drethelin comments on Solved Problems Repository - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Qiaochu_Yuan 27 March 2013 04:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (270)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kawoomba 01 April 2013 05:11:13PM *  7 points [-]

A ridiculously charged topic, how could I miss it?

We're probably among the last generations (as in so many things) that need to bother with the now counterproductive and out-of-place esterification making us fat. Just as we managed to separate the carrot from the stick (the stimulus we get from an action versus the original evolutionary incentivized purpose of that action) with sex/procreation, so will we eventually be able to indulge in feeling satiated without actually storing unwanted lipids.

If not for too strict pharmaceutical standards, some (more) drugs would probably already be available. Given the large impact of diabetes, CHD and other obesity related diseases, even severe side effects in animal trials could be outweighed by the benefits. If not for the fear of lawsuits and strict regulations that throw promising drugs out of the pipeline prematurely. It took a decade and untold needless deaths for gene therapy to recover from a few mishaps to where it can be pursued again.

Regarding losing weight, personally I like the volumetrics approach, it's easily combinable with most diets:

Feeling satiated is - mostly - a combination of mechanoreceptors in the stomach being activated (which is how gastric lap band surgery works) and various hormones reacting to e.g. rising blood sugar (hunger-stimulating Ghrelin gets inhibited), presence of food in the intestinal tract (hunger-inhibiting PYY is released, NB: it's released more effectively by high-protein intake which would help explain the effectiveness of some high-protein diets, such as variants of keto), and leptin (released by adipocytes, can be mostly ignored, since obese people apparently have high leptin levels and a corresponding high leptin resistence).

Now, there is of course a latency between food entering your stomach and the mechanoreceptors triggering and PYY being released.

Therefore, a sensible measure is the following: Drink a large-ish quantity of water (cold and tasty with lemon) before every meal (to pre-load the mechanoreceptors), eat slowly (so you don't eat more when your satiation signal is already in the process of being triggered), add taste-neutral e.g. salad to your normal food (I just pack my sausage sandwiches with large quantities of unprepared salad = little extra effort, halves the amount of high-caloric food I require before feeling completely full, mixed in it doesn't even taste any different*.) Don't drink caloric beverages, they're not as effective calorie-for-calorie in distending your stomach, since fluids aren't bulky enough.

These changes do not inhibit my "food experience" in any meaningful way, yet nearly halved my daily caloric intake.

It seems irrational to give up on dieting merely because the process can be complicated. That's not a good reason to give up on FAI, so why should it be for dieting? The impact in energy levels between being obese and normal is redunculous, even if losing weight is hard, it still promises the most bang-for-the-buck in increasing your productivity, your self-image and your quality of life. Sure some have it easier or harder than others. C'est la vie.

* The trick is that salad-diluted sausage still tastes just like sausage, and still causes the satiety inducing effects on the same order as double sausage.

Comment author: drethelin 01 April 2013 07:53:09PM 4 points [-]

I think most of the value in being thin is looking attractive and being able to be physically active. I think Eliezer doesn't really need to be more attractive than he already is (4 girlfriends) and isn't a huge fan of rock climbing or whatever. As far as I've heard, most of the health benefits of exercise can be gotten without needing to actually be thin.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 April 2013 04:40:01PM *  1 point [-]

I somehow doubt that all of this effect is due to thin people exercising more. ETA: looks like the ‘optimal’ BMI for women is larger than for men, BTW.

Comment author: drethelin 02 April 2013 06:15:29PM 1 point [-]

Considering the social import of being attractive and getting around to see people and the correlation between active social life and longevity I think it's more than you might think, but I agree with you. On the other hand, the trade off is a lot more reasonable if you can be relatively healthy and happy while fat AND it's particularly hard for you to lose weight.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 April 2013 11:52:23AM *  0 points [-]

Considering the social import of being attractive and getting around to see people and the correlation between active social life and longevity I think it's more than you might think, but I agree with you.

Well, they did control for, among other things, marital status. (Also, I'd guess that the BMI that maximizes conventional attractiveness would be higher for men than for women, and wouldn't depend much on smoking.)

On the other hand, the trade off is a lot more reasonable if you can be relatively healthy and happy while fat AND it's particularly hard for you to lose weight.

Yes. ISTM that for certain people losing weight has become a lost purpose.

Comment author: ESRogs 04 April 2013 12:23:15AM 0 points [-]

I'd guess that the BMI that maximizes conventional attractiveness would be higher for men than for women

Higher for men? Despite the fact that women have higher BMI on average and that curvy figures are considered (by many) to be attractive?

Comment author: [deleted] 04 April 2013 12:21:49PM *  1 point [-]

Higher for men?

Remember that BMI is based on the total body mass, and that muscle is denser than fat. (OTOH, that study corrected for level of exercise, and it's quite possible that the BMI that would maximize an average white American man's attractiveness if he's not allowed to vary his level of exercise would indeed be around 20.)

that curvy figures are considered (by many) to be attractive?

I am one of those “many”, too, but ISTM that in present-day Western cultures we're a minority; "thin" seems to have become a compliment. (Last year, someone offered to set me up with her roommate who probably had BMI around 18, and when I told her that I didn't fancy her, she retorted “but she's so skinny!” as though it was a positive.)

Comment author: ESRogs 04 April 2013 03:50:47PM 0 points [-]

Ah, good points.

Comment author: Kawoomba 02 April 2013 06:57:48AM 0 points [-]

I don't want to speculate about EY other than saying my model of him didn't expect to ever see "too complex" brought up as a reason not to try anything. Maybe there's too much overlap with HPMOR:Harry. It is possible that there are individuals whose akrasia levels / mental energy and self-image are unaffected by being overweight compared to not being overweight. Just unlikely.

As far as I've heard, most of the health benefits of exercise can be gotten without needing to actually be thin.

That's true, but doesn't change that ceteris paribus given little exercise, you'll still live longer not being obese. Note that I've not even mentioned exercise. It's certainly better being overweight and exercising (while still being overweight), than being overweight and not exercising.

Comment author: drethelin 02 April 2013 01:58:15PM 3 points [-]

You're reading "too complex" as "difficult" but eliezer means it as "something with inherently low priors for working".

Comment author: MugaSofer 07 April 2013 04:42:37PM -1 points [-]

Pretty sure he meant "since this has inherently low priors for working, it's too difficult to be worth it" ie expected utility is too low.