6 ms·

98% of people are unable to follow your "simple" idea. Hence, it's not simple by definition. Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect m

98% of people are unable to follow your "simple" idea. Hence, it's not simple by definition. Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
It's simple by definition but not easy to do. Cravings (fat, sugar, filling boredom with eating, depriving yourself from flavor of diet soda/soda) is easier said than done.
- elil17 4y ago
  It's true, spending time eating can distract from the only real way to lose weight, which is by reducing the mass of the planet Earth. Stay focused, everyone! Together we can do it.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    No way, I'm already at a good healthy weight. If I lose 20 lbs my doctor will get concerned, and I'll end up spending a lot of time getting tests for various cancers.
    - dwohnitmok 4y ago
      If you follow elil17's suggestion your concern is moot. There won't be any doctors. Anywhere.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
> Crust of the earth Out Read the linked article, they're making a pun.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Hence, it's not simple by definition. simple != {easy, convenient, etc}
- elil17 4y ago
  Exactly, thank you. Simple != convenient is absolutely the best way to summarize it. Losing weight this way is extremely inconvenient. It does mean that earth will become uninhabitable. But that does not mean that it's not worth the hard work!
  - function_seven 4y ago
    You’re ignoring genetics. We have evolved to store fat to survive in harsh conditions, but this does not mean we can survive a missing crust and exposed mantle. Perhaps CRISPR can help?
    - the_mar 4y ago
      there were no fat ppl in concentration camps. genetics matter but not as much as you think they do
      - function_seven 4y ago
        With the Earth’s crust missing I assure you that certain genotypes will fare worse than others.
- swyx 4y ago
  insert obligatory Rich Hickey mention
elil17 4y ago
People are always going to make these arguments. Yes, I know that there's scientific evidence that your mass effects your weight and that hunger, metabolism, etc. effect your mass. But we have to look at effect sizes. Whatever diet you try, you are only every going to have, at most, a modest effect on your own mass which will indirectly lower your weight. I challenge people to go out there and start launching chunks of matter on escape trajectories from Earth. Yes it is hard, yes it takes a lot of energy, but you will start reducing the force of gravitational attraction acting on you. These are real results, not just a temporary change.
- idrios 4y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with the parent comment on this, maybe argue they're being conservative. I'd say closer to 99.999% of people would struggle with this weight-loss plan, and hurling chunks of matter from your backyard to out of earth's orbit doesn't sound simple to me. But I'm not gonna knock an idea before I've tried it.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Fair, but if just 1 person can do it, it works for everyone on Earth.
    - EGreg 4y ago
      Have you personally shown people how to do this? Can you link to some testimonials or endorsements from former clients? After all, anyone can say anything, and even point to lottery winners, but I want to learn from the best what it takes to actually win the lottery. I myself am not a success coach but the other day, someone very successful told me that anyone can succeed at a startup. All they have to do is get their billionaire parents to give them a small loan of 10 million dollars, and let them iterate through and fail a few times. The key is to go back to the family trough and then you can get bailed out multiple times. If your parents are not billionaires then there are ways to fix it. This can work for anyone. He showed that such an approach actually pays off because in the end you make back everything you lost AND you can now afford an amazing car and TV! His friend said he was “reducing a hard problem to a much harder problem”. But what does his friend know, he is poor by comparison and seems bitter
addisonl 4y ago
> 98% of people are unable to follow This would imply 98% of people are overweight which, even in America, is far from the truth.
- parker_mountain 4y ago
  Yeah, it's much closer to 65%. And it's been constantly ticking upwards for years. Haha, uh oh. e: overweight Americans are about 32.5% of the population. Obese is another 36.5%.
- elil17 4y ago
  I think they key question is "overweight" compared to what? Yes, far less than 98% of people are overweight compared to a baseline created by doctors that was essentially biased by the existing distribution of weights in western society. But 100% of Americans are overweight compared to how much they would weigh if the Earth's mass was reduced by 50%.
parker_mountain 4y ago
> Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. Metabolism/energy levels/etc are Calories Out. If your metabolism is low, your Calories Out is lower. Look at BMR, such as https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr Very simple. CICO. e: there are relatively rare medical conditions, such as water retention, that can affect weight loss. A better term might be "body fat percentage". But the end result is that if you want to lose body fat, consistently intake less calories than your body uses for energy.
- elil17 4y ago
  I think if we're looking at body fat percentage that's a very different question, and something that's probably more in the realm of biology than physics. But weight loss is simple, it's not going to be effected by medical conditions or "metabolism" if you can just reduce the mass of the Earth.
notyourday 4y ago
> Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. It is that simple: people simply are looking for an excuses why they aren't willing to do it. I'm going to again plugin this guy https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-tools/ https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-t... because his lectures are amazing and he breaks down the actual scientific consensus on these topics rather well. He is neuroscientist and tenured associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine who has made contributions to the brain development, brain plasticity, and neural regeneration and repair fields.
gilded-lilly 4y ago
I once lost 17kg (50 pounds) by caloric restriction (500cal deficit per day). I’ve got news for you: you will be slightly hungry most of the time. Meals will be the highlight of your day.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  You only know that you were slightly hungry most of the time. For you, meals were the highlight of your day. But you didn't need to go hungry. Folks lose weight by caloric restriction and fill up on a lot of fruits and (non-starchy) vegetables. Some folks have luck with legumes and beans and filling foods. Some folks snack and don't have meals. And the experience of hunger changes, too! Sometimes, in the same person and definitely between folks. Examples: I used to smoke. Nicotine is an excellent appetite suppressant, and honestly made it easier to lose weight. High stress can make me lose most of my appetite or do the opposite. I menstruate. A few days each month, I have indescribable hunger. It is hormone driven, and unlike other hungers I've experienced. Suddenly, I feel like I've skipped meals. It consumes me. I can't do anything about it, but if I eat a little, I can go back to paying attention to other things. Not me personally, but there are a number of drugs that increase your appetite, too. Again, the point really is that hunger isn't as simple as "you'll be slightly hungry most of the time".
  - gilded-lilly 4y ago
    Interesting. You may be right - in fact, I’d never considered filling up on broccoli or other calorically thin ingredients to suppress hunger. I was just working on the assumption that hunger is the body’s response to caloric deficit (in the absence of drugs).
    - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      True hunger is a feeling of deep fatigue, not a craving to eat something. What we call "hunger" is just habit of eating food regularly. You can untrain yourself, just like with any other habit.
- 4y ago
throwaway729562 4y ago
It’s simple but not easy.
gloryjulio 4y ago
Simple != easy. Simple/complex vs easy/hard if this illustration helps
gcanyon 4y ago
"simple" <> "easy"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jannie123 4y ago
simple != easy

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

It's simple by definition but not easy to do. Cravings (fat, sugar, filling boredom with eating, depriving yourself from flavor of diet soda/soda) is easier said than done.

elil17 4y ago
It's true, spending time eating can distract from the only real way to lose weight, which is by reducing the mass of the planet Earth. Stay focused, everyone! Together we can do it.
- bluGill 4y ago
  No way, I'm already at a good healthy weight. If I lose 20 lbs my doctor will get concerned, and I'll end up spending a lot of time getting tests for various cancers.
  - dwohnitmok 4y ago
    If you follow elil17's suggestion your concern is moot. There won't be any doctors. Anywhere.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

> Crust of the earth Out Read the linked article, they're making a pun.

throw0101c 4y ago

> Hence, it's not simple by definition. simple != {easy, convenient, etc}

elil17 4y ago
Exactly, thank you. Simple != convenient is absolutely the best way to summarize it. Losing weight this way is extremely inconvenient. It does mean that earth will become uninhabitable. But that does not mean that it's not worth the hard work!
- function_seven 4y ago
  You’re ignoring genetics. We have evolved to store fat to survive in harsh conditions, but this does not mean we can survive a missing crust and exposed mantle. Perhaps CRISPR can help?
  - the_mar 4y ago
    there were no fat ppl in concentration camps. genetics matter but not as much as you think they do
    - function_seven 4y ago
      With the Earth’s crust missing I assure you that certain genotypes will fare worse than others.
swyx 4y ago
insert obligatory Rich Hickey mention

elil17 4y ago

People are always going to make these arguments. Yes, I know that there's scientific evidence that your mass effects your weight and that hunger, metabolism, etc. effect your mass. But we have to look at effect sizes. Whatever diet you try, you are only every going to have, at most, a modest effect on your own mass which will indirectly lower your weight. I challenge people to go out there and start launching chunks of matter on escape trajectories from Earth. Yes it is hard, yes it takes a lot of energy, but you will start reducing the force of gravitational attraction acting on you. These are real results, not just a temporary change.

idrios 4y ago
I'm inclined to agree with the parent comment on this, maybe argue they're being conservative. I'd say closer to 99.999% of people would struggle with this weight-loss plan, and hurling chunks of matter from your backyard to out of earth's orbit doesn't sound simple to me. But I'm not gonna knock an idea before I've tried it.
- elil17 4y ago
  Fair, but if just 1 person can do it, it works for everyone on Earth.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Have you personally shown people how to do this? Can you link to some testimonials or endorsements from former clients? After all, anyone can say anything, and even point to lottery winners, but I want to learn from the best what it takes to actually win the lottery. I myself am not a success coach but the other day, someone very successful told me that anyone can succeed at a startup. All they have to do is get their billionaire parents to give them a small loan of 10 million dollars, and let them iterate through and fail a few times. The key is to go back to the family trough and then you can get bailed out multiple times. If your parents are not billionaires then there are ways to fix it. This can work for anyone. He showed that such an approach actually pays off because in the end you make back everything you lost AND you can now afford an amazing car and TV! His friend said he was “reducing a hard problem to a much harder problem”. But what does his friend know, he is poor by comparison and seems bitter

addisonl 4y ago

> 98% of people are unable to follow This would imply 98% of people are overweight which, even in America, is far from the truth.

parker_mountain 4y ago
Yeah, it's much closer to 65%. And it's been constantly ticking upwards for years. Haha, uh oh. e: overweight Americans are about 32.5% of the population. Obese is another 36.5%.
elil17 4y ago
I think they key question is "overweight" compared to what? Yes, far less than 98% of people are overweight compared to a baseline created by doctors that was essentially biased by the existing distribution of weights in western society. But 100% of Americans are overweight compared to how much they would weigh if the Earth's mass was reduced by 50%.

parker_mountain 4y ago

> Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. Metabolism/energy levels/etc are Calories Out. If your metabolism is low, your Calories Out is lower. Look at BMR, such as https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr Very simple. CICO. e: there are relatively rare medical conditions, such as water retention, that can affect weight loss. A better term might be "body fat percentage". But the end result is that if you want to lose body fat, consistently intake less calories than your body uses for energy.

elil17 4y ago
I think if we're looking at body fat percentage that's a very different question, and something that's probably more in the realm of biology than physics. But weight loss is simple, it's not going to be effected by medical conditions or "metabolism" if you can just reduce the mass of the Earth.

notyourday 4y ago

> Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. It is that simple: people simply are looking for an excuses why they aren't willing to do it. I'm going to again plugin this guy https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-tools/ https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-t... because his lectures are amazing and he breaks down the actual scientific consensus on these topics rather well. He is neuroscientist and tenured associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine who has made contributions to the brain development, brain plasticity, and neural regeneration and repair fields.

gilded-lilly 4y ago

I once lost 17kg (50 pounds) by caloric restriction (500cal deficit per day). I’ve got news for you: you will be slightly hungry most of the time. Meals will be the highlight of your day.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago
You only know that you were slightly hungry most of the time. For you, meals were the highlight of your day. But you didn't need to go hungry. Folks lose weight by caloric restriction and fill up on a lot of fruits and (non-starchy) vegetables. Some folks have luck with legumes and beans and filling foods. Some folks snack and don't have meals. And the experience of hunger changes, too! Sometimes, in the same person and definitely between folks. Examples: I used to smoke. Nicotine is an excellent appetite suppressant, and honestly made it easier to lose weight. High stress can make me lose most of my appetite or do the opposite. I menstruate. A few days each month, I have indescribable hunger. It is hormone driven, and unlike other hungers I've experienced. Suddenly, I feel like I've skipped meals. It consumes me. I can't do anything about it, but if I eat a little, I can go back to paying attention to other things. Not me personally, but there are a number of drugs that increase your appetite, too. Again, the point really is that hunger isn't as simple as "you'll be slightly hungry most of the time".
- gilded-lilly 4y ago
  Interesting. You may be right - in fact, I’d never considered filling up on broccoli or other calorically thin ingredients to suppress hunger. I was just working on the assumption that hunger is the body’s response to caloric deficit (in the absence of drugs).
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    True hunger is a feeling of deep fatigue, not a craving to eat something. What we call "hunger" is just habit of eating food regularly. You can untrain yourself, just like with any other habit.
4y ago

throwaway729562 4y ago

It’s simple but not easy.

gloryjulio 4y ago

Simple != easy. Simple/complex vs easy/hard if this illustration helps

gcanyon 4y ago

"simple" <> "easy"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jannie123 4y ago

simple != easy