Hacker News Reader

While I wouldn't be as blunt as the OP, I wouldn't describe it as toxic. Ultimately if you are obese, it's because you've eaten too much and that needs to be accepted before you can do anything about it.

You might be over simplifying things a bit. Your statement might be true for "healthy bodies" but not everyone is healthy, or even has the same body chemistry.

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.

Ultimately you're toxic, because most people (obese or not) I know have tried at least one way to lose weight which cut calories and it failed.

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.

No need to be rude.

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.

They were a bit rude, but you were too.

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.

But it is actionable. Further, if you deny that basic premise, it does become unactionable.

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.

So, you've conceded that it's likely that nobody has an answer on which people can take action and reliably expect a positive outcome, but then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway?

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.

"then doubled down and insisted that people should take action anyway?" Where have I said that?

"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.

It's a toxic point of view because while it's technically correct, it's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all".

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's as useful as saying to a poor person "all you have to do to get out of poverty is earn $200K per year and not spend it all"" It's as useful as saying to someone in debt, "you need to spend less than you earn" people have agency in their calorific intake, that they don't in what their employer is willing to pay them.

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

I’m sorry you felt attacked and that the rules were broken in doing so. I don’t see where I’ve called you a name or misrepresented your position, but sorry to make you feel I did.

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.)

Saying people are obese because they have eaten too much is like saying people die in traffic because they accelerated or decelerated too fast. Technical true but very unhelpful in describing the problem and potential solutions.

How do seat belts and air bags and crumple zones work?

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.

I'm curious: What's your opinion on smoking?

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 don't think you can paint all smokers with the same brush but a lot of them seem to turn to the habit for the purpose of stress relief/escape and then they get hooked. The key point is the same: neither cohort benefits from being shamed by a judgey peanut gallery that reduces things to black and white, like the one in this thread. They benefit from engagement with supportive personal contacts and professionals who can help them resolve the underlying issues. The judgey peanut gallery can actually make things worse.

Some people have addictive personalities.

There is a difference, a major one. You have to eat and you don't have to smoke. Food is everywhere, cigarettes and smokers can be avoided.

That’s good to hear, I live in a poor area with my family who smoke heavily (along with the majority of our neighbors, friends, people who serve us at the restaurants I eat at, people who we serve at the restaurants we work at, etc).

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

> This is a toxic and harmful attitude.

Removing all personal responsibility is a harmful attitude.

People get into trouble on this topic by leaping to absolutes, i.e., "removing all personal responsibility".

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.