News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Monday July 12, 2021 @04:17PM (#27814566)
> People at a healthy weight consume less calories. Caloric intake has a perfect correlation with obesity. The psychological element is hugely difficult, but the science of "if you eat more you're going to be heavier" is very firm.

The word 'psychological' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. We have no reason to believe it is more or less likely for overeating to be caused by psychological rather than metabolic or other systemic reasons.

The fact of the matter remains that some people struggle with their weight while others don't. CICO doesn't address this at all.

Of course, CICO also doesn't work very well when comparing between people, despite your claim. For example, people with endocrin disorders are well known to lose or gain weight disproportionately in relation to their diets. Base metabolic rates vary significantly between people, even healthy ones. There are other discrepancies as well, which mean that, knowing person A and person B eat the same amount of calories and exercise the same amount will not help you to predict the weight gain/loss difference between them.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Monday July 12, 2021 @04:21PM (#27814612)
Yes of course. But its a fact: a given person can restrict calories from where they are at, and lose more. That's physics. Anything getting away with that simple algorithm is fairly classed under "psychological".
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Monday July 12, 2021 @04:51PM (#27814963)
It's true, but uninteresting. Insisting on this truth is harmful, because it makes an assumption that people can just choose to eat less without any negative consequences. People love pretending that calories in is simply a matter of rational choice, not a complex result of our inner machinery.

We are biological machines, and the amount we eat is biologically determined by our bodies (assuming food is widely available). We can somewhat influence that with rational thought, but to a limited degree, just like we can choose to breathe in faster or slower, but we can't maintain that for any length of time.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Monday July 12, 2021 @05:16PM (#27815244)
Hey I'm all aboard that. It's under the umbrella of "psychological".
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @12:56AM (#27817743)
"Psychological" has certain implications that ultimately this is under the individual's control, it's all in their had and they can fix it.

If it is endocrine instead, we would be looking for a drug to fix it, or a specific pollutant that could be removed. No one will tell you 'hey, it's your thyroid, just make it go a little faster'.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by kiba on Monday July 12, 2021 @04:35PM (#27814762)
Your body adjusting itself to burn less energy is also physics.

It's like having a thermostat that adjust the temperature to 70 degrees, and you want it to be 75. So your solution is to bring in more heat while ignoring the thermostat. The thermostat adjust by engaging the air conditioner. Which certainly will work, but also very inefficient.

Your body isn't that stupid and it's not certainly a dumb engine.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Monday July 12, 2021 @05:19PM (#27815269)
Adjust within limits. And the limits are fairly narrow. It's also true that hard exercise will blow away those limits, and require more food. Every single time.

But hard exercise is hard! Folks don't want to do it. They want to stretch and walk around a track and pretend. But they don't want to do 20 miles on a bike. They convince themselves that they can't. Or they try and get aches and pains and decide that's bad. Pretty much throwing up roadblocks right and left, anything to avoid the work.

We all know this. It's why there are 1000 books about tricks and diets and how to fool yourself. Because we want to do that instead. But we can stop enabling that; stop making excuses for small issues about body adjustments and so on.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by kiba on Monday July 12, 2021 @05:35PM (#27815414)
OK? You and I can do these things, but we are outliers. For example, 750 minutes of exercise per week is a lot is what I estimated from a study for diminishing return for health. That's 12.5 hours, let alone meeting the weekly minimum requirement.

Most people are busy, they have jobs or families or kids. Yet decades ago, these same people aren't fat.

We all know this. It's why there are 1000 books about tricks and diets and how to fool yourself. Because we want to do that instead. But we can stop enabling that; stop making excuses for small issues about body adjustments and so on.

There's certainly no magic trick, but being dogmatic or smug isn't helpful either.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @08:08AM (#27819946)
No. We're not outliers. Except from the psychological point of view, sure. Which is where this started. We've got 1000 voices reinforcing the view that some magic pill exists, and that has its effect.

Smugness is nowhere in sight. More like resignation and sadness.

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @12:54PM (#27823277)
Why do you believe this is a psychological problem and not a physiological problem?
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @06:23PM (#27827003)
I believe for the vast majority of people, buckling down and doing some hard exercise would make a world of difference. The greatest obstacle to that is a mental one, reinforced by culture and the medical infrastructure.
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @07:29AM (#27831898)
Hard exercise is the least efficient form of weight control - it is hard, it is unpleasant when you're starting out, it takes loads of time, it has a risk of injury, it is very likely to make you overeat.

Why, of all things, do you think forcing people to do hard exercise would be effective for the vast majority of people, compared to, say, an improved diet?

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @09:45AM (#27832925)
All those things are hyperbole, repeated endlessly to warn people away from exercise. It's a cultural thing, and we're embedded in that culture. But exercise is the normal state for humans, and to think otherwise is a weird local phenomenon.

The mirage of 'an improved diet' is the current fad idea and the topic of this conversation. Why doesn't it work for most people? Why are there 1000 books about it, and still no consensus?

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Thursday July 15, 2021 @01:45AM (#27841791)
I'm not sure who is supposed to be repeating this endlessly to warn people away, but most people discover these things if they actually try hard exercise for themselves.
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @09:37AM (#27832844)
'Forcing people' should have been 'having people force themselves', too late to edit now.
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by nradov on Monday July 12, 2021 @05:04PM (#27815114)
Except in rare cases of severe disease, basal metabolic rates only vary by a few percent between people with the same sex, height, and weight. Some people are too quick to blame a "slow metabolism" for gaining weight. I always recommend they quantify it will a simple resting metabolic rate test. Those are cheap and non-invasive.
Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by tsimionescu on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @02:31AM (#27818145)
Here's the information from Wikipedia [0]:

> The basic metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue size of highly energetic organs such as the brain.

So this study [1] claims ~25% difference in BMR that is NOT explained by sex, weight, height, lean body mass etc. That can mean some people can eat an extra burger a day compared to others without gaining more weight.

It's also important to note that BMR is not the only biological component here. Both CI and CO are biologically determined, they are not under 100% rational control. There are clear differences in people in terms of appetite/hunger reaction, and in terms of desire for physical activity, that we don't have a known explanation for (psychology? endocrinology? metabolic causes? gut biome? other?). This is, in fact, the biggest biologically determined component of obesity that is usually entirely ignored and blamed entirely on the individual's self-control.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of...

[1] https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fajcn%2F82.5.941