8 ms·

Someone on HN once made the comparison between obesity and the old attitude people had towards depression. When you were depressed, you "just" had to go out and

• vitabenes 5y ago
  In principle, it's simple. In reality, it gets complex and hard.
• blfr 5y ago
  Simple and easy are not the same. It is simple if not always easy.
  • RobertKerans 5y ago
    This is the critical point, most sibling comments are conflating the two [when in fact they are completely different]
    • float4 5y ago
      Yeah, I purposefully used the word "simple" when I meant straightforward and "hard" when I meant difficult, but I should've explained why I used those words. Either that, or I myself have gotten the meanings of the words mixed up.
      • RobertKerans 5y ago
        Meaning seems correct afaics? In particular any commenters who build software or engineer products should recognise this, making simple things is often very hard.
      • jmull 5y ago
        Hm. There is a distinction between simple/complex and easy/hard, but it’s a basic semantic one. Simple/complex refers to a system or problem, while easy/hard refers to the difficulty of controlling the system or solving the problem. The problem in this thread with making a distinction between simple/complex and easy/hard is that people are referring to different things. People are even talking past themselves so it’s no wonder others don’t understand what they mean. E.g., the energy model of weight gain/loss — CICO, or calories in, calories out — is simple. But CI depends on interactions between evolution, hormonal systems (a complex balancing feedback system all its own), psychology, age, money, society, culture, family, food supply, etc., which is complex. For a particular person at a particular point in their life, that bundle of factors may happen to be balanced “downward” so that CI is easy to control and weight loss is simple — and easy). In other cases, a person may need to dig in to those factors and find a way to rebalance them, which is complex — and hard. When you’re actually referring to the same thing, simple and easy or complex and hard go together. It is easy to control simple system. It is hard to control complex ones.
        • RobertKerans 5y ago
          Yes you are right, and it is this: > Simple/complex refers to a system or problem, while easy/hard refers to the difficulty of controlling the system or solving the problem. I do think the distinction is important. I did realise as soon as I'd typed the last comment that it was just people talking past each other -- apologies to others in the thread, I should have edited. But what I mean: with specific exceptions (genetic, psychological, physical) normally both the process and the solution is simple, because of the energy model. Eat less, eat sensibly, exercise very regularly, and the majority of people will see positive results. That's simple, not quite trivially so, but almost. Actually doing that is not, however, easy for the majority of people. A better example I think is: I smoke. This is clearly not good for a number of reasons. The solution, and the process to get to that solution is comically simple: I just stop. But yet it is hard.
• choeger 5y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not true, though. Obese people do lose a lot of weight when they undereat and depressive people do profit from outside activity, sports, etc. It's just that life often looks like you cannot do it for various reasons. The complicated thing is of course to find a tiny crack in that bubble of constraints where you can force a change. Just an example: For many people it would be beneficial to ride a bike to get to work. This alone won't change your body completely, but it is a great start, losing you a couple of hundreds of kcal per day and encouraging more bike tours. But that's obviously not possible for everyone and it is difficult to tell from the outside whether someone just rejects this approach because they are lazy or for valid reasons.
  • ben_w 5y ago
    The problem is the word “just”, not the rest of the advice. “‘Just’ eat less” has been straightforward for me when my scales tell me I needed to do that, but it clearly isn’t for most people else obesity wouldn’t be one of the single biggest issues in western healthcare.
    • andi999 5y ago
      Same with climbing everest without oxygen bottles, 'just' use less air.
      • ekster 5y ago
        Is choosing to eat less really analogous to choosing to be able to breathe without oxygen?
        • ben_w 5y ago
          Climbing Everest without supplemental oxygen is possible and has been done[0], and isn’t the same thing as “breathing without oxygen”. [0] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
          • 5y ago
• anothernewdude 5y ago
  I don't buy calories in. Life forms are full of parts that encourage stability. Your body maintains blood pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. Why not weight as well? That the relationship of calories in to calories absorbed is linear needs some heavy proof before I'll believe it.
  • amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Agreed. Even simple things like your hunger level are under hormonal control. Calories out is equally suspect. Your body has mechanisms to adjust his many calories you burn, and those are not under conscious control.
  • sethammons 5y ago
    You are currently downvoted but I think there is something to homeostasis. My favorite counter point to calories in/out crowd is that the body is a dynamic system. The calories out portion doesn't stay constant. I have lost weight while eating more because my base metabolism increased. In "That Sugar Film," the guy eats the same amount of calories and same activity level but starts to include "daily recommended sugar" and increased his weight. The body is a dynamic system and will change how it stores and processes energy. Yes, you can't violate thermodynamics and eating a calorie deficit will cause weight loss (and possibly other issues), but the system tries to adapt.
  • wirrbel 5y ago
    before you downvote this comment, consider (a) CICO (calories-in/calories out) is not the same as the energy conservation principle, you can claim that CICO model does not work while firmly believing in the energy conservation principle (b) CICO isn't untrue, its just too simple to model the bodies approach to managing the fat stores. Fat storage is very much controlled by insulin and cortisol. If one or both are high, your body is primed to increase your fat storage CICO crowd equates 7000kcal with 1kg of fat body mass and then you can do calculations that losing 10k of body mass in a year can be achieved by reducing caloric intake by 200kcal/day, or increasing expenditure by the same amount, or a mix of both. Experienced dieters know that this doesn't work as easily. I was trying to loose weight with CICO and hang out in the CICO-crowd forums for 2-3 years until I realised I couldn't lose more than 10kg that way until I plateaued. And in these forums, it seemed to be similar for many. Then, with fasting and/or keto forums I hang out in there are so many more credible reports of extreme weight loss. And that is because water fasting and/or keto reduce the amount of insulin your body emits, and thus allows your body to really tap into the fat reserves it has in store.
• dkdbejwi383 5y ago
  It’s like how you can write perfect software by “just” not writing any bugs into it
  • tacocataco 5y ago
    Zero lines of code, zero bugs.
• Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago
  Lead deficiency makes animals both sedentary and depressed. Somebody fucked up big time.
• qq4 5y ago
  What is the new attitude towards depression? I think that going out and doing things along with driving out the negative thoughts with positive ones tends to work. Yes it is hard, but that is besides the point. It's not insurmountable.
• kamaal 5y ago
  >>Except it's actually hard. Isn't being overweight hard too? You just have to pick your hard. What ever choice you make, its hard.