Hacker News Reader

We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide.

What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2].

Your entire list is just a list of your perception of "virtuous" activities, and has nothing at all to do with whether or not you'll gain or lose weight. It's lies, judgement and irrelevancy to push an agenda about how people should live, rather then sticking to the observable facts of the matter.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profe...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdona...

Nonsense. There is a clear and proven correlation and causation between those "virtuous activities" and health.

From my country, where "everyone" cycles to work, two random papers:

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longe...

https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...

Saying "you need to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight" is like saying "to win in chess just mate your opponent's king". It's just saying the same thing in different words. The fact of the matter is that people that don't do those virtuous activities have a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight and people that do do those virtuous activities have a much easier time.

A home cooked meal is not "better" for you in terms of calories then anything else. Carbohydrates are incredibly energy dense, in ways people just don't expect. Milk is incredibly energy dense - so is bread.

Now this is normally the point someone says "well obviously you have to cook things which don't..." - yeah. Exactly. Whether or not it's "home cooked" doesn't matter. What matters is you have a calorie budget per day and you need to not exceed it on average.

Virtuous activities don't accomplish much of anything directly. Walking just plain doesn't burn that many extra calories.[1] The benefit of that whole list is basically "it's hard to eat while you're walking or not at home or at the shops". The benefit of the improved cardio-fitness is going to make you feel better, but you won't burn a lot of extra calories.

That's what I mean about lies and judgement: "throw away the TV" - why? It's got nothing to do with anything. Sitting around reading a book is just as sedentary. Telling people they have to do a bunch of things which aren't associated with the core outcome is just setting them up to fail - or have unrealistic expectations because everyone has a different built-in sense of "correct" about food.

To actually help people you start from the core facts, and give them the tools to figure out what habits are going to work for them. Try counting calories for a week and get a sense for what healthy portion sizes and meal composition actually looks like (this is where nutrition labels help a lot). The conclusion of "do home cooked meals" is one which follows - maybe - from that exercise, but it's absolute fiction to think that it's impossible to gain weight if you only cook at home.

[1] https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calorie...

I fully agree. But I'm often flabbergasted at how unfathomable large something like "throw out the TV altogether" or "start walking/cycling to places" is for many.

I guess it's part herd behaviour and part natural resistance to change, but what has made "us", the human species so entrenched, that we think we need cars, TVs, premade meals? Humans "never¹" had them, yet now, within one or two generations somehow believe we cannot do without it? All while the rational evidence is clear that it's hurting both individuals², all of humanity and in some cases all of nature?

¹ statistically seen, if we take the entire history of the human kind ² to clarify the difference with something like "health care" that the human kind also statistically "never" had.

I have an answer to that: because it's more comfortable that way and people naturally seek comfort.

Whenever I stop at a fueling station I see the same picture: a young, somewhat overweight man wearing tracksuit pants picking up junk food. He chose comfort. Can you honestly blame him for that?

Of course as a species we thrive in discomfort, but the benefits come with a delay - there's usually no incentive to start.

> Can you honestly blame him for that?

Why, yes, off course. I don't judge him for that, but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that.

One might argue that marketeers, big-food, TV, influencers, politicians, and whatnot also may hold blame here, e.g. by "making this man believe he wants this", but that's a whole different debate.

> but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that.

Do you believe he values this over being comfortable?

> "making this man believe he wants this",

I don't think it takes much convincing - after all being comfortable is great.

It's deciding to be uncomfortable - so walking/cycling instead of driving, eating less overall etc. that goes against our basic instincts - I'm surprised that you're surprised that not that many people do it when out of the two lifestyles it's the one that requires more effort.

> after all being comfortable is great.

Diabetes isn't comfortable. I know all about it, I'm type I.

Hardly any health issues related to "moving too little" or "eating unhealty" are comfortable.

True, but that man isn't experiencing them now - at least not to the extent that would make him change anything.

Most of my friends with health issues associated with lifestyle got their first wakeup call right before their 30s. Plenty of time to develop habits which take over a decade to drop - or more if they started during childhood.

And here's the kicker: not all of them made the necessary changes. Also some others did, but are unhappy with this new lifestyle and would like to go back but external factors like the threat of divorce keep them from doing so.

What I'm getting at is that it's the people who consciously choose effort who are the weirdos. Healthy, longer living weirdos, but weirdos nonetheless.

People drive cars, eat trash and lay on the couch because they like to. You'll only get other outcomes in an environment where it's too hard to do any of those things.

From an ex-obese, it's simple : do you know how much my ankle hurts? I had a cyclop eye that blocked ankle movement, the surgical operation wasn't fully reimbursed (only 70%) and I had basically no money. I couldn't do my usual job because my ankle was hurting, tried to become a youth camp director, took CS classes for a month because summer camp with computers was the future, liked it, studied for 3 years, sitting in front of a cumputer all day (away from the were the only sport I could do with my ankle, kayaking, was), became even more obese, but richer, and operated my ankle. As that time, I was so fat my thighs rubbed on each other with each movement, walking more than 15 minutes wasn't possible without scarring them (I also had a bad case of HPV at the time, which didn't help). I ate healthy food, but too much. A coworker told me about 'learning to accept the hunger' by fasting (under supervision). I did that. The second day was the worst, but after the 5 days fast I understood that being hungry is just a state, it doesn't mean that you need food. I'm constantly hungry after my meals nowadays, but my BMI is 25-26, and my waist to hip ration < 1 (not healthy yet, but still). I couldn't really do any decent walking before my BMI was under 28, but now I'm hiking regularly (still have ankle braces on my left foot though).

If I wasn't lucky enough to have a good pre-college education, I wouldn't have learned CS, and without money and contacts outside my family (I was ashamed of what I became), pretty sure I would have stayed obese. It was 90% luck, 10% effort.

[edit] for the 'obese should just walk crowd' : did you ever walk so much, blood soaked up your boxers and pants? My ankle was hurting so much man, but the worst was the dampness caused by the blood. Twice a week, for a month. Lost 200g. My inner thighs are reddish-brown because if the scar tissues. Only solution is eating less, but when you've learned all your life to eat till you aren't hungry, what can you do?

> If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether.

This all seems pretty strange and won't make you lose weight. What will is just eating fewer calories. That's it. You don't have to change anything at all if you don't want to. You can drive to the store, you can eat in front the TV, you can eat your hamburgers and drink coke. Just eat less of it, and you'll lose weight.

The idea that people have to be "educated" to know this is ludicrous, such a typical "government" / "expert" notion. Eat too much = get fat has been known and understood for centuries. People knew this when they were illiterate peasants. School children tease each other about this. The obesity problem is not caused by lack of education, it's caused by lack of self-control (exacerbated by the refinement of food composition, improved cost and convenience, and marketing).