this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
323 points (98.5% liked)

World News

38583 readers
2294 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.

additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.

Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We're talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.

I could be wrong about that though.

The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it's there.

I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we've since began mass producing sugar which doesn't offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.

I'm rambling a bit, but there you go.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

car accidents are one of the largest causes of death of people below the age of 35 in the US if I recall. This means its likely one of the largest selection factors for people at or below reproductive age.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Wild fruits were also not very sweet. They didn't get that sweet until we started breeding them to be sweeter.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.

so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.

humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it's also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn't apply - which I think is largely because I don't changr my portion sizes, and I'm probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I've found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.

In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)

Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I know, I just meant to state I can see where the initial doubt comes from. I already saw the study further up and the reasoning makes sense.

Though I think with dieting in particular general trends are very hard to apply to individuals (most obvious offender being BMI).

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 months ago

General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.

It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 months ago

also see this comment about that out of context quote:

https://lemmy.cafe/comment/6259728

[–] Chriszz@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Are you disputing CICO or what—assuming you aren’t overeating