4 ms·

Yes, something is sick with fat people that’s causing them to do that. Anorexic people exaggerate how fat they are and how much (how little) they eat, and that’

Yes, something is sick with fat people that’s causing them to do that. Anorexic people exaggerate how fat they are and how much (how little) they eat, and that’s clearly some kind of illness that needs medical intervention and medication as needed to get them proper. Same for fat people, I think fat people have something wrong with them where the whole process of eat food -> feel sated is off. If everything I ate felt like half the portion is actually was I’d also be totally fucked up in how I understood my portion sizes too and would probably inadvertently lie on “objective” measures too! Like I don’t know how much a portion of chicken is. But damn if I ate a chicken leg, and I feel like I ate nothing, I’d be sorely tempted to argue I didn’t have a full portion of protein… because it doesn’t feel like I did, in my body. I think that’s what’s happening to fat people. Otherwise drugs like ozempic wouldn’t be working like they do— the fat person doesn’t become suddenly honest on some dumb journal and suddenly the pounds come off! They just actually feel full when they should like normal people for once so their bodies are getting to normal people sizes.

bscphil 3y ago
> I think fat people have something wrong with them where the whole process of eat food -> feel sated is off. This isn't something that's wrong with fat people, it's something wrong with the food environment they're in. 75 years ago your idea would have some intrinsic plausibility, as only a very small number of people had obesity. Now, in the United States, we're at a point where ~40% of adults have obesity. The explanation almost certainly lies with changes in the food environment, instead of with a huge portion of people catching an unknown disease that causes them to not know how much they're eating. That's because in fact we do know about changes to food environment that could cause this. Since roughly the 1970s we've switched to foods that are more calorie-dense and less nutritious because they have become cheaper to produce. The relative cost of soft drinks and other sugary goods has increased much less than the cost of fresh vegetables, and in fact the industry has higher profits on these foods. I bought two liters of sugary soda for $1 the other day, that's a common offer at a grocery store near me. If you drill down to how this is being accomplished, you'll notice that the rates of corn and soy production per person have vastly increased over the last 50 years. That's not because people are eating more tofu (which would be healthy), it's because (a) they're both used as additives or sweeteners (corn syrup), and (b) they're used as feed for animals who get turned into cheap meat at fast food restaurants. The US heavily subsidizes these crops - in fact they make up close to half of US farm land. As a result, the same (genetic) individual would almost certainly experience a much worse food environment today than in 1960. People who aren't affected by this are those who are either (a) genetically blessed, and would hardly gain weight in any environment, or (b) are socially blessed, in that they are wealthier, live in places with a strong culture of exercise, and/or have easy access to nutritious fresh vegetables.
- fortran77 3y ago
  > People who aren't affected by this are those who are either (a) genetically blessed, and would hardly gain weight in any environment, or (b) are socially blessed, in that they are wealthier, live in places with a strong culture of exercise, and/or have easy access to nutritious fresh vegetables. or c) are disciplined enough to count their calories and stopping when they hit 2,000 kCal/day or so.
  - bscphil 3y ago
    Yeah, that obviously works for a small number of people. I'm talking about the large scale demographic changes though - they're clearly the result of changes in food availability in one's environment. In an environment like that seen in most of America, the majority of people are going to be fat. You don't solve that problem by emphasizing personal responsibility, even if it can in theory work for some individuals.

bscphil 3y ago

> I think fat people have something wrong with them where the whole process of eat food -> feel sated is off. This isn't something that's wrong with fat people, it's something wrong with the food environment they're in. 75 years ago your idea would have some intrinsic plausibility, as only a very small number of people had obesity. Now, in the United States, we're at a point where ~40% of adults have obesity. The explanation almost certainly lies with changes in the food environment, instead of with a huge portion of people catching an unknown disease that causes them to not know how much they're eating. That's because in fact we do know about changes to food environment that could cause this. Since roughly the 1970s we've switched to foods that are more calorie-dense and less nutritious because they have become cheaper to produce. The relative cost of soft drinks and other sugary goods has increased much less than the cost of fresh vegetables, and in fact the industry has higher profits on these foods. I bought two liters of sugary soda for $1 the other day, that's a common offer at a grocery store near me. If you drill down to how this is being accomplished, you'll notice that the rates of corn and soy production per person have vastly increased over the last 50 years. That's not because people are eating more tofu (which would be healthy), it's because (a) they're both used as additives or sweeteners (corn syrup), and (b) they're used as feed for animals who get turned into cheap meat at fast food restaurants. The US heavily subsidizes these crops - in fact they make up close to half of US farm land. As a result, the same (genetic) individual would almost certainly experience a much worse food environment today than in 1960. People who aren't affected by this are those who are either (a) genetically blessed, and would hardly gain weight in any environment, or (b) are socially blessed, in that they are wealthier, live in places with a strong culture of exercise, and/or have easy access to nutritious fresh vegetables.

fortran77 3y ago
> People who aren't affected by this are those who are either (a) genetically blessed, and would hardly gain weight in any environment, or (b) are socially blessed, in that they are wealthier, live in places with a strong culture of exercise, and/or have easy access to nutritious fresh vegetables. or c) are disciplined enough to count their calories and stopping when they hit 2,000 kCal/day or so.
- bscphil 3y ago
  Yeah, that obviously works for a small number of people. I'm talking about the large scale demographic changes though - they're clearly the result of changes in food availability in one's environment. In an environment like that seen in most of America, the majority of people are going to be fat. You don't solve that problem by emphasizing personal responsibility, even if it can in theory work for some individuals.