Hacker News Reader

Comment by Propelloni | Hacker News Reader

No, the GP is correct. The solution is simple. Calculate your daily passive calorie requirement, take in less calories and/or up active calorie requirement. Simple.

Now, implementing this is hard or maybe impossible for many individuals, I'm not denying this. The solution is simple, but for some it is not easy to implement.

View on HN

This is word play on the meaning of word simple in "simple solution" that can mean both easy to do or easy to understand. This is orthogonal to the point being made.

It is simple as in you know if its a problem for you or not. Most people can eat sugar without becoming fat.

Yup. If more calories were a "simple problem to solve", how come it isn't solved?

It is a simple problem to solve. Eat less, exercise more. Tons of people have done it successfully. Tons of people do it without even thinking about it.

It’s just that some people have mental addictions or whatever problems that makes them want to overeat or not exercise enough. But the solution itself is simple and straightforward.

If the "tons of people" in the first paragraph were multiples more than the "some people" in the second paragraph, then I would agree that the solution is simple. But the thing you describe in the second paragraph is what makes actually solving obesity hard. Using artificial sweeteners is one of the ways in countering the latter half of the puzzle.

Fair enough. To me, simple and easy are not the same thing. Chess is a simple game that's not easy to play. In the same vein, to me, "take in less calories than you burn" is a simple concept, but not easy to do. It doesn't make the concept wrong, though.

"primitive solution"

One problem is that for some people, the daily calories used by the body lowers when you reduce the calories intake (mostly by adjusting NEAT). So for some people it's harder to lose weight than for others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com