5 ms·

The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less. This is a stupid st

The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less. This is a stupid statement which is proven false by basic thermodynamics, and this should be pointed out. If you look at statistics from Europe at the end of WW2, or from the late 1930s in the US, how many obese people were there? Pretty much zero, because food was scarce.

jessaustin 12y ago
I don't think your proposal to fight more wars to destroy the global economy and make food scarce will appeal to many people outside the armaments industry.
oldmanjay 12y ago
Did you have a point or were you just posting to feel superior to strawman fat people?
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  I was replying to parent who was basically saying that a process does not work if people are unwilling to try the process. This statement is false. If I am unwilling to replace the broken on exhaust on my car, it does not mean that it's impossible for me to fix my car.
  - npsimons 12y ago
    Exactly. You can't beat the second law of thermodynamics. I'm really disappointed in the level of fatlogic in the comments here, and the downvotes for pointing out simple facts.
oldmanjay 12y ago
Did you have a point or were you just posting to feel superior to strawman fat people?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less. Without getting into the discussion of whether or not your problem is simply equivocation because you are interpreting "unable" in a different sense than those using it (or, e.g., the medical community) would in this context, "eating less" in the context of this discussion was eating less volume of food with the same calorie density, and the post to which you responded was pointing out that that is, in practice, not as successful for some people as eating similar volumes of food with lower calorie content. Both of these methods are equally "eating less" in a caloric balance sense. The set of processes that affect processes related to wait loss (including both processes that control how much of that energy content is actually made available, and processes that might be viewed as compliance-related in terms of satiety triggers on the input side and processes that make people prone or resistant to activity on the output side) have substantial, well-known, biological variation between individuals, which have significant linkages to propensity for obesity. Treating the issue one of simply calories in vs. calories out with success outcomes differentiated only by moral features like willpower is a stupid statement which is proven false by a vast body of research on metabolism, obesity, etc.

jessaustin 12y ago

I don't think your proposal to fight more wars to destroy the global economy and make food scarce will appeal to many people outside the armaments industry.

oldmanjay 12y ago

Did you have a point or were you just posting to feel superior to strawman fat people?

semi-extrinsic 12y ago
I was replying to parent who was basically saying that a process does not work if people are unwilling to try the process. This statement is false. If I am unwilling to replace the broken on exhaust on my car, it does not mean that it's impossible for me to fix my car.
- npsimons 12y ago
  Exactly. You can't beat the second law of thermodynamics. I'm really disappointed in the level of fatlogic in the comments here, and the downvotes for pointing out simple facts.

oldmanjay 12y ago

Did you have a point or were you just posting to feel superior to strawman fat people?

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less. Without getting into the discussion of whether or not your problem is simply equivocation because you are interpreting "unable" in a different sense than those using it (or, e.g., the medical community) would in this context, "eating less" in the context of this discussion was eating less volume of food with the same calorie density, and the post to which you responded was pointing out that that is, in practice, not as successful for some people as eating similar volumes of food with lower calorie content. Both of these methods are equally "eating less" in a caloric balance sense. The set of processes that affect processes related to wait loss (including both processes that control how much of that energy content is actually made available, and processes that might be viewed as compliance-related in terms of satiety triggers on the input side and processes that make people prone or resistant to activity on the output side) have substantial, well-known, biological variation between individuals, which have significant linkages to propensity for obesity. Treating the issue one of simply calories in vs. calories out with success outcomes differentiated only by moral features like willpower is a stupid statement which is proven false by a vast body of research on metabolism, obesity, etc.