[iolsantr]

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]

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]

I know that kids making fun of me in school really motivated me to lose weight.

Not.

[arrrg]

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]

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.

[grecy]

> 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]

You think you're being clever, but you're really not. Your body measures the calories you've consumed, not quantity.

[nl]

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

[iopq]

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]

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.

[grecy]

Nothing clever about it.

I'm just following the Weight Watchers formula, which I've personally seen hundreds of people lose thousands of pounds using.

I've seen people completely shocked they're "allowed" to eat virtually unlimited quantities of salad and fruit while still losing enormous quantities of weight.

I honestly believe the vast majority of people who are struggling to lose weight really have no idea about the different between "quantity of food" and "amount of calories".

[iopq]

I also know a woman who eats tons of fruit and has fatty liver / is overweight. She is consuming way too much fructose for her condition. Weight Watchers is not a magic bullet and doesn't work for everyone!