3 ms·

This is a rationalization of a natural impulse that chronic overweight people appear to be unwilling to curb. Just go back in time 30 years, and people were mu

This is a rationalization of a natural impulse that chronic overweight people appear to be unwilling to curb. Just go back in time 30 years, and people were much thinner. Were they driving around with an empty tank? I don't think so, and neither did they. Now, weight loss is complex at the societal level, but very easy at the individual level. I am currently on a diet because I want to lose 10 or 15 pounds. Do I find it enjoyable? Not really. But I don't find it torture like I did when I had to have an urological exam. Good planning helps, choosing protein over carbs and fats helps, and after 3 weeks, more or less, the feeling of hunger decreases significantly. And if you go back in time -- not that they were necessarily better times, I'm just talking about the contexts I write about -- many more men wore a suit and many more women wore a dress. Today, asking someone to wear a dress or a suit seems like asking a stallion to wear a saddle for the first time. Were those who chose the attractiveness of certain more formal dresses over the comfort of sagging shorts and flip-flops foolish? It seems to me that when people are free from certain social expectations they tend, entropically, to choose maximum comfort, such as unlimited calorie consumption and sloppiness in self-presentation. And one could argue why this modern trend does not also see an explosion in the number of sexual relationships -- after all, sex should be one of our strongest urges. But it has just been replaced by pornography, just as physical performance -- showing one's muscles or strength, or sensitivity of soul and body -- has been replaced with watching professional sports played by others while gorging ourselves on chips and beer from the comfort of the couch.

exfatloss 4y ago
Unwilling or unable?
- borroka 4y ago
  I think, given current knowledge (perhaps in the future the difference between a simple desire and an irresistible impulse will be clearer), the question is philosophical rather than based on science. Is the violent person unable or unwilling to be nonviolent toward others? It is hard to say, but for violent people, we (Western democracies) have decided that they are unwilling to be nonviolent, not incapable. In fact, apart from a few "insane" cases, they are housed in normal prisons (separations from gen pop can take place for security reasons) and not in special institutions. As for addicts, the modern view in Western societies is that they are largely incapable of controlling themselves (when I was a teenager years ago, they were considered unwilling). Addiction is considered a disease, not a lifestyle choice. But cigarette smokers, for some reason, are considered unwilling to quit, not incapable (not: "they need help," but: "it's disgusting"). The jealous lunatic is considered unwilling, not unable to stop acting like a jealous lunatic: could they be addicted to love? (No, some say, that they are addicted to control, not love. But would the diagnosis of "addiction" change?). For fat people we are observing the same transition observed for addicts. When I was a teenager, being fat was a moral weakness. Today it is the fault of genes, broken families, seed oils, soils lacking magnesium: "they cannot lose weight, either because of genetics or soil and water", etc. Since more and more people are getting fat, which is bad, I don't think, from a consequentialist point of view, that the "addiction" approach for fat people is working.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    In a sense I agree that it's philosophical. But I think in a practical sense it matters because you'd recommend different modes of action. You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means) to eat less and exercise more and thus lose weight. You basically recommend that they try harder, if I understand you correctly. I think that there is another reason why they can't eat less and work out more and why the internal feedback systems of their bodies are "misleading" them in a way, making them overeat and have increased appetite and lethargy despite all the energy they're carrying in their body fat. My course of action would be to identify what causes this "breakage" in the metabolism that'll fix the feedback loop and therefore allow them to naturally and spontaneously eat less and move more.
    - borroka 4y ago
      > "You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means)." What means is that the person who is paralyzed from the waist down cannot run (unable), the person with a minor knee pain who is not running can be either unable and unwilling, and the person with no pain, functioning legs etc. who is not running is able to do so, but unwilling (maybe they like different sports or they want to watch a movie). The other day, pizza was offered at work. I wanted to eat a couple of slices, but I thought about the summer, and the beach, and swimsuits. And I decided not to eat pizza. But I really wanted to eat a couple of slices with cheese and salami. Did I restrain my urge, or I did not have an urge, just a desire? Is the nature determined by the results? From a consequentialist point of view, and outside pathologies of various nature (such as yours), I find it better to assume that overweight people are unwilling to close the fridge, put the fork down, and push themselves away from the table.
      - exfatloss 4y ago
        I find "unwilling to not be useful. I am perfectly willing to make a lot of sacrifices to lose weight. It's just that none of the sacrifices you list have an effect. Why would I continue to sacrifice it it doesn't work? So I prefer "unable" in the sense that "we haven't figured out the way and thus they can't just do it harder." Instead of the wheelchair, think of paralyzed people before wheelchairs. They "couldn't" walk because they were paralyzed and wanting it harder didn't work. What worked was inventing the wheelchair. My argument is we haven't invented an effective fat loss diet or intervention that works even in a minority of obese people by any reasonable definition of "works." (I.e. long-term, sustainable w/o leading to ramped down metabolism, doesn't lead to massive lean tissue loss, doable "at large" in their normal lives not while literally being locked in a camp.)

exfatloss 4y ago

Unwilling or unable?

borroka 4y ago
I think, given current knowledge (perhaps in the future the difference between a simple desire and an irresistible impulse will be clearer), the question is philosophical rather than based on science. Is the violent person unable or unwilling to be nonviolent toward others? It is hard to say, but for violent people, we (Western democracies) have decided that they are unwilling to be nonviolent, not incapable. In fact, apart from a few "insane" cases, they are housed in normal prisons (separations from gen pop can take place for security reasons) and not in special institutions. As for addicts, the modern view in Western societies is that they are largely incapable of controlling themselves (when I was a teenager years ago, they were considered unwilling). Addiction is considered a disease, not a lifestyle choice. But cigarette smokers, for some reason, are considered unwilling to quit, not incapable (not: "they need help," but: "it's disgusting"). The jealous lunatic is considered unwilling, not unable to stop acting like a jealous lunatic: could they be addicted to love? (No, some say, that they are addicted to control, not love. But would the diagnosis of "addiction" change?). For fat people we are observing the same transition observed for addicts. When I was a teenager, being fat was a moral weakness. Today it is the fault of genes, broken families, seed oils, soils lacking magnesium: "they cannot lose weight, either because of genetics or soil and water", etc. Since more and more people are getting fat, which is bad, I don't think, from a consequentialist point of view, that the "addiction" approach for fat people is working.
- exfatloss 4y ago
  In a sense I agree that it's philosophical. But I think in a practical sense it matters because you'd recommend different modes of action. You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means) to eat less and exercise more and thus lose weight. You basically recommend that they try harder, if I understand you correctly. I think that there is another reason why they can't eat less and work out more and why the internal feedback systems of their bodies are "misleading" them in a way, making them overeat and have increased appetite and lethargy despite all the energy they're carrying in their body fat. My course of action would be to identify what causes this "breakage" in the metabolism that'll fix the feedback loop and therefore allow them to naturally and spontaneously eat less and move more.
  - borroka 4y ago
    > "You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means)." What means is that the person who is paralyzed from the waist down cannot run (unable), the person with a minor knee pain who is not running can be either unable and unwilling, and the person with no pain, functioning legs etc. who is not running is able to do so, but unwilling (maybe they like different sports or they want to watch a movie). The other day, pizza was offered at work. I wanted to eat a couple of slices, but I thought about the summer, and the beach, and swimsuits. And I decided not to eat pizza. But I really wanted to eat a couple of slices with cheese and salami. Did I restrain my urge, or I did not have an urge, just a desire? Is the nature determined by the results? From a consequentialist point of view, and outside pathologies of various nature (such as yours), I find it better to assume that overweight people are unwilling to close the fridge, put the fork down, and push themselves away from the table.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      I find "unwilling to not be useful. I am perfectly willing to make a lot of sacrifices to lose weight. It's just that none of the sacrifices you list have an effect. Why would I continue to sacrifice it it doesn't work? So I prefer "unable" in the sense that "we haven't figured out the way and thus they can't just do it harder." Instead of the wheelchair, think of paralyzed people before wheelchairs. They "couldn't" walk because they were paralyzed and wanting it harder didn't work. What worked was inventing the wheelchair. My argument is we haven't invented an effective fat loss diet or intervention that works even in a minority of obese people by any reasonable definition of "works." (I.e. long-term, sustainable w/o leading to ramped down metabolism, doesn't lead to massive lean tissue loss, doable "at large" in their normal lives not while literally being locked in a camp.)