[HN Gopher] Lose weight the slow and incredibly difficult way
___________________________________________________________________
Lose weight the slow and incredibly difficult way
Author : gHeadphone
Score : 374 points
Date : 2022-09-22 09:04 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| causi wrote:
| I thoroughly enjoyed What If 2. I was, however, quite
| disappointed he chose to mock the "balloon one atom thick"
| question instead of answering it.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| What was the question? My search-fu is failing there ...
| causi wrote:
| If you inflated a normal party balloon until its skin was one
| atom thick, how large would the balloon have to be?
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| Thanks, it looks pretty reasonable, except for rearranging
| the molecular bonds like atoms were shingles.
|
| Assuming that was possible, it might be just a matter of
| r-squared - supposing we started with a million-atom thick
| skin, stretching the radius by one thousand should do it.
| scythe wrote:
| I assume that's why he didn't bother answering -- you
| just take the volume of rubber, divide by the covalent
| radius of carbon, and plug into A = 4 pi r^2.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's sad to hear, a big part of the fun was answering
| "stupid/impossible" questions by assuming whatever makes them
| impossible was actually possible.
| janandonly wrote:
| Clever to print one chapter in the Nautilus magazine.
|
| It's basically free advertisement for his new book.
| elil17 wrote:
| I hate all these click-bait articles. Losing weight is simple,
| it's just CICO. Calories In, Crust of the earth Out
|
| Edit: I feel like a lot of people are arguing about something
| that should be considered totally uncontroversial, basic physics.
| Before you get all worked up over this, please look up Yuri
| Gagarin. His weight loss journey absolutely proved that it is
| possible to lose 100% of your body weight through simple orbital
| mechanics and hundreds of people have followed in his footsteps
| and experienced similar results. There is not room for debate,
| this is a proven weight loss method and what the I'm suggesting
| is essentially a very similar thing, but one that could help a
| lot more people at once.
| oDot wrote:
| Someone can correct me here, but I believe CICO is false, due
| to the the difference of efficiency in difference foods and the
| different people consuming them, leading to significant
| differences compared to CICO values.
| parker_mountain wrote:
| CICO is not false, and that is at most a +-10% variance. Food
| absorption is definitely is a part of Calories In. If you're
| worried that you're absorbing more or less calories versus
| other people, adjust your Calories In.
|
| More likely, you are miscounting calories - a common mistake
| that people trying to lose weight make. For example, you'd be
| surprised how many calories are in that packet of creamy
| sauce that came with your fast food!
|
| CICO is hard to stick to, because we are biologically wired
| to enjoy high calorie diets. As a result, lots of people have
| come up with justifications as to why it wasn't their fault
| that they failed to adhere to it.
|
| The reality is that weight loss is simple. It's very
| difficult, especially if you're not willing to completely
| overhaul your diet and relationship with food as an American.
| francisofascii wrote:
| > weight loss is simple. It's very difficult
|
| Wait, which one is it? Simple or very difficult. Lol. I
| think you meant the calorie math is simple.
| Kranar wrote:
| The opposite of simple is not difficult, it's complex.
| The opposite of difficult is not simple, it's easy.
|
| Simplicity has to do with the effort needed to understand
| something, difficulty has to do with the effort needed to
| perform an action. It's not unusual that something that
| requires little effort to understand requires a great
| deal of effort to execute.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| Don't eat breakfast and don't gorge on snacks before
| bedtime. That will be a huge benefit to most people that
| struggle. Now...getting the willpower to stick with it is
| another battle...
| [deleted]
| parker_mountain wrote:
| Personally, I drink these 100 cal nutrition drinks for
| breakfast, or have a banana, and a sparkling water.
|
| I've settled on
|
| - Very lightweight breakfast (~100 cal)
|
| - Light lunch (~700 cal)
|
| - Heavy dinner (~1400 cal)
|
| - Hard liquor only (tall single vodka/soda is my goto)
|
| You'll notice that's over 2000~ a day. I also walk a lot,
| use an exercise bike instead of the couch when watching
| TV, and bicycle everywhere I can. On lazy days, I adjust
| downwards.
|
| One thing I've done that's helped a lot is eating a low
| carb diet - I did keto, found it was incredible effective
| in losing weight, but kinda brutal. Instead, a low carb
| (non-ketosis) diet allows for some carbs but
| significantly reduces "empty calories".
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Well, if your going to help us all lose serious weight
| via CICO, I think having a big snack here and there is
| more than deserved.
|
| After all, shooting any significant amount of the
| planet's crust into space is definitely hungry work...
| elil17 wrote:
| I would say that overhauling your diet/relationship with
| food is really not what it's about. It's about gathering
| the necessary energy, resources, etc. to start putting
| significant amounts of Earth's mass on an escape
| trajectory.
| elil17 wrote:
| CICO is absolutely true, that's a fact. All you have to do is
| look at the basic physics. If you reduce the mass of the
| Earth by 50% (without decreasing your distance from Earths
| center, a common trap people fall into when they're trying to
| lose weight), you will lose 50% of your weight.
|
| Fad diets and "body mass" are, excuse my harsh language, B.S.
| Yes they can contribute to weight loss but they are going to
| let you lose 10 or 15 pounds tops. Reducing the weight of the
| Earth, on the other hand, can get you to lose essentially any
| amount of weight.
| sshine wrote:
| What a mike drop comment.
|
| I'm sorry, I went further down the thread, but it never got
| better than this.
| oDot wrote:
| I take full credit for encouraging this
| pydry wrote:
| The trick to giving up cigarattes is not lighting them,
| putting in your mouth and inhaling the smoke.
|
| CICO certainly isnt _false_.
| screye wrote:
| I love how you're committed to the bit now.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's the same bit as the article itself, right?
| elil17 wrote:
| Yes LOL
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I know you know, I was trying to see if the other
| commenter does
| screye wrote:
| What is an article ? Is that the top comment you see
| below the title when you open an HN post ?
| elil17 wrote:
| I truly find this thread so enjoyable. Just at my desk,
| smiling.
| jahnu wrote:
| There are different ways to measure calories. In a
| calorimeter you can measure all the calories in some stuff.
| In your body the amount of calories available to your body to
| digest is some amount less depending on what that stuff is.
| This can vary from foodstuff to foodstuff by (iirc) about
| 1-15%
|
| So one could be more accurate and say Available CaloriesICO I
| guess
|
| Unless you are an athlete or have some condition the simple
| CICO rule is accurate enough to be useful. Eat less, move
| more, and weight will be lost (or at least gains will slow).
|
| None of this says anything about each person's own life
| challenges that alter how difficult it is to do that.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Wouldnt the undigested calories just get added into
| calories out?
| foobarian wrote:
| Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure modern
| calorimeters won't catch the energy available via nuclear
| reactions. What if our digestive tracts have evolved some
| as-of-yet undiscovered mechanism to tap into that energy,
| thereby invalidating all the "CICO" people's claims? Now
| that would be a real pickle.
| jahnu wrote:
| Hark at Nibbler!
| elil17 wrote:
| I think that the energy density of rocket fuel is pretty
| easy to measure. If you're trying to do a food powered
| rocket it's true the energy measurements could get more
| complicated.
| bluGill wrote:
| CICO is still true. While some foods can increase metabolism
| (the other reply suggested up to 10% - sounds reasonable to
| me), that is an increase in calories out. You can also
| increase metabolism by exercising, or some drugs.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| What exactly does food have to do with CICO?
|
| You're certainly not going to get very far at ejecting the
| earth's crust by burning food...
| brippalcharrid wrote:
| There's no reason why certain physically and
| calorifically dense foods (eg. Christmas pudding)
| couldn't necessarily be combined with oxidizers and
| fitted into solid rocket motors, which could then be used
| to launch significant chunks of the earth's crust out of
| its gravity well.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| That's not why I nicknamed my chili recipe Red Mercury.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| It's not. What you eat is just as important as how much you
| eat.
|
| The body is complex, self-regulating system with hystersis and
| set points. You should go learn about "metabolic syndrome".
|
| And everyone's body reacts differently, so there's no one
| solution.
| elil17 wrote:
| >And everyone's body reacts differently, so there's no one
| solution.
|
| Absolutely disagree. F = G(m1)(m2)/(r^2). It's that simple,
| it's physics. Reduce m1 and your F goes down, same for
| everybody on the planet.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| But how do you reduce m1 without reducing r? TFA
| (correctly) points out that many attempts to reduce m1 will
| also reduce r, which can be counterproductive.
| monknomo wrote:
| hollow earth - just find a way to eject the convenient
| liquid layer inside the earth elsewhere
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Sure, there are ways around it, but someone who is only
| given the "CICO" advice is likely to run afowl of r
| naturally being correlated to m1.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| It's not physics, it's biology. There are processes that
| adjust and compensate to changes in the body and diet.
|
| For example, if my BMR is 3600cal, and I don't eat for a
| day, why am I not 1lb lighter?
|
| Or if I fast for 5 days, why am I 13lbs lighter and not
| 5lbs lighter?
|
| Why is it easier for obese people to lose weight initially,
| but then harder to lose that last 10lbs? Which is also true
| for non-obese people.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You're not seeing the bigger picture. If we pull our work
| together, we can all collectively lose significant
| weight, and all it would take is a few measly kilometers
| of the earth's crust being thrown off into space - this
| is what this thread is all about!
|
| Discussing fat loss is really short sighted when ejecting
| a little bit of mass could help the entire population
| lose some weight forever.
| Kranar wrote:
| What's hilarious is that jasonpeacock didn't just avoid
| reading the article, but it's clear that he also avoided
| reading the very comment he replied to.
|
| It's like people just want to get outraged over nothing.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| And not once, but twice!
|
| Even though it's a lot of fun, it's honestly a bit eye
| opening to see how little some people engage with the
| substance of the comments they are replying to...
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| ok, jokes on me :) I did the read the article (and have
| bought both books).
|
| but I've seen so much garbage about CICO that I took the
| response seriously..
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Yes, I've been there once or twice myself, no judgment on
| you personally! The amount of people responding this way
| was a bit surprising though. I will note that I
| completely share your feelings about the boring version
| of CICO.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > these click-bait articles
|
| Did you read the article? It didn't seem like click-bait to me.
| lovingCranberry wrote:
| You didn't get the joke :(
|
| > Calories In, Crust of the earth Out
| [deleted]
| elil17 wrote:
| I did. It gets into all this stuff about "density" and
| "distance from the center of the Earth." I just feel like
| that is missing the point. As I said, weight loss is simple
| CICO, Calories In, Crust of the earth Out. You don't need to
| think about it any more than that, no matter what "scientific
| publications" like XKCD tell you.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Simple does not mean easy. In fact sometimes a simply difficult
| problem is the hardest.
| elil17 wrote:
| That is absolutely true. I'm not trying to tell anyone this
| isn't a hard challenge. But I think we can all lose weight
| this way given enough effort.
| themitigating wrote:
| So you provide a single, simple method of weight loss and then
| you edit your comment when attacked and add a single case of
| weight loss to make your point. You then claim there's no
| possibility for debate, it's proven, and you reiterate how
| simple it is
| poulpy123 wrote:
| You misunderstand simple for easy, and the fact that you refer
| to physics for something that belongs to biology and psychology
| show that you don't really know what you're talking about
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Weight really has very little to do with biology, and nothing
| to do with psychology. It is a simple matter of how much the
| earth's mass bends space-time - the more mass we eject of the
| earth, the less bent space-time will be in the vicinity, the
| less we'll all weight.
|
| It really is the simplest weight loss method possible, it
| will work for everyone living on the planet at once, and the
| article presents it (and its difficulties) quite clearly -
| not sure why you'd go off topic by talking about biology and
| psychology.
| jkqwzsoo wrote:
| You're totally missing the joke. Read the article and check
| back.
| make3 wrote:
| While this is true strictly speaking, whether weight-loss
| actually happens is 99% a psychological thing, and ignoring
| that is ridiculous. People aren't magical machines with
| infinite, perfect willpower, ignoring that this is the main
| factor is completely out of touch. That's what the whole
| conversation is about, how to make it easier for people, more
| realistic. Find foods that make people feel sated while still
| eating less for example. Find ways to make habits. etc.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Not really - your psychology really has absolutely nothing to
| do with how much force the Earth exerts on you (and everyone
| else). CICO captures this perfectly: the more Crust of the
| earth Out, the less force the Earth will exert on us, so
| we'll all weigh less. No amount of psychology will help or
| prevent you from losing those newtons of weight!
| d0mine wrote:
| If it were that simple you and your car would be able to use
| the same fuel--it is likely a bad idea in most cases.
| skellera wrote:
| I'm surprised how many people stopped reading at CICO. It's
| like a meta example of clickbait in 3 sentences.
| elil17 wrote:
| Yes, next time I get annoyed at someone on HN I plan to
| return to this thread and remind myself that I'm in the elite
| 1% of commenters who actually read the article and the other
| comments before I write something.
| sshine wrote:
| I'd get offended, but I wasn't paying enough attention to
| what the conversation is about to understand what side to
| be on!
| dnissley wrote:
| I think it's more that people did not even bother to open the
| article
| sagebird wrote:
| Why go to space at all? Just stretch your arms until they form
| a great circle around the Earth. Where your hands meet, hold a
| dumbell the mass of your bodice. Once your hands interlock, you
| can safely lift your feet from Earth's tyrannical force and you
| will gracefully float like a ring of pure joy.
| thfuran wrote:
| But what if I don't have a bodice? Do I need to go get one or
| can I just skip the dumbbell too?
| shadowpho wrote:
| 98% of people are unable to follow your "simple" idea. Hence,
| it's not simple by definition.
|
| Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect
| metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge
| effect on weight loss\gain.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| It's simple by definition but not easy to do. Cravings (fat,
| sugar, filling boredom with eating, depriving yourself from
| flavor of diet soda/soda) is easier said than done.
| elil17 wrote:
| It's true, spending time eating can distract from the only
| real way to lose weight, which is by reducing the mass of
| the planet Earth. Stay focused, everyone! Together we can
| do it.
| bluGill wrote:
| No way, I'm already at a good healthy weight. If I lose
| 20 lbs my doctor will get concerned, and I'll end up
| spending a lot of time getting tests for various cancers.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| If you follow elil17's suggestion your concern is moot.
| There won't be any doctors. Anywhere.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| > Crust of the earth Out
|
| Read the linked article, they're making a pun.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Hence, it 's not simple by definition._
|
| simple != {easy, convenient, _etc_ }
| swyx wrote:
| insert obligatory Rich Hickey mention
| elil17 wrote:
| Exactly, thank you. Simple != convenient is absolutely the
| best way to summarize it. Losing weight this way is
| extremely inconvenient. It does mean that earth will become
| uninhabitable. But that does not mean that it's not worth
| the hard work!
| function_seven wrote:
| You're ignoring genetics. We have evolved to store fat to
| survive in harsh conditions, but this does not mean we
| can survive a missing crust and exposed mantle.
|
| Perhaps CRISPR can help?
| parker_mountain wrote:
| > Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy
| levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain.
|
| Metabolism/energy levels/etc are Calories Out. If your
| metabolism is low, your Calories Out is lower.
|
| Look at BMR, such as
| https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr
|
| Very simple. CICO.
|
| e: there are relatively rare medical conditions, such as
| water retention, that can affect weight loss. A better term
| might be "body fat percentage". But the end result is that if
| you want to lose body fat, consistently intake less calories
| than your body uses for energy.
| elil17 wrote:
| I think if we're looking at body fat percentage that's a
| very different question, and something that's probably more
| in the realm of biology than physics. But weight loss is
| simple, it's not going to be effected by medical conditions
| or "metabolism" if you can just reduce the mass of the
| Earth.
| elil17 wrote:
| People are always going to make these arguments. Yes, I know
| that there's scientific evidence that your mass effects your
| weight and that hunger, metabolism, etc. effect your mass.
| But we have to look at effect sizes. Whatever diet you try,
| you are only every going to have, at most, a modest effect on
| your own _mass_ which will indirectly lower your weight.
|
| I challenge people to go out there and start launching chunks
| of matter on escape trajectories from Earth. Yes it is hard,
| yes it takes a lot of energy, but you will start reducing the
| force of gravitational attraction acting on you. These are
| real results, not just a temporary change.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Wouldn't it be easier for me to go live on the moon
| instead? Or better yet, a nice, comfy asteroid?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Easier, but far more selfish. By helping reduce the
| Earth's mass, you not only help reduce your own weight,
| but the weight of all current and future inhabitants of
| the Earth!
| idrios wrote:
| I'm inclined to agree with the parent comment on this,
| maybe argue they're being conservative. I'd say closer to
| 99.999% of people would struggle with this weight-loss
| plan, and hurling chunks of matter from your backyard to
| out of earth's orbit doesn't sound simple to me. But I'm
| not gonna knock an idea before I've tried it.
| elil17 wrote:
| Fair, but if just 1 person can do it, it works for
| everyone on Earth.
| idrios wrote:
| True. And I suppose it does get easier the further you
| go, what with escape velocity going down as you remove
| more mass..
| EGreg wrote:
| Have you personally shown people how to do this? Can you
| link to some testimonials or endorsements from former
| clients?
|
| After all, anyone can say anything, and even point to
| lottery winners, but I want to learn from the best what
| it takes to actually win the lottery. I myself am not a
| success coach but the other day, someone very successful
| told me that anyone can succeed at a startup. All they
| have to do is get their billionaire parents to give them
| a small loan of 10 million dollars, and let them iterate
| through and fail a few times. The key is to go back to
| the family trough and then you can get bailed out
| multiple times. If your parents are not billionaires then
| there are ways to fix it. This can work for anyone. He
| showed that such an approach actually pays off because in
| the end you make back everything you lost AND you can now
| afford an amazing car and TV!
|
| His friend said he was "reducing a hard problem to a much
| harder problem". But what does his friend know, he is
| poor by comparison and seems bitter
| throwaway729562 wrote:
| It's simple but not easy.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| Simple != easy. Simple/complex vs easy/hard if this
| illustration helps
| gcanyon wrote:
| "simple" <> "easy"
| gilded-lilly wrote:
| I once lost 17kg (50 pounds) by caloric restriction (500cal
| deficit per day). I've got news for you: you will be slightly
| hungry most of the time. Meals will be the highlight of your
| day.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| You only know that _you_ were slightly hungry most of the
| time. For _you_ , meals were the highlight of your day.
|
| But you didn't _need_ to go hungry. Folks lose weight by
| caloric restriction and fill up on a lot of fruits and
| (non-starchy) vegetables. Some folks have luck with legumes
| and beans and filling foods. Some folks snack and don 't
| have meals.
|
| And the experience of hunger changes, too! Sometimes, in
| the same person and definitely between folks.
|
| Examples: I used to smoke. Nicotine is an _excellent_
| appetite suppressant, and honestly made it easier to lose
| weight.
|
| High stress can make me lose most of my appetite or do the
| opposite.
|
| I menstruate. A few days each month, I have indescribable
| hunger. It is hormone driven, and unlike other hungers I've
| experienced. Suddenly, I feel like I've skipped meals. It
| consumes me. I can't do anything about it, but if I eat a
| little, I can go back to paying attention to other things.
|
| Not me personally, but there are a number of drugs that
| increase your appetite, too.
|
| Again, the point really is that hunger isn't as simple as
| "you'll be slightly hungry most of the time".
| gilded-lilly wrote:
| Interesting. You may be right - in fact, I'd never
| considered filling up on broccoli or other calorically
| thin ingredients to suppress hunger. I was just working
| on the assumption that hunger is the body's response to
| caloric deficit (in the absence of drugs).
| addisonl wrote:
| > 98% of people are unable to follow
|
| This would imply 98% of people are overweight which, even in
| America, is far from the truth.
| elil17 wrote:
| I think they key question is "overweight" compared to what?
| Yes, far less than 98% of people are overweight compared to
| a baseline created by doctors that was essentially biased
| by the existing distribution of weights in western society.
| But 100% of Americans are overweight compared to how much
| they would weigh if the Earth's mass was reduced by 50%.
| parker_mountain wrote:
| Yeah, it's much closer to 65%. And it's been constantly
| ticking upwards for years. Haha, uh oh.
|
| e: overweight Americans are about 32.5% of the population.
| Obese is another 36.5%.
| notyourday wrote:
| > Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors
| affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which
| have huge effect on weight loss\gain.
|
| It is that simple: people simply are looking for an excuses
| why they aren't willing to do it.
|
| I'm going to again plugin this guy
| https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-
| based-t... because his lectures are amazing and he breaks
| down the actual scientific consensus on these topics rather
| well. He is neuroscientist and tenured associate professor in
| the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University
| School of Medicine who has made contributions to the brain
| development, brain plasticity, and neural regeneration and
| repair fields.
| g_log wrote:
| CICO is true, of course, but it doesn't do justice to how
| interesting the whole topic of weight loss is. Why do some
| people need more food to reach satiety, why do some people move
| more, for example.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| To be fair, in the CICO model, everyone on Earth would lose
| the exact same amount of weight, regardless of any of the
| factors you mention - or at least, the weight loss we'd
| experience from truly following the tenets of CICO could
| easily offset any individual mass modification from food or
| exercise!
|
| It's also true that you'd get far more, and quicker, weight
| loss by increasing your distance from the earth instead of
| reducing the earth's mass, but that seems a little selfish...
| iamthepieman wrote:
| This is utter trash and clearly you're a shill for the CICO
| industry. The real secret to weight loss is CICU Calories in,
| Centripetal force Up. This has been suppressed for decades by
| rocket scientist, the government, Elon Musk and other elites.
|
| The only real thing that will be shrinking under CICO is your
| bank account as it's drained dry by the subsidies for crust
| flingers.
|
| Under CICU your weight will go down as energy is expended to
| increase the rotational speed of the earth. This will not only
| leave the crust intact but would also allow us to see multiple
| sunsets/sunrises in a single "day".
| allsunny wrote:
| i get the joke but reminds me of a good talk where some
| googlers got a little upset when gary taubes started going into
| the problems with CICO thinking.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4
| karaterobot wrote:
| It's never been this evident to me how few people on HN even
| read the comments they spend time replying to.
| pid-1 wrote:
| Also, you don't need git, just memorize code changes.
| [deleted]
| secabeen wrote:
| My favorite fact about weight loss is that most of the actual
| physical loss of atoms is through your breath.
| geertj wrote:
| Yes! Through CO2 to be precise.
| swyx wrote:
| so does that mean working out more => more breath/CO2 => more
| weight loss?
|
| trying to reconcile this with the conventional advice that
| weight loss is 90% about eating right
| nashequilibrium wrote:
| I love how he captures it in a balloon during this Ted talk
| on fatloss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
| space_fountain wrote:
| The problem with working out to loose weight is that your
| body knows it takes more calories and so it happily ups
| your appetite
| jvalencia wrote:
| I can't remember where I read it unfortunately, but yes,
| breathing harder will contribute to weight loss.
|
| edit: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/breathing-
| exercises-for...
| aaronblohowiak wrote:
| the fork is mightier than the metabolism!
|
| the breath thing is how the metabolic waste products leave
| the body (when your fat gets broken down eventually the
| mass of it leaves your body as co2).
|
| also, the amount of hours you spend not working out
| dramatically trumps the amount of hours you spend not
| working out so working out itself doesnt change your mean..
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I don't see why these things must be as interconnected as
| you're question suggests.
|
| If you have a relatively constant outflow of breath,
| measurably but not drastically affected by exercise, the
| CICO conception could still account for the net difference
| in body mass.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| You are always breathing, but you breath about 3x more
| while you're working out cardio style, but you're not
| significantly changing your average breath rate for the day
| unless you're working out for hours daily. 24 "rest-hours
| of breath" on a lazy day, 26 "rest-hours of breath" on a
| day when you spend a full hour doing cardio/running/etc, so
| spending an hour doing intense workouts only increased your
| carbon exhaled by 8.3%. Also, somewhere around 2/3 (if not
| 3/4+) of the weight you lose per breath is simply water
| vapor restored when you have your next drink, not carbon
| atoms being attached to oxygen molecules in the air. Also,
| working out makes you hungry, rightfully so (in a world
| that isn't essentially full of infinite tasty food for
| those of us with a little money). The only way to lose
| significant weight is to feel hungry, and to stop eating
| before you "feel" full. This is de facto psychologically
| insurmountable (or nigh unsustainable) to everyone who is
| overweight and wants to lose it but just can't bear to be
| hungry enough for long enough. Spoken as someone slightly
| overweight who just needs to feel a little hungry for a
| couple months to get to a much better weight. And of
| course, once you've made a habit of eating over your ideal
| calories, even after you've lost the weight, your stomach
| is still bigger and it's effortless to go back to eating
| your usual large-self amounts even after you've lost all
| the weight, and go right back to large-self weight.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's important to note that in the method of weight loss
| discussed here, you don't have to lose a single atom from
| your own body, but your weight can go down by an almost
| arbitrary amount. For example, Yuri Gagarin had his weight
| reduced to almost 0kg, together with his rocket, while not
| losing a single atom (talking about the indie of the cabin,
| of course).
|
| It takes a lot of effort, but you don't have to feel hungry,
| and the results will beat exercise by orders of magnitude in
| terms of pure weight loss!
| ideamotor wrote:
| So we should all be wearing masks after-all.
| bergenty wrote:
| I actually dislike any extended conversation on losing weight.
| Just stop eating is basically the answer. It sounds blunt but
| it feels like we need to hammer the message in.
| torotonnato wrote:
| Ehhh too much work, suck out the nucleus with a long straw and
| spit it far enough
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| The longest possible straw is only like 30 ft long.
| perlgeek wrote:
| Kind of a meta comment, it's always interesting to see / hear
| that when a somewhat well-known author writes a new book, you see
| interviews with them cropping up on "all the usual" places, other
| outlets write about it etc.
|
| It's nice with something like "What if? 2", because Randall is an
| interesting podcast guest, and there are just so many different
| things to talk about.
|
| It's a bit more annoying in other cases, where within two month
| you hear the same author on 5 different podcasts, and the author
| says the same thing on each of them. Time to use the skip button.
|
| I guess that's simply how it works nowadays in publishing:
| writing the book is work, but then you also need to spend quite
| some time promoting it, in the hopes not only that it boosts
| sales, but also that the boosted sales put the book in some
| bestseller lists, boosting sales even further.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _within two month you hear the same author on 5 different
| podcasts, and the author says the same thing on each of them._
|
| They've received media training to do exactly that, to repeat
| their main talking points _no matter_ what the interview
| questions are, and normal journalists are trained to ignore it
| and just move on to the next question, so it usually works for
| them both (but us listeners and readers are left with the
| situation you describe). Sometimes, though, the people asking
| the questions aren't willing to ignore it, and if the
| interviewee does not catch on to this and adjust their answers
| accordingly, the interview can go disastrously wrong:
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/woody-harrelson-reddit...
| toyg wrote:
| I know for a fact that publishers will now vet _authors_ as
| well as manuscripts. A nice-looking and personable author,
| preferably with a well-oiled presence on social networks, has a
| much higher chance of getting published than the rest of the
| pack; that 's because publishers now "sell" _the author_ as
| much as the book.
| bombcar wrote:
| More importantly to the publisher, the author sells
| themselves. Most books are basically flops and so having a
| built-in market is a huge advantage for the publisher.
|
| Also saves them having to do much publicity, too.
| ska wrote:
| Publishers have always "sold" authors, it's the how that's
| changing. In 1990 internet/social presence probably wasn't
| seen as meaningful, now it's just one of the standard tools
| in the bag.
| karaterobot wrote:
| If we're selecting for mediagenic authors with a lot of
| Twitter followers, we're going to get the culture we deserve.
| I grant that publishers have always selected for things other
| than the quality of the book alone, just observing that this
| has an effect.
| ephbit wrote:
| Makes me ask myself: which hugely successful works of
| fiction (excluding stuff like the Bible) are out there
| convincing readers solely through their content because the
| author remains anonymous/pseudonymous and how can they
| reliably be found?
| karaterobot wrote:
| First thing that came to mind was Elena Ferrante, but
| also one of my favorite authors, K.J. Parker (who is no
| longer pseudonymous but was for a long time).
|
| But why does it have to be fiction, and why does the
| author have to be anonymous? There's a big difference
| between being anonymous and being a social media
| influencer: I'd guess most of the best and most
| influential fiction and non-fiction authors have fallen
| in that range.
|
| The thing to avoid is a world where publishers would say
| "Sorry, Mr. Faulkner, we won't be publishing your little
| book until you get a few more followers."
| ephbit wrote:
| > But why does it have to be fiction .. ?
|
| My immediate thought was: would it even work to publish a
| non fiction book anonymously?
|
| > There's a big difference between being anonymous and
| being a social media influencer.
|
| Agree. My reasoning was: even without any digital social
| media, charisma (and other factors such as having
| connections or previous success) is probably a trait that
| positively influences an author's success. If you want
| "pure quality of the oevre itself" to speak for itself,
| then shouldn't it have been published anonymously?
| bluGill wrote:
| top web fiction, royal road, and so on - there are a lot
| of places budding authors can post their fiction. Since
| we are talking about unknown authors the burden is on you
| to find them. That means get off the top lists and search
| things that are way down in the rankings (most of the
| ones on the top of the list will publish on Amazon in the
| future as that is where the money is)
| digdugdirk wrote:
| This is actually one of the more important aspects in
| publishing. But its not so much the author themselves being
| sellable, its the built in sales they might have from their
| social media audience. The conversion rate from marketing to
| their own audience is _much_ higher than otherwise, and is
| enough for even small publishers to justify an initial print
| run of a niche book.
| SleepilyLimping wrote:
| You must fandom everything you can.
| mathattack wrote:
| I'd the book is a one-off you see this a lot. The best podcasts
| are with people who aren't promoting a specific item, just
| themselves as experts. You get more variety that way. In
| general if they're on a book tour, I only listen once no matter
| how much I like them.
| jimmydddd wrote:
| Tim Ferriss was one of the first to avoid a traditional book
| tour when marketing his first book (4 hr work week). Instead,
| he reached out to bloggers, which was a new strategy at the
| time. He's written that he would tailor each interaction for
| the culture of each blog. So he'd use a portion about fitness
| for a fitness blog, and a portion about finance for a finance
| blog, etc. At least that mixed it up a bit.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| > nowadays
|
| When has it _not_ worked like this?
| [deleted]
| toyg wrote:
| J.D. Salinger. Samuel Beckett. Anybody writing under
| pseudonym, a practice that used to be extremely common
| (Ellery Queen, etc).
| fknorangesite wrote:
| Did you think I meant that every single author always goes
| on a press tour? If so, why?
| perlgeek wrote:
| I guess I just wasn't aware of it in the past. Back when I
| listened to radio, I wouldn't often come across the author
| doing interviews, but then I only switched between 3 or maybe
| 4 different stations...
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| Hm, I was going to say before podcasts, but then there's TV.
| So I was going to say before TV, but I bet it was like this
| on the radio.
|
| Let's go with the 19th century, when it would have been more
| difficult to read five of the same interview with someone in
| five different newspapers.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| Even the Romans did this:
|
| https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spectaclesintheromanworldsou
| r...
| ska wrote:
| > I guess that's simply how it works nowadays in publishing:
|
| Not nowadays, this is how it has always worked. Promotion is
| always trying to find cost effective ways to raise awareness,
| using whatever tools are available in the budget that makes
| sense for the project.
|
| You are listening to podcasts that have a correlation, in the
| days before podcasts you might have noticed the same things
| with talk shows or magazine articles, the main difference being
| you might consume fewer of those so not notice as much.
| soneca wrote:
| I think it is how it works since always. Book tours on
| bookstores and book interviews (newspapers, tv, and radio) are
| a way of promoting book sales on launch for some time. Just
| added podcasts to the mix.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I do sorta wonder how often people are turning down podcasts.
|
| Will MacAskill was on several of my favorite podcasts lately.
| Presumably it makes the interview slightly easier for the
| interviewer when there is a clear argument/thesis of the
| author but also seems like he would have been just as good of
| a guest 4 or 8 months ago (and 4 or 8 months from now) as he
| is now. And seeing he always has a desire to promote his
| work/his view I don't know why he would ever say no to a
| legitimate podcast.
|
| Was Will saying no to them then? Or asking people to wait? Or
| is much of this still sorta random and it takes the
| initiative of a third party PR person to connect people?
|
| (Replace whatever author you are thinking of with Will)
| jagraff wrote:
| This has been extremely noticeable with the author of What We
| Owe The Future, he's been on every podcast I listen to over the
| last month or so
| TideAd wrote:
| In many cases, the point of writing the book is getting the
| book tour.
|
| Ever thought "wow this book really should have just been a blog
| post"? Well, there is no such thing as a blog post tour.
| lbotos wrote:
| depending on the topic a "blog post tour" may be speaking at
| conferences.
| perlgeek wrote:
| What do the authors get out of the book tour? Fame, maybe?
| bombcar wrote:
| Unless the author is relatively well known, the book tour
| often barely pays for itself. In some cases the author gets
| to travel "on the company dime" and basically tour the
| country/world and have the expenses paid by some book
| sales.
|
| The author may also get a much larger cut of any books sold
| during the tour, even without "signing fees" or similar.
| bluGill wrote:
| They are hoping to get the big break. That can be people
| who see them locally buying a copy (most people will buy a
| book when the author is there, but may not even look at the
| book otherwise, so you can count on a few sales if you
| appear in a bookstore), but ideally is moves onto they
| actually read the book and like it enough to tell all their
| friends. You can get a big bonus if a someone well known
| happens to be in the crowd and tells all their followers.
| fragmede wrote:
| Money, traditionally.
| umeshunni wrote:
| It's not just for authors. You'll observe the same for new
| movies, TV shows, product launches etc. It's not a coincidence
| that leaks and behind the scenes articles and videos pop up
| when something new is launching. That's just how the PR
| machinery works.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| These comprise of more than 50% of reddit posts on all the
| popular subreddits. You can filter any post title with a
| celebrity or upcoming release of media in it as an ad.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > It's not a coincidence that leaks and behind the scenes
| articles and videos pop up when something new is launching.
|
| Can't leak something after it's been released though
| yakubin wrote:
| There are sometimes leaks of deleted scenes from films.
| psd1 wrote:
| I bought the director's cut of _Home Plumbing_ and there
| were deleted scenes of leaks
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| This sounds like advertising 101 for just about anything with
| sizeable resources behind it - big movies, AAA game titles,
| gladiator matches [1], etc.
|
| [1]
| https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spectaclesintheromanworldsour...
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >I guess that's simply how it works nowadays in publishing:
| writing the book is work, but then you also need to spend quite
| some time promoting it, in the hopes not only that it boosts
| sales, but also that the boosted sales put the book in some
| bestseller lists, boosting sales even further.
|
| PR Tours for Books have been around for decades. The format may
| have changed but the concept has been around for a long time.
| andai wrote:
| I thought the question was how many kilograms of dirt would you
| have to physically carry into outer space (eg. up a really tall
| ladder) in order to burn 20 lbs (70,000 calories).
|
| If my calculations are correct: 1 (kilo)calorie is 4184 joules.
| So you need to burn 70,000 * 4184 = 292,880,000 joules. It takes
| 9.8 joules to lift 1kg by 1m. Using an "outer space" definition
| of 100km (100,000) meters, it takes 980,000 joules to lift 1kg of
| dirt to space.
|
| Dividing 292,888,000 joules (the amount of energy we want to
| burn) by 980,000 (the energy it takes to carry 1kg to space), we
| get about 299 kilos. You'd have to carry about 300 kg up a ladder
| to outer space to lose 20 lbs. (Subtract your body weight, of
| course!)
|
| (Accounting for the fat burned along the way is left as an
| exercise to the reader ;)
| petercooper wrote:
| I'm glad to hear there's a follow up book to _What If?_ ( _How
| To_ was also good, of course) - it 's one of the more
| entertaining, yet educational, audiobooks I've listened to (and
| it really does work well in audio form unlike much non-fiction,
| plus Wil Wheaton is the narrator).
| causi wrote:
| Personally I can't stand Wheaton's narration. He's an
| incredible presenter in video content but when he's doing
| narration he always does this voice that just _drips_
| arrogance.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| I'm in the same boat as you, I don't think that he's doing it
| intentionally but I just don't believe he possesses a smooth
| enough modulation to enjoy listening for long periods of time
| as you would with an audiobook.
| chinchilla2020 wrote:
| If you change the mass of the earth then you have a new orbit
| problem to contend with too.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| You don't really. Stays the same.
| function_seven wrote:
| How very heliocentric of you. Some of us worry about the
| moon!
| Nition wrote:
| > You didn't actually need to remove mass from the Earth, you
| just needed to go under it. You could've avoided all that work
| with a comparatively simple tunnel.
|
| Or a really tall ladder.
| serf wrote:
| This whole thread has taught me more about group-outrage and
| psychology than physics and weight-loss _by a long shot_.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| That was.... highly unexpected.
| impoppy wrote:
| So I wondered if I could lose some weight if I teleported on top
| of Everest and started searching for formulas. Apparently, this
| question is already answered and the answer is yes - I could lose
| half a pound.
|
| https://www.quora.com/On-top-of-Mount-Everest-is-the-force-o...
|
| So yeah, if you have resources to shave off that much of Earth
| surface, then you have resources to construct a high enough
| building to lose those 10 pounds which would have been _a lot_
| easier.
| refracture wrote:
| His humor goes over my head sometimes but he does such a good job
| of making it just digestible enough for the lay-person like me.
| Well done!
| jon-wood wrote:
| His ability to make what is actually quite complex science
| accessible is mind blowing. What If, How To, and now What If 2
| are some of my eight year old son's favourite books. I'm
| absolutely certain he doesn't really grasp any of the maths,
| but he adores when things going terribly wrong as a result of
| those maths.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > You could've avoided all that work with a comparatively simple
| tunnel.
|
| Having just dug several holes 3' deep and 8" wide for a small
| project, that's definitely still work XD
|
| I'd actually be interested to read a What If on digging a tunnel
| to the other side of the earth. Oh... https://what-
| if.xkcd.com/135/
| 988747 wrote:
| I guess digging 10-15 meters of that tunnel towards the Earth
| core with a shovel would be enough for an average person to
| lose 20 pounds :)
| d-us-vb wrote:
| He just needs to learn the Soleus Pushup.
| screye wrote:
| so meta.
|
| meta comment - it this the most memes an HN thread has
| tolerated ?
| intrasight wrote:
| You'd lose about 10% if you ascended to the ISS. Sounds MUCH
| easier.
| mckirk wrote:
| When you see that art style, you know it's going to be good.
| xracy wrote:
| Could you build a giant space straw that sucks out the molten
| core instead of peeling away layers, and otherwise leave the
| crust alone so you don't make volcanos everywhere?
| mattnewton wrote:
| Good news: the crust is still technically there Bad news: a
| bunch of it collapsed in the middle and the resulting energy
| heated it to make more magma and the crust is unrecognizable
| lapetitejort wrote:
| Lets just hope it swirls in the right direction with the same
| iron consistency so that we can maintain our magnetic field,
| or else our distance ancestors (millions of years from now)
| might have trouble breathing.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I feel an inescapable urge to point out that our distant
| _ancestors_ have long stopped breathing, and its our
| distant _descendants_ who will slowly lose their atmosphere
| as an unfortunate byproduct of this plan.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Cosmic rays will finally give them all the super powers we
| need. I saw it once in a documentary called the fantastic 4
| kadoban wrote:
| I don't think the Earth is structurally sound enough for that
| to work, at least if you're hoping to make any kind of a hollow
| shell.
|
| If the goal is just to preferentially remove the dense stuff
| first, that would likely work. You'd still destroy every part
| of the biosphere though. The crust bits shifting into place as
| you remove everything below them would be catastrophic, off the
| scale earthquakes everywhere and extreme heating and volcanic
| activity.
| psd1 wrote:
| Anyone can lose weight without giving up any of the things they
| love! _Here's how:_
|
| 1. Live a full life 2. Get in a wooden box 3. Slough away all
| your soft tissue - you might like to use it for a worm farm 4.
| Welcome to the new-look you!
| djmips wrote:
| What about adding very low density material to the crust, in
| other words - go up?
| ouid wrote:
| no dice, you'd have to climb it, and that would be exercise.
| function_seven wrote:
| No need to climb. With the vast resources you have seized for
| this project, you can probably have a few of your laborers
| carry you up to the new ground plane in a palanquin.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| Just build a plinth 364.3 km tall, and place the weight
| watcher there. With air and water, if we're being nice.
|
| (sqrt(190/170)-1) * earth radius
| bhaney wrote:
| Weird to see this on Nautilus instead of Randall's site where
| he's put hundreds of other "What-If"s
|
| https://what-if.xkcd.com/
| fragmede wrote:
| It's publicity for his new book, What If 2.
| https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/
| [deleted]
| otikik wrote:
| I contest that our own bodies are part of Earth's crust and thus
| a more efficient way to do this would be removing mass from our
| own bodies exclusively.
|
| Depending on your constitution, the simplest way to achieve this
| is cutting one or two of your legs off.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| There's an old joke "Want to know how to lose 10lbs of ugly
| fat? Cut off your head!"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-22 23:00 UTC)