3 ms·

Even they admit that in the end CICO is correct. You cannot escape physics. That being said, the real question is: if somebody stopped eating, would their body

Even they admit that in the end CICO is correct. You cannot escape physics. That being said, the real question is: if somebody stopped eating, would their body die instead of using their fat for energy? There could definitely be cases where that happens (likely caused by modern tech / science), but given things like this happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast It’s likely just a willpower/intellect issue once cico is handled. How long can you keep it up, are you able to make effective modifications, etc until you reach your goal weight. I’d wager that it’s much more likely society lacks willpower & intelligence (when presented with excess resources) instead of we introduced something that makes our bodies unable to lose weight. Anecdotally, as a former obese person and with many family members who have dealt with/are dealing with obesity cico + willpower was always the answer. It’s very likely the willpower needed to lose weight is something a large portion of the population fundamentally can’t achieve without cultural enforcement.

zamfi 4y ago
Sure, CICO definitely applies, but so what? The first derivative of stored calories doesn't tell you anything interesting about causes. Your bank balance is a sum of money coming and and money going out, but what causes money coming in and what causes money going out are much more useful to anyone trying to earn wealth or avoid debt than the mere fact that your bank balance is their sum. Like you, many people are convinced that the issue is "willpower / intellect". But this doesn't share a causal relationship with CICO! The willpower argument is like saying "oh yeah, to become rich, just earn more than you spend!" -- sure, that's true, and then someone says "ok, how do I do that?"; if your answer is "willpower!" I doubt they'll find that very satisfying. Since I suspect you didn't read the post either, I'll excerpt two questions here: (1) Rates of obesity in lab rats -- whose diets haven't changed -- have also increased over the last 50 years. Do they lack willpower too? (2) Average calorie consumption hasn't changed much over the last 50 years, and nor has calorie expenditure. Average weight gain is in fact super slow, on the order of a few pounds per year, for most obese individuals. That's the equivalent of overeating by ~7000 calories each year -- only 1% of typical annual consumption. It's hard to imagine that people don't have the willpower to reduce their food consumption by 20 calories per day. Losing weight by keeping up a caloric deficit requires a ton of willpower because your body super fights against starvation. But why would a lack of willpower be the reason people perpetually eat 1% too many calories? And why did they only start doing that 50 years ago? CICO is not a useful causal explanation for the obesity epidemic. Obesity at the societal level is a more interesting problem than merely CICO, despite how many people think the reason is some variant of willpower.
- rajin444 4y ago
  I read enough. > (1) Rates of obesity in lab rats -- whose diets haven't changed -- have also increased over the last 50 years. Do they lack willpower too? There are so many explanations for this outside of "some environmental factor causing everyone to get fat" that I don't think it needs explaining. > Average calorie consumption hasn't changed much over the last 50 years, and nor has calorie expenditure The methods for estimating these are likely wildly off. At face value, this would be an incredibly difficult statistic to obtain accurately. Nearly impossible. I'd need access to more data than is available to trust such a tremendous claim. Trying to simplify complex data like this is borderline pseudoscience. That being said, I'm not saying CICO is the casual explanation. I'm saying we have a large surplus of resources, and humans are designed to consume. Overcoming that drive is likely beyond many people.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    > I'm saying we have a large surplus of resources, and humans are designed to consume. You have no particular evidence of this either. In other contexts where humans have had a large surplus of resources, there has not been an obesity epidemic.
    - rajin444 4y ago
      Can you point to other contexts with an equivalent level of surplus of today? Even if you could, our science is not advanced enough to control for all the confounds. You can’t point to “evidence” or “science” to prove your point because we are not advanced enough to accurately claim anything at the level you’re attempting to. Research like you’re referencing is great for “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”.
      - zamfi 4y ago
        > Research like you’re referencing is great for “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”. You clearly didn’t read enough — the whole point of the piece I referenced is “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”. Glad you finally agree that it’s great, though.

zamfi 4y ago

Sure, CICO definitely applies, but so what? The first derivative of stored calories doesn't tell you anything interesting about causes. Your bank balance is a sum of money coming and and money going out, but what causes money coming in and what causes money going out are much more useful to anyone trying to earn wealth or avoid debt than the mere fact that your bank balance is their sum. Like you, many people are convinced that the issue is "willpower / intellect". But this doesn't share a causal relationship with CICO! The willpower argument is like saying "oh yeah, to become rich, just earn more than you spend!" -- sure, that's true, and then someone says "ok, how do I do that?"; if your answer is "willpower!" I doubt they'll find that very satisfying. Since I suspect you didn't read the post either, I'll excerpt two questions here: (1) Rates of obesity in lab rats -- whose diets haven't changed -- have also increased over the last 50 years. Do they lack willpower too? (2) Average calorie consumption hasn't changed much over the last 50 years, and nor has calorie expenditure. Average weight gain is in fact super slow, on the order of a few pounds per year, for most obese individuals. That's the equivalent of overeating by ~7000 calories each year -- only 1% of typical annual consumption. It's hard to imagine that people don't have the willpower to reduce their food consumption by 20 calories per day. Losing weight by keeping up a caloric deficit requires a ton of willpower because your body super fights against starvation. But why would a lack of willpower be the reason people perpetually eat 1% too many calories? And why did they only start doing that 50 years ago? CICO is not a useful causal explanation for the obesity epidemic. Obesity at the societal level is a more interesting problem than merely CICO, despite how many people think the reason is some variant of willpower.

rajin444 4y ago
I read enough. > (1) Rates of obesity in lab rats -- whose diets haven't changed -- have also increased over the last 50 years. Do they lack willpower too? There are so many explanations for this outside of "some environmental factor causing everyone to get fat" that I don't think it needs explaining. > Average calorie consumption hasn't changed much over the last 50 years, and nor has calorie expenditure The methods for estimating these are likely wildly off. At face value, this would be an incredibly difficult statistic to obtain accurately. Nearly impossible. I'd need access to more data than is available to trust such a tremendous claim. Trying to simplify complex data like this is borderline pseudoscience. That being said, I'm not saying CICO is the casual explanation. I'm saying we have a large surplus of resources, and humans are designed to consume. Overcoming that drive is likely beyond many people.
- zamfi 4y ago
  > I'm saying we have a large surplus of resources, and humans are designed to consume. You have no particular evidence of this either. In other contexts where humans have had a large surplus of resources, there has not been an obesity epidemic.
  - rajin444 4y ago
    Can you point to other contexts with an equivalent level of surplus of today? Even if you could, our science is not advanced enough to control for all the confounds. You can’t point to “evidence” or “science” to prove your point because we are not advanced enough to accurately claim anything at the level you’re attempting to. Research like you’re referencing is great for “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”.
    - zamfi 4y ago
      > Research like you’re referencing is great for “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”. You clearly didn’t read enough — the whole point of the piece I referenced is “this is interesting” and not “this is why the world works this way”. Glad you finally agree that it’s great, though.