanding of a sedentary lifestyle. It's probably a combination of multiple factors including things like available diet options, a reduction in habits like smoking with proven weight reduction side effects, etc. Is it really unimaginable that a virus makes people on certain diets more prone to obesity, requiring substantially more work to reduce weight? What's more, given that employment is a precursor to survival in our society and it is difficult to obtain and maintain employment while obese, it seems to behoove us to examine every avenue we have to make sure we can resolve those conditions regardless of value judgement about lifestyle. A strictly capitalist analysis of the situation suggests preventative and accessible care will be substantially cheaper and more productive than the "let them die of poverty-related complications in the streets" approach should people fall out of where the system can reach.

commentzorro 10y ago

Congratulations on completely not understanding the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years. You win all the prizes.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago
With that kind of vapid nonsensical comment I can tell you're a true expert on at least part of the topic.
- commentzorro 10y ago
  What you cannot see is still there if only you let the light stream from your eyes. Be well second half.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post uncivil or unsubstantive comments, even when provoked. It just makes the thread worse.
  - mSparks 10y ago
    please take your life somewhere else.
dang 10y ago
We ban accounts for being uncivil like this (and below), so please don't do this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, and post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- commentzorro 10y ago
  I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than like I did. How should I, assuming the following: -- The literal part of the comment was misinformation. -- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats. -- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.) -- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further. My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution. What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?
  - dang 10y ago
    Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither. Here's how I look at it: "Congratulations on completely not understanding" --> snark and personal swipe—definitely uncivil. "the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years" --> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as saying anything substantive about it. "You win all the prizes" --> more snark and personal swipe Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good comment, it could have begun like this: Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there's a lot more to this. For example, ... and then add something specific. Consider how much more polite and specific KirinDave's reply was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354.

KirinDave 10y ago

There is some element of this, but that cannot possibly be the only story. We know it cannot be because some drugs have a side effect of weight gain even if diet is held constant. Raw calories in calories out surely plays a part, but many people eat 1.5x their daily burn with no discernable weight gain. Obesity, like most human conditions including "sick" and "cancer" are actually a family of related conditions with overlapping symptoms.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago
Sure, there is sometimes a hormonal component, ask any woman on birth control about that. But mostly it's about overeating garbage food which harms the bodies natural ability to handle insulin and glucose. Also, dietary guidelines for caloric intake are far too high for a modern sedentary lifestyle. There was actually a study about this recently discussed here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-made-now-calorific-modern-lifestyles/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-mad... And yes very rarely there may be some underlying condition. But that is indeed rare. Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago. Even in 1962 (54 years ago) the prevalence of adult obesity was 13% in the US -- and it has increased steadily since -- so it was very far from "practically non-existent" 50, and even moreso 40, years ago; to the extent you might have some legitimate point, ludicrous hyperbole like this tends to obscure it.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  If there ARE mitigating factors then they need to be examined and understood! I'm not sure why you feel safe assuming that CIN/COUT is always an explanation. It's extremely easy to say, "Oh those people are fat because they're sedentary." Re-examine this though, because it's a variant of a common "you get what you deserve" mindset that plagues health issues for many people contracting conditions that cause society to look down on them. It's also untrue that obesity didn't exist in the 50s, however even if it was less prevalent ... it's simply not true that people were substantially less sedentary in the extremes back then. If anything, employment was MORE demanding of a sedentary lifestyle. It's probably a combination of multiple factors including things like available diet options, a reduction in habits like smoking with proven weight reduction side effects, etc. Is it really unimaginable that a virus makes people on certain diets more prone to obesity, requiring substantially more work to reduce weight? What's more, given that employment is a precursor to survival in our society and it is difficult to obtain and maintain employment while obese, it seems to behoove us to examine every avenue we have to make sure we can resolve those conditions regardless of value judgement about lifestyle. A strictly capitalist analysis of the situation suggests preventative and accessible care will be substantially cheaper and more productive than the "let them die of poverty-related complications in the streets" approach should people fall out of where the system can reach.