4 ms·

> Now, feral rats could be chowing down on a greater abundance of rich food in the available garbage, but that doesn’t explain the upwards creep in ad libitum f

> Now, feral rats could be chowing down on a greater abundance of rich food in the available garbage, but that doesn’t explain the upwards creep in ad libitum fed research animal weights. That doesn't seem to make sense. So when feral animals eat more processed "rich foods" and gain weight that's understandable, but when animals that live with and are fed by humans gain weight it's a mystery? Could it be that animal food production has changed in the same way as food production for humans?

dbcooper 11y ago
Yeah, it's the also the first comment on the blog post. >I haven’t read the paper, but domestic cats and dogs doesn’t surprise me in the least. >The pet food industry isn’t that much different than the human food industry in making food cheaper, tastier, and more calorie rich than ever. Not too mention more pets now are strictly house pets than ever before and don’t run around the yard or neighborhood as much. >As for lab animals I’d wonder the same thing regarding chow. For many caloric intake is probably highly monitored but I would wonder if where those calories come from has changed in monkey chow for example in the last few decades.
- nkuttler 11y ago
  Haha, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't make it to the comments.
DanBC 11y ago
"Ad libitum" means the food is unrestricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum Asking why rats given unrestricted food had lower weights in 1980s than today seems like a reasonable question. Has the food recipe changed? (And how has it changed?) because if the calorie content of the food hasn't changed but the recipe has changed we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd.
- zdean 11y ago
  "...we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd." Not really. If they have unrestricted access and the recipe has changed, the simple balance of sugars, fats, and proteins per serving could be having an impact on their total caloric intake.
  - graeme 11y ago
    A semi-common calories in calories out argument is that it doesn't matter what you eat, you just need to make sure that you eat less calories than you use. This is (probably) technically true, but it's not a very useful statement if certain foods are likely to make us eat more before feeling full. So the rat example would support that reasoning.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

dbcooper 11y ago

Yeah, it's the also the first comment on the blog post. >I haven’t read the paper, but domestic cats and dogs doesn’t surprise me in the least. >The pet food industry isn’t that much different than the human food industry in making food cheaper, tastier, and more calorie rich than ever. Not too mention more pets now are strictly house pets than ever before and don’t run around the yard or neighborhood as much. >As for lab animals I’d wonder the same thing regarding chow. For many caloric intake is probably highly monitored but I would wonder if where those calories come from has changed in monkey chow for example in the last few decades.

nkuttler 11y ago
Haha, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't make it to the comments.

DanBC 11y ago

"Ad libitum" means the food is unrestricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum Asking why rats given unrestricted food had lower weights in 1980s than today seems like a reasonable question. Has the food recipe changed? (And how has it changed?) because if the calorie content of the food hasn't changed but the recipe has changed we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd.

zdean 11y ago
"...we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd." Not really. If they have unrestricted access and the recipe has changed, the simple balance of sugars, fats, and proteins per serving could be having an impact on their total caloric intake.
- graeme 11y ago
  A semi-common calories in calories out argument is that it doesn't matter what you eat, you just need to make sure that you eat less calories than you use. This is (probably) technically true, but it's not a very useful statement if certain foods are likely to make us eat more before feeling full. So the rat example would support that reasoning.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]