5 ms·

In a sense I agree that it's philosophical. But I think in a practical sense it matters because you'd recommend different modes of action. You seem to think th

In a sense I agree that it's philosophical. But I think in a practical sense it matters because you'd recommend different modes of action. You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means) to eat less and exercise more and thus lose weight. You basically recommend that they try harder, if I understand you correctly. I think that there is another reason why they can't eat less and work out more and why the internal feedback systems of their bodies are "misleading" them in a way, making them overeat and have increased appetite and lethargy despite all the energy they're carrying in their body fat. My course of action would be to identify what causes this "breakage" in the metabolism that'll fix the feedback loop and therefore allow them to naturally and spontaneously eat less and move more.

borroka 3y ago
> "You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means)." What means is that the person who is paralyzed from the waist down cannot run (unable), the person with a minor knee pain who is not running can be either unable and unwilling, and the person with no pain, functioning legs etc. who is not running is able to do so, but unwilling (maybe they like different sports or they want to watch a movie). The other day, pizza was offered at work. I wanted to eat a couple of slices, but I thought about the summer, and the beach, and swimsuits. And I decided not to eat pizza. But I really wanted to eat a couple of slices with cheese and salami. Did I restrain my urge, or I did not have an urge, just a desire? Is the nature determined by the results? From a consequentialist point of view, and outside pathologies of various nature (such as yours), I find it better to assume that overweight people are unwilling to close the fridge, put the fork down, and push themselves away from the table.
- exfatloss 3y ago
  I find "unwilling to not be useful. I am perfectly willing to make a lot of sacrifices to lose weight. It's just that none of the sacrifices you list have an effect. Why would I continue to sacrifice it it doesn't work? So I prefer "unable" in the sense that "we haven't figured out the way and thus they can't just do it harder." Instead of the wheelchair, think of paralyzed people before wheelchairs. They "couldn't" walk because they were paralyzed and wanting it harder didn't work. What worked was inventing the wheelchair. My argument is we haven't invented an effective fat loss diet or intervention that works even in a minority of obese people by any reasonable definition of "works." (I.e. long-term, sustainable w/o leading to ramped down metabolism, doesn't lead to massive lean tissue loss, doable "at large" in their normal lives not while literally being locked in a camp.)
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    Every time there is a conversation about obesity on HN, there's always at least 1 person who says, "Calories In Calories out" or some variation on it and will then battle to the death any person who tries to say anything other than "You're Right". Calories In Calories out (CICO) is the ABCs of weight loss, but it vastly oversimplifies a complex problem. Obese people tend to stay obese despite dieting. Their bodies and brains aren't wired the same way as non-obese peoples. Obese people experience things like: metabolic slowdown (so a BMR calculator is no longer sufficiently accurate for them to accurately gauge their daily calorie requirements) thyroid disorders (causing inaccurate BMR calculations) high body weight with low muscle percentage (increases the difficulty of exercise or daily movement, causing inaccurate BMR calculations) pre-diabetes diabetes high blood pressure difficulty feeling full or satisfied with ANY amount of food depression lack of motivation anhedonia the side effects of drugs designed to treat the diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, lack of motivation, and anhedonia hormonal imbalances caused by having additional fat cells in your body the inexpressible and wearying feeling of hopelessness caused by a years long battle with obesity that has yet to find true and lasting success. All of that is compounded by the fact that even if you lose a significant amount of weight, you will likely then struggle with keeping it off because you body has created an enormous reservoir of fat cells to store the fat you previously acquired. For obese people, those fat cells have been noted as being able to preferentially absorb the nutrition you intake, leaving your other organs deprived and your body hungry despite your stomach being full to bursting. Sure, if despite those obstacles you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will still lose weight. Broken clocks are right twice a day and a car can roll downhill even if it's out of gas. However, these argumentative people fail to understand that you are not talking about "Calories In, Calories Out". That is NOT the conversation. They can argue CICO all they want, but they're arguing with a brick wall. The thing you are trying to find is the permanent perfect solution to a problem you are dealing with. That isn't something that even the smartest and most highly respected person on Hacker News can do for you with some words or argument. I honestly feel like they get some sort of pleasure dismissing everything you're trying to do for yourself. They're getting a kick out of shitting on your efforts, feeling better about some tiny fragment of their jerkish lives because they pooh-poohed someone on the internet with their vain and short-sighted facts and logic. Don't let them get you down. You don't have to defend yourself from those people. They won't be proven wrong because they're still saying their ABC's while you're working on your Shakespeare.

borroka 3y ago

> "You seem to think that the obese are "unwilling" (whatever that means)." What means is that the person who is paralyzed from the waist down cannot run (unable), the person with a minor knee pain who is not running can be either unable and unwilling, and the person with no pain, functioning legs etc. who is not running is able to do so, but unwilling (maybe they like different sports or they want to watch a movie). The other day, pizza was offered at work. I wanted to eat a couple of slices, but I thought about the summer, and the beach, and swimsuits. And I decided not to eat pizza. But I really wanted to eat a couple of slices with cheese and salami. Did I restrain my urge, or I did not have an urge, just a desire? Is the nature determined by the results? From a consequentialist point of view, and outside pathologies of various nature (such as yours), I find it better to assume that overweight people are unwilling to close the fridge, put the fork down, and push themselves away from the table.

exfatloss 3y ago
I find "unwilling to not be useful. I am perfectly willing to make a lot of sacrifices to lose weight. It's just that none of the sacrifices you list have an effect. Why would I continue to sacrifice it it doesn't work? So I prefer "unable" in the sense that "we haven't figured out the way and thus they can't just do it harder." Instead of the wheelchair, think of paralyzed people before wheelchairs. They "couldn't" walk because they were paralyzed and wanting it harder didn't work. What worked was inventing the wheelchair. My argument is we haven't invented an effective fat loss diet or intervention that works even in a minority of obese people by any reasonable definition of "works." (I.e. long-term, sustainable w/o leading to ramped down metabolism, doesn't lead to massive lean tissue loss, doable "at large" in their normal lives not while literally being locked in a camp.)
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Every time there is a conversation about obesity on HN, there's always at least 1 person who says, "Calories In Calories out" or some variation on it and will then battle to the death any person who tries to say anything other than "You're Right". Calories In Calories out (CICO) is the ABCs of weight loss, but it vastly oversimplifies a complex problem. Obese people tend to stay obese despite dieting. Their bodies and brains aren't wired the same way as non-obese peoples. Obese people experience things like: metabolic slowdown (so a BMR calculator is no longer sufficiently accurate for them to accurately gauge their daily calorie requirements) thyroid disorders (causing inaccurate BMR calculations) high body weight with low muscle percentage (increases the difficulty of exercise or daily movement, causing inaccurate BMR calculations) pre-diabetes diabetes high blood pressure difficulty feeling full or satisfied with ANY amount of food depression lack of motivation anhedonia the side effects of drugs designed to treat the diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, lack of motivation, and anhedonia hormonal imbalances caused by having additional fat cells in your body the inexpressible and wearying feeling of hopelessness caused by a years long battle with obesity that has yet to find true and lasting success. All of that is compounded by the fact that even if you lose a significant amount of weight, you will likely then struggle with keeping it off because you body has created an enormous reservoir of fat cells to store the fat you previously acquired. For obese people, those fat cells have been noted as being able to preferentially absorb the nutrition you intake, leaving your other organs deprived and your body hungry despite your stomach being full to bursting. Sure, if despite those obstacles you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will still lose weight. Broken clocks are right twice a day and a car can roll downhill even if it's out of gas. However, these argumentative people fail to understand that you are not talking about "Calories In, Calories Out". That is NOT the conversation. They can argue CICO all they want, but they're arguing with a brick wall. The thing you are trying to find is the permanent perfect solution to a problem you are dealing with. That isn't something that even the smartest and most highly respected person on Hacker News can do for you with some words or argument. I honestly feel like they get some sort of pleasure dismissing everything you're trying to do for yourself. They're getting a kick out of shitting on your efforts, feeling better about some tiny fragment of their jerkish lives because they pooh-poohed someone on the internet with their vain and short-sighted facts and logic. Don't let them get you down. You don't have to defend yourself from those people. They won't be proven wrong because they're still saying their ABC's while you're working on your Shakespeare.