4 ms·

They were a bit rude, but you were too. It may be technically true to say "ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out", bit its unhelpful, or mor

They were a bit rude, but you were too. It may be technically true to say "ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out", bit its unhelpful, or more importantly, unactionable. What you wave away with the casual use of the word "ultimately" is a vastly complex combination of inherited, environmental, physiological and emotional factors. Saying "ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out" to someone who has spent years desperately trying to control their calories in and their calories out but without much success is surely more rude than anything that's been said in any replies to you.

benj111 8y ago
But it is actionable. Further, if you deny that basic premise, it does become unactionable. Its like an addiction. People aren't being strapped down and force fed X drug. They have some agency, to deny that doesn't solve the problem, it makes the problem worse. I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do. Never the less what ever the answer is has to include a basic dietary balance. This study doesn't change that fact, all the environmental, physiological and emotional factors don't change that fact. Suggesting it or anyone that mentions it is 'toxic' isn't helpful.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  So, you've conceded that it's likely that nobody has an answer on which people can take action and reliably expect a positive outcome, but then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway? Can you not see the unhelpfulness right there in your comment? Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy, and is determined to do whatever it takes to do so, and has already spent years desperately trying in vain to get results; if they were to read your comment, what could their reaction be, other than to be frustrated and dispirited? For what it's worth, I do actually have answers; I've been researching and experimenting with this stuff for many years, and have figured out a approach that seems to work for me and others and should work well for anyone who follows the same principles. And I agree that calories-in/calories-out is part of it; but it's only one factor among many, and it takes a lot of time, persistence and knowhow. So perhaps you can understand that I'm familiar with your point of view, and that I've heard it frequently enough and thought about it long enough to know just how simplistic and unhelpful it is.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway?" Where have I said that? "Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy.." I can still say flying is statistically the safest form of transport, regardless of whether HN readers have been in a plane accident? I'm not saying ha ha tough luck. I'm not saying drive instead of fly, because its safer either. It is peoples choice to lose weight, I'm not forcing them. I am simply trying to point out that as part of that, calories in need to equal calories out. You yourself accept that, so currently I am at a loss as to what it is I have said that's wrong, what I've said that is rude, what I've said that is toxic? To be clear, because it seems to need clarifying. I have a life outside of a HN username, I have friends and family, I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering, this isn't an abstract thing for me.
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      It's a toxic point of view because while it's technically correct, it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all". To the person giving the advice, it can seem valid and logical and perfectly straightforward - "hey I did it, it was easy!" Yet it's the very fact that it's easy for one person and effectively impossible for another is what makes the advice both useless and insulting. Before arguing further, have a thing about what you're defending here. As you've said yourself... - "I wouldn't be as blunt as the OP" - "I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do." - "I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering" But you're writing all these words to argue against the use of the word "toxic" to describe a comment that was insensitive for the very fact that it ignored these considerations you candidly offered. If you can just reflect a little and say "yeah I guess you could say it's a bit toxic to express it like that", you might realise we agree more than we disagree.
      - benj111 8y ago
        "it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all"" It's as useful as saying to someone in debt, "you need to spend less than you earn" people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them. It is logical, yes, I'm not saying its straight forward, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't ignore any considerations, just because I didn't enumerate every single potential consideration. I picked up on one specific part of a reply. I don't think its required to explain my entire world view to make that one point. Neither is it fair to start filling in blanks about my world view from one data point. Yes I have reflected, I've reread that comment, and can see how someone could interpret it a certain way. That is why I have clarified myself multiple times. But you still seem to be ignoring what I have said I'm saying, in favour of your own interpretation of what you've already decided I'm saying. That isn't my problem, that is yours. Ps if you read the HN guideline it says "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" I applied that to the first 2 comments of this long thread. It's a shame others won't extend the same courtesy to me. It also says "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

benj111 8y ago

But it is actionable. Further, if you deny that basic premise, it does become unactionable. Its like an addiction. People aren't being strapped down and force fed X drug. They have some agency, to deny that doesn't solve the problem, it makes the problem worse. I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do. Never the less what ever the answer is has to include a basic dietary balance. This study doesn't change that fact, all the environmental, physiological and emotional factors don't change that fact. Suggesting it or anyone that mentions it is 'toxic' isn't helpful.

tomhoward 8y ago
So, you've conceded that it's likely that nobody has an answer on which people can take action and reliably expect a positive outcome, but then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway? Can you not see the unhelpfulness right there in your comment? Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy, and is determined to do whatever it takes to do so, and has already spent years desperately trying in vain to get results; if they were to read your comment, what could their reaction be, other than to be frustrated and dispirited? For what it's worth, I do actually have answers; I've been researching and experimenting with this stuff for many years, and have figured out a approach that seems to work for me and others and should work well for anyone who follows the same principles. And I agree that calories-in/calories-out is part of it; but it's only one factor among many, and it takes a lot of time, persistence and knowhow. So perhaps you can understand that I'm familiar with your point of view, and that I've heard it frequently enough and thought about it long enough to know just how simplistic and unhelpful it is.
- benj111 8y ago
  "then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway?" Where have I said that? "Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy.." I can still say flying is statistically the safest form of transport, regardless of whether HN readers have been in a plane accident? I'm not saying ha ha tough luck. I'm not saying drive instead of fly, because its safer either. It is peoples choice to lose weight, I'm not forcing them. I am simply trying to point out that as part of that, calories in need to equal calories out. You yourself accept that, so currently I am at a loss as to what it is I have said that's wrong, what I've said that is rude, what I've said that is toxic? To be clear, because it seems to need clarifying. I have a life outside of a HN username, I have friends and family, I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering, this isn't an abstract thing for me.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    It's a toxic point of view because while it's technically correct, it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all". To the person giving the advice, it can seem valid and logical and perfectly straightforward - "hey I did it, it was easy!" Yet it's the very fact that it's easy for one person and effectively impossible for another is what makes the advice both useless and insulting. Before arguing further, have a thing about what you're defending here. As you've said yourself... - "I wouldn't be as blunt as the OP" - "I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do." - "I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering" But you're writing all these words to argue against the use of the word "toxic" to describe a comment that was insensitive for the very fact that it ignored these considerations you candidly offered. If you can just reflect a little and say "yeah I guess you could say it's a bit toxic to express it like that", you might realise we agree more than we disagree.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all"" It's as useful as saying to someone in debt, "you need to spend less than you earn" people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them. It is logical, yes, I'm not saying its straight forward, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't ignore any considerations, just because I didn't enumerate every single potential consideration. I picked up on one specific part of a reply. I don't think its required to explain my entire world view to make that one point. Neither is it fair to start filling in blanks about my world view from one data point. Yes I have reflected, I've reread that comment, and can see how someone could interpret it a certain way. That is why I have clarified myself multiple times. But you still seem to be ignoring what I have said I'm saying, in favour of your own interpretation of what you've already decided I'm saying. That isn't my problem, that is yours. Ps if you read the HN guideline it says "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" I applied that to the first 2 comments of this long thread. It's a shame others won't extend the same courtesy to me. It also says "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html