5 ms·

This is a hot take, but it's wrong. Obesity is a result of genetics and the very simple, battle tested equation of: if calories_consumed > calories burned the

by jimmy1 8y ago

This is a hot take, but it's wrong. Obesity is a result of genetics and the very simple, battle tested equation of: if calories_consumed > calories burned then x_amt_weight_gain. That's it. You can shift the scale in your favor by being born with the right genes, by not consuming as many calories, or burning more calories. Obviously the most effective one is simply not putting those calories in your body to begin with.

lardo 8y ago
Do you ever find yourself thinking, "that looks easy, but maybe there's more nuance here?"
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Sure. I also find myself thinking "things really don't have to be as hard as people make them out to be"
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
    Medical intervention based on “eat less, exercise more” has a success rate around 2% So yes, it really is that hard. And mostly because it isn’t as simple as the calories in/calories out model. Lots of things contribute in various way. And if anything dieting and exercise can actually make things worse if done wrong. In the “biggest loser” approach, f.ex, all contestants, ended up with a lower metabolic rate, and of course all but one ended up gaining more weight than before the show.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      > Medical intervention based on “eat less, exercise more” has a success rate around 2% Wait, shit. So what should one do?
      - ArrayList 8y ago
        Intermittent fasting. (See "The Obesity Code" by Jason Fung, MD.)
      - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
        Not determined yet it seems but from the looks of things an upgraded model involving the endocrine system and more recently the gut microbiome seems promising. The obesity code referenced in a sibling comment is an interesting read absolutely, fasting is the authors suggestion. It doesn’t talk much of gut microbiome, which seems like a big factor from recent studies, but mentions a very interesting connection to fiber intake though which the author (at that time) interprets simply as a means, to lower GI. Edit: My take - Avoid sugar and sweeterners (Probably want at least 14-days between servings) - Avoid highly processed grains, treat them as sugars, go for whole grains and things with husks instead - In general avoid things that trigger cravings - Healthy fats (nuts, virgin olive oil) are an excellent source of calories, don’t go hungry - Eat lots (lots) of different vegetables - (for adults) Take longer fasts from time to time (3+ days, but probably no more than a week without proper guidance) - East at most two times a day
    - imtringued 8y ago
      Well, it sounds to me like it worked but then they stopped and blame their failure on their success. People can't stay healthy their whole life if they only eat healthy for a few months.
      - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
        Heres the follow up. It’s not just a case of blame, there were measurable harm as a result. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the... But I agree, a healthy diet probably could help them, the one they tried wasn’t it though.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The nuance here is all in the difficulty of actually taking in fewer calories, due to things like limited willpower
  - LeftTurnSignal 8y ago
    This took me probably too long to figure out. As a kid i was always told to finish my plate, then the usual "think of the starving kids" guilt trips, and whatever else. As an adult, I just eat smaller portions of the same garbage I ate before, and I started to lose a bit of weight. I didn't change anything else (at the time). Now I'm working on the rest, but the biggest stepping stone for me was literally just eating smaller portions.
rjf72 8y ago
I think you're both saying the same thing here. The key point is that nutrition can change the weights of your equation, which must be accurate even if by appealing to the conservation laws of the universe, in ways that are not obvious to many people. For instance aspartame, a fake '0 calorie' sugar, has been shown to have a relationship with weight gain by numerous studies including some controlled experimental studies. In other words it's not confounded by the fact that overweight/obese are likely substantially more likely to consume aspartame infused products than others. But there's no magic there. While the exact mechanism isn't known (it's not that it simply makes you eat more food) it's going to come down to something that impairs your ability to burn calories. So the equation still stands. It just means that if you consume aspartame you need to eat even less to see weight loss (or not weight gain) than somebody who does not. In practice the exact opposite happens, and then people try to blame things outside their control - such as genetics. But such arguments hold little weight. Obesity has skyrocketed exponentially in just the past several decades. People didn't suddenly all spontaneously change their genetics. But nutritional standards, and indeed calories consumed, both radically changed for the worse.
- a11595 8y ago
  >relationship with weight gain Yes. An Inverse one. There is no getting around the fact that a 16oz coke has 300 calories, and diet has zero. Believing those tailored studies apply to the obesity use case is being ignorant, and reading the abstract, not the body of the study. Sweeteners can confuse you into being more hungry vs no sweeteners. That does not mean sweeteners making you a tiny bit more hungry, and you eating an extra bite of food to reflect that, is worse than the 300 calories from the coke. Also, if someone is not overweight but actually obese, this does not effect them at all. overweight people - as in no stomach hanging over the belt, but no visible abs stop eating when they stop being hungry, but don't burn all those calories. Aspartame will be worse for them vs having no sweetener OR sugar. But if you have to have something sweet, of course the sweetener is better - it's 300 calories less, and tens of extra calories from the extra bite of food. Obese people - sweeteners don't effect them in any way at all vs no sweetener. They don't just not do enough physical activity to burn off the calories. They also keep eating once they're full. And then they eat some more. Them feeling hungry for an extra 5 minutes does nothing to change the time they stop eating - which is 30 minutes after they stopped being hungry. Shit be tastin' goo boo. Now, I eat complete crap. I eat pizza before bed, and always have desert. I'm 40, 5'11 at 170lb, 6% bodyfat. I've been this way all my life. Food tastes good, and I like to have lots of muscles, so I use up all the calories. So to summarize, you as well as the OP with his talk of exercise, are completely wrong.

by jimmy1 8y ago

lardo 8y ago

Do you ever find yourself thinking, "that looks easy, but maybe there's more nuance here?"

jimmy1 8y ago
Sure. I also find myself thinking "things really don't have to be as hard as people make them out to be"
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
  Medical intervention based on “eat less, exercise more” has a success rate around 2% So yes, it really is that hard. And mostly because it isn’t as simple as the calories in/calories out model. Lots of things contribute in various way. And if anything dieting and exercise can actually make things worse if done wrong. In the “biggest loser” approach, f.ex, all contestants, ended up with a lower metabolic rate, and of course all but one ended up gaining more weight than before the show.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    > Medical intervention based on “eat less, exercise more” has a success rate around 2% Wait, shit. So what should one do?
    - ArrayList 8y ago
      Intermittent fasting. (See "The Obesity Code" by Jason Fung, MD.)
    - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
      Not determined yet it seems but from the looks of things an upgraded model involving the endocrine system and more recently the gut microbiome seems promising. The obesity code referenced in a sibling comment is an interesting read absolutely, fasting is the authors suggestion. It doesn’t talk much of gut microbiome, which seems like a big factor from recent studies, but mentions a very interesting connection to fiber intake though which the author (at that time) interprets simply as a means, to lower GI. Edit: My take - Avoid sugar and sweeterners (Probably want at least 14-days between servings) - Avoid highly processed grains, treat them as sugars, go for whole grains and things with husks instead - In general avoid things that trigger cravings - Healthy fats (nuts, virgin olive oil) are an excellent source of calories, don’t go hungry - Eat lots (lots) of different vegetables - (for adults) Take longer fasts from time to time (3+ days, but probably no more than a week without proper guidance) - East at most two times a day
  - imtringued 8y ago
    Well, it sounds to me like it worked but then they stopped and blame their failure on their success. People can't stay healthy their whole life if they only eat healthy for a few months.
    - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
      Heres the follow up. It’s not just a case of blame, there were measurable harm as a result. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the... But I agree, a healthy diet probably could help them, the one they tried wasn’t it though.
mikeash 8y ago
The nuance here is all in the difficulty of actually taking in fewer calories, due to things like limited willpower
- LeftTurnSignal 8y ago
  This took me probably too long to figure out. As a kid i was always told to finish my plate, then the usual "think of the starving kids" guilt trips, and whatever else. As an adult, I just eat smaller portions of the same garbage I ate before, and I started to lose a bit of weight. I didn't change anything else (at the time). Now I'm working on the rest, but the biggest stepping stone for me was literally just eating smaller portions.

rjf72 8y ago

I think you're both saying the same thing here. The key point is that nutrition can change the weights of your equation, which must be accurate even if by appealing to the conservation laws of the universe, in ways that are not obvious to many people. For instance aspartame, a fake '0 calorie' sugar, has been shown to have a relationship with weight gain by numerous studies including some controlled experimental studies. In other words it's not confounded by the fact that overweight/obese are likely substantially more likely to consume aspartame infused products than others. But there's no magic there. While the exact mechanism isn't known (it's not that it simply makes you eat more food) it's going to come down to something that impairs your ability to burn calories. So the equation still stands. It just means that if you consume aspartame you need to eat even less to see weight loss (or not weight gain) than somebody who does not. In practice the exact opposite happens, and then people try to blame things outside their control - such as genetics. But such arguments hold little weight. Obesity has skyrocketed exponentially in just the past several decades. People didn't suddenly all spontaneously change their genetics. But nutritional standards, and indeed calories consumed, both radically changed for the worse.

a11595 8y ago
>relationship with weight gain Yes. An Inverse one. There is no getting around the fact that a 16oz coke has 300 calories, and diet has zero. Believing those tailored studies apply to the obesity use case is being ignorant, and reading the abstract, not the body of the study. Sweeteners can confuse you into being more hungry vs no sweeteners. That does not mean sweeteners making you a tiny bit more hungry, and you eating an extra bite of food to reflect that, is worse than the 300 calories from the coke. Also, if someone is not overweight but actually obese, this does not effect them at all. overweight people - as in no stomach hanging over the belt, but no visible abs stop eating when they stop being hungry, but don't burn all those calories. Aspartame will be worse for them vs having no sweetener OR sugar. But if you have to have something sweet, of course the sweetener is better - it's 300 calories less, and tens of extra calories from the extra bite of food. Obese people - sweeteners don't effect them in any way at all vs no sweetener. They don't just not do enough physical activity to burn off the calories. They also keep eating once they're full. And then they eat some more. Them feeling hungry for an extra 5 minutes does nothing to change the time they stop eating - which is 30 minutes after they stopped being hungry. Shit be tastin' goo boo. Now, I eat complete crap. I eat pizza before bed, and always have desert. I'm 40, 5'11 at 170lb, 6% bodyfat. I've been this way all my life. Food tastes good, and I like to have lots of muscles, so I use up all the calories. So to summarize, you as well as the OP with his talk of exercise, are completely wrong.