People chanting “If everyone just did X, Y wouldn’t be a problem!” without seriously addressing why everyone doesn’t just do X already, or making a serious proposal for how everyone is going to just do X from now on.
Yep. When 1 or 10 or 100 people do a thing, it's a "them" issue. When 100,000,000+ do a thing - it's a wider issue, and asking those 100,000,000 to do it differently just isn't a useful strategy.
In another vein, if my bank account is $100 short, that's my problem. If my account is $1m short, that's the bank's problem.
Considering it's a societal wide problem, society at large ought to care about resolving it. It's incredibly expensive otherwise to treat chronic, lifelong obesity.
I don't know people who just give the "trite" advice without any actual consideration of the difficulty.
I do see a lot of people ITT who were accused of doing so but who aren't actually doing so.
And I've known quite a few people who get really annoyed at constantly having to hear about how impossible it is to do things that they've personally actually done.
it might be still impossible for others. tell a blind person to just look out for cars. tell a person with paralyzed legs to just get up and walk. tell a type 1 diabetic to just skip insulin.
obesity has a large hereditary component. important genes associated with obesity are expressed in the brain.
is it impossible to live with constant hunger and its consequences? no, likely not, but it's not really a big mystery why millions of people fail to do so.
Precisely, the point of Ozempic (or rather Wegovy, Ozempic is for type-1 diabetes) is that it reduces your appetite, making it easier to eat less.
One of the studies done with Wegovy showed that people lost 15% of their body mass in a year, but they also eat 500 Calories less and exercised for 2.5 hours a week.
Compared with Type 2, with Type 1 diabetes there are other risks that could occur:
>...While medications such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (Ozempic, Wegovy) and SGLT-2 inhibitors (Jardiance, Farxiga) demonstrated powerful benefits, they quickly were determined to pose too much of a liability for pharmaceutical companies or regulators due to concerns about safety. Specifically, GLP-1s can increase the risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and SGLT-2s can raise the risk of a serious, life-threatening complication called diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
It'd be more helpful for edits to be appended to a comment, allowing context of the conversation to still make sense.
Misinformation is also going to be much overused and meaningless if used for situations like a simple mistake. The commenter just misread something - branding it as misinformation seems to imply intent, otherwise why wouldn't you just call it a mistake?
Honestly I disagree, edits are for spelling and wording. It's important to not edit the content of comments, so that follow up comments and their context remain the same.
That's probably counting 'light exercise', aka walking around. That works out to 20 minutes a day, so it could just be the side effect of people being lighter and so walking places being more comfortable.
That's not a valid argument, though. Firstly nobody lives forever. Second you don't have to exert all the effort at once, so the totality of effort doesn't matter. At any given time you just have to decide whether to have the snickers bar or the apple. And that's not an impossible effort. We don't live our entire lives all at once. We just have to be present for one moment at a time.
Edit: In my opinion it's hard for two reasons. We have cravings for high calorie foods. And no one candy bar will make you fat, so it's easy to think "I'll exercise more tomorrow to make up for this indulgence." But then you don't, because that's hard too.
> At any given time you just have to decide whether to have the snickers bar or the apple.
No, you have to decide to even think about the difference between them instead of thinking about something in your life that feels more important. It's a sort of cognitive opportunity cost. You have to consciously think about food (instead of something useful) forever, because your body's instincts are telling you to do the wrong thing and you need your rational mind to overrule it.
So for the rest of your life, every day, until you die you must decide to stop and expend effort making that decision instead of thinking about work, family, politics, or writing a new bit of code that will change the world. Most human beings can do it for a while, but not forever. The only way to do it forever is to get your body chemistry on your side and reduce that cognitive load.
> "The only way to do it forever is to get your body chemistry on your side and reduce that cognitive load."
That's how all creatures in the wild do it. That's how humans did it for the past quarter million years. And all creatures did it for the past hundred million years. Wait, no, it isn't. Then there must be another way. A way that doesn't involve manipulative abusive capitalists and advertisers destroying health in the name of profit while selling it as freedom.
> "or the rest of your life, every day, until you die you must decide to stop and expend effort making that decision instead of thinking about work, family, politics, or"
How much does that lifestyle sound like freedom to you?
>That's how all creatures in the wild do it... Wait, no, it isn't.
Neither creatures in the wild, or primitive man, have access to unlimited quantities of calorie dense foods. We could go back to that lifestyle, but billions would have to die and the overall human lifespan would decrease rather than increasing.
I think I'd rather take a perfectly safe drug than go back to wiping with leaves and hunting for worm riddled meat.
> How much does that lifestyle sound like freedom to you?
I'm not even sure I understand which lifestyle you're asking about here, but if you mean the modern lifestyle then it's certainly more free than the lives primitive man had. "Might makes right" was the rule of the land back then, and contrary to your imagination, you probably wouldn't have been the mightiest. Certainly not forever.
Hell, it's more free now than the lives most of our grandparents had. 50 years ago about half of all white people surveyed said they'd move away if a black person bought a house in their neighborhood, and gay people were routinely murdered for existing.
There were no "good old days", and Stardew Valley is just a game.
> "Neither creatures in the wild, or primitive man, have access to unlimited quantities of calorie dense foods."
And just like that, you've come up with another way.
> "I think I'd rather take a perfectly safe drug than go back to wiping with leaves and hunting for worm riddled meat."
That is some ridiculously hyperbolic panicked scaremongering at the idea of banning Coca Cola. I have literally no idea how restricting the unlimited calorie dense foods available would lead to hating black people and murdering gay people, but it's some more hyperbolic commentary.
> "I'm not even sure I understand which lifestyle you're asking about here"
The one I mentioned. Comparing the "free" lifestyle where you have adverts for Coca-Cola shoved into your face 24/7 along with adverts selling you a drug to help you ignore the Coca-Cola adverts. Vs. "non-free" where Coca-Cola isn't available for sale and you just don't think about it because you've never had it and don't miss it, and you go about your life doing the things you care about instead.
I interpreted your original comment differently. Based on the votes so did others. At no point did you suggest banning Coca-Cola, or otherwise limiting calorie dense foods. Instead it seemed that you were advocating a return to some mythical past when food was more like it is for wild animals.
I wonder if you confused this thread with another? Or maybe your sarcasm was misinterpreted?
I didn't confuse this thread with another; from the parent comments we have "diet and exercise works but nobody can do it because it's really hard" to "we can't do it because we have to think all the time about resisting ultra processed junk food" to my comment "we wouldn't have to think all the time about it, if we didn't have it".
I do see how it looks like a return to caveman times, and was unnecessarily sarcastic. Practically, the times when I don't have junk food in the cupboards, I don't have to think constantly about resisting junk food because there isn't any to eat and that makes a difference. Extending that out to national levels, schools shouldn't have vending machines full of junk food, hospitals shouldn't have coffee chains, coffee chains should have restrictions on how much sugar can be in coffee, soda shouldn't be a thing, breakfast cereals shouldn't be a thing, and keep going as far as necessary. In the argument between Nanny state and Laissez-faire it's very clear that the food industry will kill millions of people and ruin the quality of life of billions millions, hiding behind smiley friendly packaging, exploiting human biases in ways we have no defenses against, and it's not nanny-stating to regulate killers harshly.
> we wouldn't have to think all the time about it, if we didn't have if we didn't have it ...
You literally did not say those words in the comment I replied to. You didn't even seem to imply it. Either that or there's some kind of shadow ban thing happening and I can't see the same thing you are.
Given that a few decades ago obesity and overweight rates were nowhere near what they are today, this shows that a large part of the population is weak, fragile, and not very interested in their well-being.
I want to emphasize that a few decades ago, people were much thinner in the Western world and did not hate their lives because they could not eat a triple cheeseburger, go hungry constantly, or feel physically deprived. Those were my parents and my grandparents, I know them.
But if you show them hyper-caloric food that makes them feel like crap, they can't say no. It's disappointing. And the same can be said for addiction to social media, horrible TV series, and constant music everywhere.
Do you think it is because the people before were mentally stronger? No, it is because they lived in a different environment. If you were to transport those people from decades ago to today, the same portion of them would become obese.
That's what I'm saying. It's not that people were stronger then, it's that, as many times throughout life, traits are revealed by circumstances, there's nothing particularly physiological about feeling the need to eat like hippopotamuses that have been deprived of food for months.
The unattractive, low-status man (or woman) has less trouble remaining faithful than the handsome, high-status man (or woman). Not because they are more virtuous, but because they are not as exposed to temptation. But fewer people justify the unfaithful than the “big eater.” And that's something society and culture have decided, for now.
> "there's nothing particularly physiological about feeling the need to eat like hippopotamuses that have been deprived of food for months."
There are many people who don't feel that need. They don't actively resist cramming cake into their mouths, they just glance at the cake disinterestedly and move on. Or eat a bit, and feel that's enough, and don't want more.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27936016 has discussions about the dramatic rise in obesity after ~1970; refined sugar, chocolate, butter, doughnuts, McDonalds, cars, TV, have been around longer than that. Could there be involvement from Glyphosate pesticide, from reduction in smoking appetite-suppressing cigarettes, Lithium contaminated water supplies, increased Vitamin A added to milk and grain supplies, rise in antibiotics used on farm animals, which causes some people to gain and retain weight more easily?
They are the same people now that they were then. Humanity has not become any more weak, fragile, or uninterested in their well-being — it has simply become harder to resist. TV was appointment viewing and cut off late at night. Before the walkman, there wasn’t much option for music everywhere (the scourge was newspaper-readers! but the paper is only so long). And that triple cheeseburger today wasn’t acceptable or available to eat unless you made it yourself. Healthy eating being hard is a product of collective decisions to make it hard.
It used to be that the devil on the shoulder was the tempter. It isn't depressing that parents and grandparents can't say no to lizard brain instincts, it's depressing that we allow companies to exploit that in a devilishly evil way - to harm people - for money, as much as they can, in almost every way they can think of.
Imagine how much money and time and effort is spent making Doritos 2% more tempting; the crunch, the flavour intensity, the packaging layout, the packaging colours, the mouthfeel, the shelf stability. The same for ice cream and everything else. How far can Kelloggs stretch the gap between the strawberry presented on the packaging and the almost-zero strawberry in the pop tart? Or the honey pictured on the Honey Nut Cheerios box with the "hint of honey" in the description on the back? How To Cook That[1] on YouTube on Kellogg's misleading and potentially misleading claims.
By looking at the size and bellies of construction workers, farmers, and people doing all sorts of jobs with significant physical activity, one cannot find much support for this hypothesis.
Back in the day, (almost) everybody was not fat, from the academically inclined to the construction worker. Today, many are overweight, from the professor to the agricultural worker. There used to be more walking, which increased caloric expenditure by 300-700 kcal per day, although sport and recreational physical activity was limited to the young.
The main problems have been the easy availability of cheap and tasty calories, combined with a surprisingly low resistance to the ingestion of those calories.
What the explanation is, that actually requires research. Anything from new food additives, changed lifestyle habits forced by the pandemic, increased chronic stress, screen addiction compromising other opportunities to be active, less walkable neighborhoods, more elevators, higher calorie diet, cost increase in healthy diet to just name a fraction of possible factors.
Or that the situation was different, advertisers hadn’t mastered the 24/7 cycle of selling easy junk food in both home form and fast food form. Every generation thinks they’re superior to the new generation and says “why don’t they just…. “ when a new generational problem comes up. People screaming out against ozempic and friends are just angry that maybe it does work well enough and that people don’t have to struggle for once. Our brains weren’t built for our modern life style. It used to be that people virtually had lots of experience eating Whole Foods, TV was relatively new, parental guidance on “that’s junk food, you can have a little not a lot”, our jobs weren’t built around screens and pecking on keyboards, bombarded by emails and phone calls even after we go home via 1 hour commute each way. It’s easy to say “you’re all a bunch of lazy bums” but it’s also lazy and not true.
> "People screaming out against ozempic and friends are just angry that maybe it does work well enough and that people don’t have to struggle for once"
No, I'm angry in the way that you punching me in the face with my own hand, saying "stop hitting yourself" then offering to sell me a painkiller subscription might make me. The sheer ridiculousness of Big Food vs Big Pharma with humans trapped in the middle. Humans presented by geeks as perfectly spherical rational decision makers, but actually lizard hind-brains wrapped in frontal lobes and language centers, with very exploitable biases, feelings, fears, and base drives and very few defenses against it, and those defenses being undermined at every turn by political lobbying and profit seeking.
>It's not that "eat less and exercise more" doesn't work, it's that nobody does it
There are plenty of examples of people who've managed to lose weight through diet and exercise, it's not "nobody". Sure it's a small % success rate, but that's because it's not easy. Just like squatting or deadlifting 300 lbs, it's not easy to get there, but the vast majority of humans could if they decided to put the time and effort into it.
I'm one of those examples. I've never been obese or really even overweight, but mid-2023, I noticed my clothes were no longer fitting, and I decided to take off some weight. I lost 20 pounds over the course a a few months and have managed to keep it off since. Body scans aren't accurate, but the 1 scan I took after losing the weight put me at 13% body fat.
It's one of the hardest things I've done. I'm no stranger to hard physical things - I've run marathons, raced cyclocross, done daily bike commuting through several Chicago winters, and I'd rate the weight loss as up harder than all of those. At the risk sounding too hubristic - if that's the effort it takes to lose weight, doing so is beyond the abilities of large swaths of the population. Not to mention that I have the time and financial resources to weigh my food, buy foods that were optimal for my diet (so much yogurt and chicken!), etc.
(As a side note, exercise isn't a very good way to lose weight in my experience. It's valuable to do for all sorts of other reasons, but I actually gained weight when training for my first marathon, while running 60-70 miles/week).
> As a side note, exercise isn't a very good way to lose weight in my experience.
Generally people who don't normally exercise are going to gain muscle faster than they lose fat. This was the origin of HAES before it got corrupted: Health At Every Size, not "Healthy". Encouragement to keep going because with exercise you'll get healthier even if you're not losing weight.
Also, by weight, muscle burns more calories than fat just by existing. Personally I think that's where most of the weight loss attributed to exercise comes from, rather than the exercise itself. You have to gain the muscle first to actually burn more calories.
Sure, I don't mean literally nobody, just 'nobody' in the statistical sense - from the comment I replied to, "the likelihood of going from severely obese to normal weight is 1 in 1667."
Would you apply the same analysis to people with depression who cured their depression by smiling more? It's not zero, it's just very hard. Ultimately both are chronic issues of the central nervous system. We know GLP-1s act on the GABAergic central nervous system.
I think that as convenient as it would be, depression and the inability to not eat too much are not the same.
The fact is that you have much more control over one than the other.
I don't disagree that maintaining a healthy weight is a challenge in today's environment, but it's not impossible or inevitable, like so many in this thread are pretending.
> I think that as convenient as it would be, depression and the inability to not eat too much are not the same.
> The fact is that you have much more control over one than the other.
Why do you say that? Studies do not agree. How would you assess the difference? Or are you simply coming at this from the perspective of either someone who has never had a weight problem or was able to get out of a weight problem without issue? If the latter you're in the ~1% and your experience is not that of others in the same way as your experience as someone without depression does not align with that of someone who is depressed.
How would you measure your thesis? Certainly it cannot be based on results because, well, I cited them.
As someone who isn't addicted to cigarettes, it's pretty easy to not smoke. My experience does not align with those addicted to cigarettes, and I can appreciate that. Why do you not appreciate that the experience of those with obesity might be different than your own? I am not obese for the record, and I have never taken GLP-1s, but I have been obese and this just makes sense to me.
Just because you have full control over your diet and I have control over smoking does not mean that there are people out there who cannot control their diets and cannot control their smoking.
Maybe depression and obesity are more similar than you are giving credit. Especially since serotonin inhibits appetite and has an integral role in maintaining energy homeostasis.
It's not that "eat less and exercise more" doesn't work, it's that nobody does it, because it's really, really hard.
Calories in/Calories out is both completely true and completely useless for actual humans.
edit: that's unfair, mostly useless