There are genetic, dietary and fitness components to obesity. This is not disputed. At least one of these components is outside of the control of the individual. Others can be influenced.

If someone is chronically obese, the best thing for them is to work on what they can control with professionals, which might normally include a dietitian or a personal trainer but they might also benefit from work with professionals in other fields -- psychiatry, comorbid diseases etc.

And having friends support them in this process helps too. (I don't think their friends should tell them "fat is beautiful," by the way, but I'm not a professional in any of the relevant fields, so does my opinion even matter?)

At no point do I think shaming the obese (which is basically what you're doing when you say "this is simple and it's your fault" does more harm than good.

Shame isn't listed anywhere as a treatment for any disease or disorder as far as I know.

I'm by no means an expert and the subject of obesity doesn't really interest me that much, but the other day I was reading something about obesity in relation to the over prescription on antibiotics, and how especially children who received antibiotics during their childhood might have obesity problems later in life due to how the antibiotics affect the gut bacteria.

Again I'm no expert, but the calories in/out story seems just way to simple.

If you have nothing effective to offer, really the best thing is sometimes to shut up and research why they fail and how to not make them fail.

I'm not saying its easy or simple, but ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out. The problem isn't going to go away if you attack people for saying that. It is the foundations that all solutions are based on.

It may be technically true to say "ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out", bit its unhelpful, or more importantly, unactionable.

What you wave away with the casual use of the word "ultimately" is a vastly complex combination of inherited, environmental, physiological and emotional factors.

Saying "ultimately it comes down to calories in and calories out" to someone who has spent years desperately trying to control their calories in and their calories out but without much success is surely more rude than anything that's been said in any replies to you.

Its like an addiction. People aren't being strapped down and force fed X drug. They have some agency, to deny that doesn't solve the problem, it makes the problem worse.

I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do. Never the less what ever the answer is has to include a basic dietary balance.

This study doesn't change that fact, all the environmental, physiological and emotional factors don't change that fact.

Suggesting it or anyone that mentions it is 'toxic' isn't helpful.

Can you not see the unhelpfulness right there in your comment?

Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy, and is determined to do whatever it takes to do so, and has already spent years desperately trying in vain to get results; if they were to read your comment, what could their reaction be, other than to be frustrated and dispirited?

For what it's worth, I do actually have answers; I've been researching and experimenting with this stuff for many years, and have figured out a approach that seems to work for me and others and should work well for anyone who follows the same principles. And I agree that calories-in/calories-out is part of it; but it's only one factor among many, and it takes a lot of time, persistence and knowhow.

So perhaps you can understand that I'm familiar with your point of view, and that I've heard it frequently enough and thought about it long enough to know just how simplistic and unhelpful it is.

"Consider someone who is desperate to get healthy.." I can still say flying is statistically the safest form of transport, regardless of whether HN readers have been in a plane accident? I'm not saying ha ha tough luck. I'm not saying drive instead of fly, because its safer either.

It is peoples choice to lose weight, I'm not forcing them. I am simply trying to point out that as part of that, calories in need to equal calories out.

You yourself accept that, so currently I am at a loss as to what it is I have said that's wrong, what I've said that is rude, what I've said that is toxic?

To be clear, because it seems to need clarifying. I have a life outside of a HN username, I have friends and family, I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering, this isn't an abstract thing for me.

To the person giving the advice, it can seem valid and logical and perfectly straightforward - "hey I did it, it was easy!"

Yet it's the very fact that it's easy for one person and effectively impossible for another is what makes the advice both useless and insulting.

Before arguing further, have a thing about what you're defending here.

As you've said yourself...

- "I wouldn't be as blunt as the OP"

- "I'm not saying I have the answer. The number of pills, diets, therapies etc would suggest few, if any people do."

- "I know people dealing with these issues, as does most of the western world. I'm not blind to their suffering"

But you're writing all these words to argue against the use of the word "toxic" to describe a comment that was insensitive for the very fact that it ignored these considerations you candidly offered.

If you can just reflect a little and say "yeah I guess you could say it's a bit toxic to express it like that", you might realise we agree more than we disagree.

It is logical, yes, I'm not saying its straight forward, you're putting words in my mouth.

I didn't ignore any considerations, just because I didn't enumerate every single potential consideration. I picked up on one specific part of a reply. I don't think its required to explain my entire world view to make that one point. Neither is it fair to start filling in blanks about my world view from one data point.

Yes I have reflected, I've reread that comment, and can see how someone could interpret it a certain way. That is why I have clarified myself multiple times. But you still seem to be ignoring what I have said I'm saying, in favour of your own interpretation of what you've already decided I'm saying. That isn't my problem, that is yours.

Ps if you read the HN guideline it says "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" I applied that to the first 2 comments of this long thread. It's a shame others won't extend the same courtesy to me.

It also says "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

To be clear:

> people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them

This seems to be the key point of contention in the whole discussion.

My position is that the reality is far more complex than this, and whether it is or not, the topic needs to be handled with great compassion and empathy.

In some of your comments you seem to share these positions at least to some degree.

Any further discussion would require us to go deep into metabolic physiology and behavioral psychology, but that’s best left for another time.

Thanks for the discussion.

(Edited to be more clear and conciliatory.)

You can't get to a solution without accepting it. You can't stop people dying by describing that fact as toxic.

No it's not a, or the solution, you can't ignore I though.

Genetics are also likely to be involved in the likelihood of someone (not) being able to stop smoking (perhaps also starting to smoke), right?

However, I haven't heard anyone blaming their smoking habit on genetics.

I will just simply avoid almost everyone I know (and don’t know) from now on, thank you.

Removing all personal responsibility is a harmful attitude.

I've personally taken "all personal responsibility" for my health, and it's been hugely costly, and only possible because I've been fortunate to have the means and time to do it.

There are plenty of people who try to take full responsibility for their weight or general health, but don't get results because they don't have the time or means to do it given the unlucky hand they were dealt and the realities of their life circumstances, and also because medical science just doesn't have consistently reliable solutions that work for everyone with even the greatest motivation and discipline.

It is a huge difference. But, it doesn't matter. Some people can eat more than others and not get fat. There is no justice in the universe ;-). Whether it is some gene, your body size, your age or something else, it doesn't matter. Eat too much and you will get fat. Don't eat too much and you won't get fat.

That last bit is super important. There is no illness that causes people to starve to death even when obese. Your body is a factor, not an excuse (Ha ha! Here I am quoting Arnold!)

Just invent flying cars, that will solve some problems. Easy, right? The "HOW" is a problem, not "what is needed". When obese people don't eat too much, their body thinks "I don't have enough, time to enter energy saving mode and increase hunger".

Hormonal imbalance caused by overeating was in my case worst than the hormonal imbalance caused by lessening the amount of food i ingested, so it wasn't this hard to stop. Also my life improved a lot around that time (credit, job, appartment, relations), this might have helped too.

Of course it'd be better I'd you could just read it off neurons, too hard though.

But correct that it might be genes was observed in the dutch population generations after early nineteen hundredth's famine crisis: [ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-gene... ]. This eventualley led to a new area of study called epigenetics (of which one of the pioneers actually earnes a Nobel's Prize I think). Epigenetic research has shown that genes are not final. In the case of the dutch famine, the famine-victims which survived had undergone epifenetic changes (their genes changed) in response to the famine, their body would become extremely energy efficient and their energy partitioning would lean towards buildup of adipose tissue (fat). However (!!) research later shown that these gene alteration which their offspring inherited and which were observed throughout the dutch poulation generations later, was reversible by environmental factors and exercise.

I would think that it is highly dependent on what you're burning the energy for... Surely if you eat more to maintain a fit body/lifestyle, it is likely to have a more positive effect on lifespan compared to eating less and living a more sedentary life?

Of course, an optimal balance needs to be struck between the two, but I am very curious on what the research says about this balance.

Only if they eat as much as someone who uses calories less efficiently. Which is not a given.

A certain gene might make you feel hungry more, and will make you eat more, and will make you bigger.

Another gene might cause someone to prefer certain foods, and again cause a difference in body weight.

Pretending that everyone is the same is pointless. Someone who doesn't feel hungry much might say, it's easy, just eat less. But that advise is pointless for someone who constantly craves food -- eating less might be incredibly hard for one person while it is incredible easy for another.

The article presents some evidence that our genetic makeup has an influence on our body weight. Lets not dismiss it just because it doesn't fit in to the world view of "everyone is the same".

This. There are too many people who do not understand that conservation of mass applies to the human body too. Nobody gains 1 kg by eating a single peanut, yet some people claim it's all genes.

Just like the will to live affects your 'cant hold breath forever' incapability.

I mean sure it's technically possible to hold your breath until you pass out, but it would take a crazy amount of will power.

> Scientists say they have discovered the secret behind why some people are skinny while others pile on the pounds easily.

> Their work reveals newly discovered genetic regions linked to being very slim.

> The international team say this supports the idea that, for some people, being thin has more to do with inheriting a "lucky" set of genes than having a perfect diet or lifestyle

Further down the article adds:

> Most obesity is acquired in adult life and is linked to the obesogenic environment we live in - a sedentary lifestyle and abundant access to calorie-dense foods.

I am lucky; I don't have to heed your newfriend advice to stay slim. My genes (or, the article mentions at the end, possibly my gut microbes) seem to have a secret of their own.

If you are unlucky and your body is good at storing excess calories, then I guess those people will have to adopt the 'newfriend secret' of not eating to much.

Funny thing about effectiveness, that such cutting is ineffective.

Overweight/obese is mainly a food addiction IMO. It's hard, difficult, etc. But amount of time it's due to medicines/genes is pretty limited.

There's huge differences per country in the obesity percentage which cannot be explained by things such as genes or food shortage.

No, it is for your body to not take in more calories than your body uses. Some bodies may not take in all excess calories you eat, just as a car doesn’t use more gas if you keep the gas topped up, or do take them in, but have ways to burn them of instead of storing them in fat (say by moving more blood through the skin), just as some oil refineries flare off gas that they don’t need, rather than storing it and becoming larger and larger over time.

So, eating too much is the cause, but what constitutes too much can depend on the person. If your digestive system has a hard limit on the amount of stuff it can take in, it may even be impossible for you to become obese.