4 ms·

To the extent that this phenomenon is true for a significant number of people, it aligns with a concept that I came across several years ago and have been livin

To the extent that this phenomenon is true for a significant number of people, it aligns with a concept that I came across several years ago and have been living by ever since with good success: our decisions are driven mostly from our subconscious mind. When seen this way, there are good reasons why a person may be beholden to subconscious patterns that cause them to return to an above-average weight (and thus continue to produce hunger hormones even though they've eaten enough fuel for the body to function well): it can be dangerous to be in good shape - it can attract unwanted attention, attack, or expectations of capabilities that would make people see you as a threat. If a person has had some kind of trauma in the past relating to physical attack, gaining weight can be a way to become invisible, a non-threat, or better protected in the case of an attack. (FWIW this might explain cases where there are severe side-effects after taking drugs like Ozempic: the drug may be effective at blocking the hunger hormones of whatever it does, but if the subconscious pattern is still congruent with maintaining the higher weight level, it will fight back in other ways. The subconscious mind always wins, in my experience.) That said, another factor can just be issues with the microbiome and digestive absorption: there are several conditions that can mean that even though a person has consumed enough food, the nutritional content is not absorbed into the body, due to the presence or colonies of organisms (bacteria, parasites, fungus) that consume the nutrients first), and/or digestive inflammation conditions that mean the nutrients just aren't absorbed, but the fat from the food is still stored. So, more food is desired in order to try to gain sustenance, even though it seems enough has already been consumed (though, issues relating to digestion can also originate in the subconscious mind, as the research behind YC company Mindset Health demonstrates – https://www.mindsethealth.com/research-outcomes https://www.mindsethealth.com/research-outcomes) Health is hard.

Fluorescence 3y ago
> gaining weight can be a way to become invisible, a non-threat I have become a little sceptical about this one because of how frequently I now see it claimed. While there might be real cases, it has become part of the therapy patter around weight-loss. It has become a "realisation" that rationalises someone's eating. It wasn't out of control, it wasn't about desire but an unconscious plan! It paints them as the noble victim and gives them a path to becoming more confident and slimmer. It might even be a helpful mindset but I don't think it's the true mechanism which is more about attempting mood-repair and getting trapped in a food-addiction cycle. I have only ever seen how weight-gain becomes a pain that feeds the need for mood-repair rather than anyone reaching an unconscious victory of becoming invisible. I see the converse happen - when over-weight we feel painfully conspicuous, to an almost paranoid extent. I think it becomes more convincing when women lose weight and get unwanted attention. When the conceived fix is to start eating, is that a rational reaction or the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza? I know when I break an addiction that inner-addict comes up with some hella bullshit. Invisibility might be part of the spectrum of our mental state in weight-gain but I'm seeing this as a primary explanation spike way beyond what I believe is credible for an "unconscious plan" theory. Female obesity is greater than Male obesity but I expect that is due to the greater hormonal and child-birth challenges than this theory.
- tomhoward 3y ago
  I just feel like this reply amounts to "there can't be a non-moralistic explanation for this, the moralistic explanation has to be the correct one". I know that's an uncharitable oversimplification, but is there a way you can present your case without moralistic barbs like "the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza"? And perhaps also include evidence rather than conjecture. My comment is consistent with the notion from evolutionary theory that our mind and body acts in accordance with what it determines is optimal for its survival, with the caveat that this can be complicated by factors like illness.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    I guess you are not very familiar with addiction? > the moralistic explanation It is not a moralistic claim at all. Quite the opposite. It's a very common human struggle and to realise you are trapped in an addiction is the way to break free. Understanding that there it's something in the addictive substance that hooks humans, means it's not your fault. It lets you escape the crushing feelings of shame, blame and weakness. Better still, there are a lot of resources about recovering from addiction. > "the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza"? Ok so this is not a barb but jargon. Your inner-addict is a personification of the self-talk that tries to pull you back into an addiction. Your inner-addict is like the cartoon devil on your shoulder. You are not an addict anymore, but you still carry this annoying little inner-addict that you sometimes just have tell to shut the hell up. For example, this little devil might be pestering you non-stop (what might be called 'food noise' these days) but the funnier aspect I wanted to reference is how your inner-addict comes up with the dumbest reasons to break your sobriety. These absurd reasons just pop in your head and if you are not paying enough attention, you might believe them. However if you manage to take a beat, you can realise it's the most laughably absurd nonsense but you were nearly tricked e.g. "I will never be a great writer if I don't smoke", "it's amazing how little I crave a donut, I should eat one just to prove how much I am not interested in them", "I should celebrate my 100 days sober with a cocktail!". You can see how "I should get fat again to not be seen" has the suggestion of one these absurd justifications. If someone has lost a lot of weight they will have been through absolute hell with months of deprivation and struggle. It's a massive achievement. A rationalisation to excuse throwing away all that effort is insane but that is how addictions work. > consistent with the notion from evolutionary theory Ok, kind of funny. Evolutionary psychology suffers from "just-so-stories". It is possible to tell a nice story, but they have no epistemic value because there is no limit to the number of nice sounding stories and they are untestable. "Consistent with evolution" should only be said as a punchline. To be blunt, the story itself is speculative Freudian subconscious schlock which is why I believe I hear something similar from those fresh from therapy.

Fluorescence 3y ago

> gaining weight can be a way to become invisible, a non-threat I have become a little sceptical about this one because of how frequently I now see it claimed. While there might be real cases, it has become part of the therapy patter around weight-loss. It has become a "realisation" that rationalises someone's eating. It wasn't out of control, it wasn't about desire but an unconscious plan! It paints them as the noble victim and gives them a path to becoming more confident and slimmer. It might even be a helpful mindset but I don't think it's the true mechanism which is more about attempting mood-repair and getting trapped in a food-addiction cycle. I have only ever seen how weight-gain becomes a pain that feeds the need for mood-repair rather than anyone reaching an unconscious victory of becoming invisible. I see the converse happen - when over-weight we feel painfully conspicuous, to an almost paranoid extent. I think it becomes more convincing when women lose weight and get unwanted attention. When the conceived fix is to start eating, is that a rational reaction or the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza? I know when I break an addiction that inner-addict comes up with some hella bullshit. Invisibility might be part of the spectrum of our mental state in weight-gain but I'm seeing this as a primary explanation spike way beyond what I believe is credible for an "unconscious plan" theory. Female obesity is greater than Male obesity but I expect that is due to the greater hormonal and child-birth challenges than this theory.

tomhoward 3y ago
I just feel like this reply amounts to "there can't be a non-moralistic explanation for this, the moralistic explanation has to be the correct one". I know that's an uncharitable oversimplification, but is there a way you can present your case without moralistic barbs like "the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza"? And perhaps also include evidence rather than conjecture. My comment is consistent with the notion from evolutionary theory that our mind and body acts in accordance with what it determines is optimal for its survival, with the caveat that this can be complicated by factors like illness.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  I guess you are not very familiar with addiction? > the moralistic explanation It is not a moralistic claim at all. Quite the opposite. It's a very common human struggle and to realise you are trapped in an addiction is the way to break free. Understanding that there it's something in the addictive substance that hooks humans, means it's not your fault. It lets you escape the crushing feelings of shame, blame and weakness. Better still, there are a lot of resources about recovering from addiction. > "the inner food-addict concocting excuses for an XXL pizza"? Ok so this is not a barb but jargon. Your inner-addict is a personification of the self-talk that tries to pull you back into an addiction. Your inner-addict is like the cartoon devil on your shoulder. You are not an addict anymore, but you still carry this annoying little inner-addict that you sometimes just have tell to shut the hell up. For example, this little devil might be pestering you non-stop (what might be called 'food noise' these days) but the funnier aspect I wanted to reference is how your inner-addict comes up with the dumbest reasons to break your sobriety. These absurd reasons just pop in your head and if you are not paying enough attention, you might believe them. However if you manage to take a beat, you can realise it's the most laughably absurd nonsense but you were nearly tricked e.g. "I will never be a great writer if I don't smoke", "it's amazing how little I crave a donut, I should eat one just to prove how much I am not interested in them", "I should celebrate my 100 days sober with a cocktail!". You can see how "I should get fat again to not be seen" has the suggestion of one these absurd justifications. If someone has lost a lot of weight they will have been through absolute hell with months of deprivation and struggle. It's a massive achievement. A rationalisation to excuse throwing away all that effort is insane but that is how addictions work. > consistent with the notion from evolutionary theory Ok, kind of funny. Evolutionary psychology suffers from "just-so-stories". It is possible to tell a nice story, but they have no epistemic value because there is no limit to the number of nice sounding stories and they are untestable. "Consistent with evolution" should only be said as a punchline. To be blunt, the story itself is speculative Freudian subconscious schlock which is why I believe I hear something similar from those fresh from therapy.