this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
16 points (80.8% liked)
news
795 readers
837 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Complex biology is emergent from and constrained by the laws of physics.
There is no process, no matter how complex, that does not abide by thermodynamics.
If you burn more calories of energy than you consume, your body mass will decrease.
So you think a single phrase can encompass something useful in such a complex system? Is it better to be technically true or actually useful?
Yes. Absolutely. So do all dieticians and nutritionists, as this is the principle that all diets are based on, because it is correct.
Of course "eating less than you burn" works. That's not the point here. The point is that despite knowing this as fact, the world continues to become more obese. "Oh it's because people are lazy" Sure, then how do we treat that? How do we save lives from this global epidemic of obesity? Ignoring the fact that humans naturally can have a difficult time losing weight even while knowing the right things to do isn't going to solve the problem.
The mechanics of how weight loss works mean nothing when you don't have the time, ability, or mental stability to enact the changes required. You can't just blame individual people for this. It's a large portion of the entire world that is experiencing this issue. When it's one person with a problem, it could be their fault. When it's billions of people, maybe consider acknowledging that it's a systemic issue that cannot be solved with willpower alone.
I haven't blamed anyone or spoken about laziness. I've only stated what is true, with respect to biology and physics.
This actually was the point here, from the other commenter:
The other commenter seemed to allude that biology is too complex for thermodynamics to apply, which is of course incorrect, and that is what I responded to. Dieting does work and is always effective if one maintains a caloric deficit. My understanding of their comment was that they were not arguing that dieting is hard due to systemic factors that lead to unsuccessful dieting attempts, but that "complex biological processes" prevent a correctly maintained dieting from working. Again, that is completely false.
Obviously people struggle with dieting for many different reasons, and there are valid reasons why people would benefit from or choose other options.
Right, I do not dispute this.
While a bit rude, this point by the other commenter is the one where there's a disconnect between us.
Whether or not a diet works does not just come down to the biological mechanics of if sticking to it means you'll lose weight. Humans' ability to stick to it is still part of the diet. If humans can't, collectively, stick to a diet long enough to make it work, the diet doesn't work. If humans could turn off parts of their brain and follow diets like robots, that would be fine. But the point of contention here is if diets work. And largely, they do not, for reasons unrelated to calories in/out.
Because of biology and psychology, humans cannot reliably follow diets, at least not a significant portion of the population. (Though there are non-biological factors too.)
The other commenter is not arguing that thermodynamics do not apply. They are arguing that diets themselves do not work because people cannot stick to them. This does not mean that "diets work, you just need to stick to them". If people cannot stick to them, the diets don't work.
I'd argue that almost all of these factors are not directly related to biology or psychology at all. The evidence of this is obesity rates rapidly changing to become an epidemic in recent history, despite human biology remaining the same. According to the CDC, 13% of Americans were obese in 1960, but over 40% were obese in 2025.
Yes, there are definitely non-biological factors here. But humans evolved to conserve energy. When faced with hyper-palitable, super calorie dense foods, humans have an overwhelming urge to consume, and keep consuming. And once you're past a certain point, it becomes increasingly MORE difficult to cut down on eating, all because of biological functions. Of course the initial variable that allows for this is the availability of those foods, but the fact that humans can't resist them is purely biological. That's just one of many reasons.
Others relate to psychology, which is kind of on the edge of biology.
The point is that through no fault of the victims of obesity much of the time, they are trapped in a cycle. And semaglutide is a new way to escape from that cycle. If dieting worked, obesity would not be at the rates it's at today.
One solution is to "stop making those foods available" of course. It's a systemic issue, breaking the chain at any point would help. But if you're some lower middle class average person, your BMI is crazy high, and you have a choice between "joining a political movement to pass laws against harmful foods", "spend time, energy, and stress you don't have to spare following a diet that you aren't strong enough to follow" and "taking an injection once a week", the choice is clear.
This is an extreme exaggeration and not a real factor that makes dieting a systemic problem, evidenced by the majority of people who are not obese. You claim that dieting is due to systemic failures, which I agree with, but what you are actually identifying are individual failures.
It's one example, but it's not extreme. Many first-world countries have an obesity rate above 20%, many above 30%, and some have a rate above 40%, like the US, Egypt, and others. When 30% of a country are affected by the same health issue, it's a systemic issue. And biology plays a huge role in that. Most people know how bad obesity is for them. They're not making the conscious decision to become obese. They are making millions of micro-decisions guided by their mood, hunger, food availability, and willpower to consume calorie-dense foods. Much of that is their biological urge to consume overpowering their better judgement in the moment, made possible by factors outside of their direct control like availability of unhealthy foods.
But we're getting away from the point of this whole comment chain. The point is that dieting doesn't work. Despite official recommendations by nearly all first world countries' governments, and most real doctors out there, 30% of many countries (and 40% of my country) are obese. The point of this comment chain is that that number exists because dieting isn't working for the modern world. And semaglutide is one solution that is saving lives.
If it's useful for weight loss universally, please provide evidence. All I'm asking for is a study that shows saying the same thing over and over out of context has made anybody lose any weight. If it's such a bulletproof concept, than should be easy. If you can't do that, then your idea sucks.