7 ms·

I don't really disagree with you, but. These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additiona

I don't really disagree with you, but. These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) has never been really quantified in sufficiently broad spectrum of situations, to my knowledge. A generally helpful and encouraging life can lead to many positive changes, weight loss not least among them. Maybe instead of telling fat people to lose weight, we should be inviting them to parties, and when they get there, treating them like everyone else. Just a thought.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Why would removing disincentives for being fat reduce the number of fat people? Should we also make smoking cool to reduce the # of smokers?
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  I know that kids making fun of me in school really motivated me to lose weight. Not.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Treating people like shit is not cool. And that’s all that needs to be said about this, really. It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    A) The question is a positive one, not a normative one. Your reply is irrelevant. B) Now that fat people harm the rest of us (via Obamacare and rules forcing employer health insurance to charge everyone the same), its hardly clear that social opprobrium is unwarranted.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
grecy 12y ago
> The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) You've missed the entire point. Never once has it ever been said you should eat less. Just eat less calories, not less quantity. (This reply is so important I replied to two different people with it)
- iopq 12y ago
  You think you're being clever, but you're really not. Your body measures the calories you've consumed, not quantity.
  - nl 12y ago
    This, is true. But some foods make you feel less hungry for the same quantity consumed. I linked to studies[1] showing this, but judging from the downvotes it seems to be unexpectedly controversial. The science is well established. It makes a lot of sense: people agree the glycemic index of food is important, and the satiety index builds on that look at the number of calories a food contains as well as how quickly it is absorbed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502279
    - iopq 12y ago
      This is a little bit misleading because it's measuring up to 2 hours after the food was eaten, while some foods take longer than that to digest and to affect satiety. For example, an apple is very satisfying for two hours (high fiber and water content), but not so much after that. A food high in casein like yogurt (unsweetened) is actually going to satisfy you for up to 8 hours because of how long it takes to digest casein.
      - nl 12y ago
        Yeah, that's a fair point. But to me all that shows is that we need more measurements like the satiety index, as well as raw measurements like calorie count.
  - 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Why would removing disincentives for being fat reduce the number of fat people? Should we also make smoking cool to reduce the # of smokers?

nsxwolf 12y ago
I know that kids making fun of me in school really motivated me to lose weight. Not.
arrrg 12y ago
Treating people like shit is not cool. And that’s all that needs to be said about this, really. It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  A) The question is a positive one, not a normative one. Your reply is irrelevant. B) Now that fat people harm the rest of us (via Obamacare and rules forcing employer health insurance to charge everyone the same), its hardly clear that social opprobrium is unwarranted.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

grecy 12y ago

> The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) You've missed the entire point. Never once has it ever been said you should eat less. Just eat less calories, not less quantity. (This reply is so important I replied to two different people with it)

iopq 12y ago
You think you're being clever, but you're really not. Your body measures the calories you've consumed, not quantity.
- nl 12y ago
  This, is true. But some foods make you feel less hungry for the same quantity consumed. I linked to studies[1] showing this, but judging from the downvotes it seems to be unexpectedly controversial. The science is well established. It makes a lot of sense: people agree the glycemic index of food is important, and the satiety index builds on that look at the number of calories a food contains as well as how quickly it is absorbed. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502279
  - iopq 12y ago
    This is a little bit misleading because it's measuring up to 2 hours after the food was eaten, while some foods take longer than that to digest and to affect satiety. For example, an apple is very satisfying for two hours (high fiber and water content), but not so much after that. A food high in casein like yogurt (unsweetened) is actually going to satisfy you for up to 8 hours because of how long it takes to digest casein.
    - nl 12y ago
      Yeah, that's a fair point. But to me all that shows is that we need more measurements like the satiety index, as well as raw measurements like calorie count.
- 12y ago