5 ms·

I wonder if the result is the same feeling that I have if I don't do any sports for too many days. I really look forward to that bike trip then, or to the gym.

by scrrr 14y ago

I wonder if the result is the same feeling that I have if I don't do any sports for too many days. I really look forward to that bike trip then, or to the gym. If that can be put into a pill, why not. But I also believe that the key to fight mass obesity is a change of mindset in society. Not sure how this is achieved, but education on certain topics might help. Or role models that say the right things. Even if those things are not politically correct sometimes. But then again, would that sell the product those role models are selling?

zxcvvcxz 14y ago
Agree with the change in mindset sentiment. Using a pill to fight obesity is sort of like fighting consumerism with more consumerism.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Isn't it more like fighting consumerism with replicators? It doesn't solve the root issue of people having desires based on material things, and it's not necessarily going to make them happier, but at least it solves the immediate symptom of people dying.
  - eswangren 14y ago
    Right, sO if it works what does a person's mindset matter?
- ohhmaagawd 14y ago
  If the pill works with to significant downsides, who cares?
- mistercow 14y ago
  That analogy is nonsense.
rewind 14y ago
You're bang-on. A lot of overweight people go for a walk or a light jog every day and genuinely try. But they only burn a few hundred calories, then turn around and eat a Quarter Pounder with fries and Coke and think they're coming out ahead. You can lose weight by not exercising but eating less than you burn. But you can't lose weight by exercising and eating more than you burn. A pill won't help this.
- beagle3 14y ago
  The "calories in - calories out" is so inaccurate it isn't even funny. You have documented counter examples at both ends (people who do not consume a lot and remain fat, and people who consume a whole lot and yet remain lean). It describes 60% of the population reasonably well, and fails miserably for 10% or so. It is a useful tool, but it is an unscientific approximation.
  - ajross 14y ago
    I don't follow. Obviously metabolisms differ widely. But "calories in - calories out" is a simple statement of conservation of energy. I assure you, that holds as true in a person's body as it does in a particle collider.
    - capsule_toy 14y ago
      I'm guessing he's referring to Gary Taubes and the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. It was a big thing years ago, and I would have also assumed most people knew about it. One of the basic ideas is that calories in - calories out = fat is an oversimplification and ignores the complexities of the way our bodies process different foods. In other words, the argument isn't trying to break the laws of physics, it's just arguing where the energy is actually going in your equation. The book itself is lengthy and comprehensive. He cites a lot of research to make his case, and the citations are available in the book. With that said, I don't think calories in - calories out is wildly inaccurate, and I don't believe Taubes makes that case.
    - beagle3 14y ago
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
The key to fighting mass obesity is to stop adulterating our food and build cities/towns we can actually walk/run around in. It's not that difficult.
- vishaldpatel 14y ago
  Y'know... I live in the suburbs and you'll be surprised how many amenities are walkable, yet everyone still prefers to drive. At the end of the day, people are just lazy as fuck. Unless there's a good carrot (or stick) that'll motivate them enough - looking good doesn't seem to be a good enough carrot, and deteriorating health doesn't seem to be a big enough stick - they won't change. Perhaps a fat tax coupled with a staying healthy tax return might help.
- VMG 14y ago
  Yeah, changing the desires of millions of people and rebuilding cities doesn't sound difficult at all.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    I said nothing about changing the desires of millions of people. If people want to eat white bread, let them eat white bread. However, don't subsidize corn to the point where white bread suddenly contains large amounts of corn syrup. Don't give societal support for monoculture and drug-culture of food crops and meat. Let the farmers farm, and the people cook.

by scrrr 14y ago

zxcvvcxz 14y ago

Agree with the change in mindset sentiment. Using a pill to fight obesity is sort of like fighting consumerism with more consumerism.

Cushman 14y ago
Isn't it more like fighting consumerism with replicators? It doesn't solve the root issue of people having desires based on material things, and it's not necessarily going to make them happier, but at least it solves the immediate symptom of people dying.
- eswangren 14y ago
  Right, sO if it works what does a person's mindset matter?
ohhmaagawd 14y ago
If the pill works with to significant downsides, who cares?
mistercow 14y ago
That analogy is nonsense.

rewind 14y ago

You're bang-on. A lot of overweight people go for a walk or a light jog every day and genuinely try. But they only burn a few hundred calories, then turn around and eat a Quarter Pounder with fries and Coke and think they're coming out ahead. You can lose weight by not exercising but eating less than you burn. But you can't lose weight by exercising and eating more than you burn. A pill won't help this.

beagle3 14y ago
The "calories in - calories out" is so inaccurate it isn't even funny. You have documented counter examples at both ends (people who do not consume a lot and remain fat, and people who consume a whole lot and yet remain lean). It describes 60% of the population reasonably well, and fails miserably for 10% or so. It is a useful tool, but it is an unscientific approximation.
- ajross 14y ago
  I don't follow. Obviously metabolisms differ widely. But "calories in - calories out" is a simple statement of conservation of energy. I assure you, that holds as true in a person's body as it does in a particle collider.
  - capsule_toy 14y ago
    I'm guessing he's referring to Gary Taubes and the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. It was a big thing years ago, and I would have also assumed most people knew about it. One of the basic ideas is that calories in - calories out = fat is an oversimplification and ignores the complexities of the way our bodies process different foods. In other words, the argument isn't trying to break the laws of physics, it's just arguing where the energy is actually going in your equation. The book itself is lengthy and comprehensive. He cites a lot of research to make his case, and the citations are available in the book. With that said, I don't think calories in - calories out is wildly inaccurate, and I don't believe Taubes makes that case.
  - beagle3 14y ago

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

The key to fighting mass obesity is to stop adulterating our food and build cities/towns we can actually walk/run around in. It's not that difficult.

vishaldpatel 14y ago
Y'know... I live in the suburbs and you'll be surprised how many amenities are walkable, yet everyone still prefers to drive. At the end of the day, people are just lazy as fuck. Unless there's a good carrot (or stick) that'll motivate them enough - looking good doesn't seem to be a good enough carrot, and deteriorating health doesn't seem to be a big enough stick - they won't change. Perhaps a fat tax coupled with a staying healthy tax return might help.
VMG 14y ago
Yeah, changing the desires of millions of people and rebuilding cities doesn't sound difficult at all.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  I said nothing about changing the desires of millions of people. If people want to eat white bread, let them eat white bread. However, don't subsidize corn to the point where white bread suddenly contains large amounts of corn syrup. Don't give societal support for monoculture and drug-culture of food crops and meat. Let the farmers farm, and the people cook.