3 ms·

Everyone knows that obesity is caused by increase in food consumption. Except there's some evidence that suggests the cause is more complicated. Like why do Asi

Everyone knows that obesity is caused by increase in food consumption. Except there's some evidence that suggests the cause is more complicated. Like why do Asians less likely to be obese, or some lab animals increasing in weight despite living in carefully controlled conditions? Why do fat people on diets have the metabolisms of starving people, and prisoners that intentionally overeat quickly return to their original weight? Why do separated identical twins have very similar weights and mortality? I've been collecting links about this stuff here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/hpz/open_thread_june_1630_2013/coax?context=3 http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/hpz/open_thread_june_16... I'm far from certain that any of it is correct, or have any idea what the real cause is. But I find it really interesting, and it makes me kind of angry when people make judgmental comments about fat people or the cause of obesity. I mean even if it is environmental, it doesn't mean it's easy to control. Most people who try to diet fail. There's no such thing as free will, and even if a highly restricted diet would work in theory, we all have animal brains that can be overwhelmed by powerful desires to fulfill basic needs like eating. Some people can't stop eating any more than you can hold your breath for 3 minutes. Even if there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so. One of the articles in the link I posted was about obese people in the 1950's held in a hospital on a carefully controlled diet. It worked, but the patients just obsessed about food and acted like starving people, despite being a normal weight. As soon as they were allowed to leave the hospital, they quickly returned to their normal weights.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The phenomenon of people quickly returning to their "normal weight" is explained perfectly by the Harris-Benedict equation. You can literally translate Harris-Benedict (i.e. calories in/calories out) into a differential equation, solve it, and get these results. Other immediate results include rapid weight loss at the start of a diet but very slow weight loss at the end. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.htm... Many of the "complicated" phenomena are simply people not doing the math and not understanding what the simple model actually predicts.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  That doesn't really fit with this part of my link: >Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin. ... And even if it was as simple as Calories in Calories out, it doesn't explain why some people want to eat more food than others: >The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged. I'm also not disputing that rapid weight loss is possible. But then why don't most people that try radical diets experience it? Yet those who gained weight unnaturally seem to lose the weight effortlessly in months. >The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I said "Many complicated phenomenon", not all. Obviously Harris-Benedict - which is not a theory of the mind - will not explain why I'm obsessed with food while others don't care.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      The point is it doesn't explain anything. Otherwise the fat people who had lost weight would have the same metabolisms as people naturally their weight.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Metabolism (like mental state) is exogenous to Harris-Benedict so claiming it fails to predict metabolism is entirely besides the point. Harris-Benedict does explain "prisoners that intentionally overeat quickly return to their original weight" and "As soon as they [people on restricted diets in lab conditions] were allowed to leave the hospital, they quickly returned to their normal weights." These are exactly predictions of Harris-Benedict (with metabolism held constant).

yummyfajitas 11y ago

The phenomenon of people quickly returning to their "normal weight" is explained perfectly by the Harris-Benedict equation. You can literally translate Harris-Benedict (i.e. calories in/calories out) into a differential equation, solve it, and get these results. Other immediate results include rapid weight loss at the start of a diet but very slow weight loss at the end. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.htm... Many of the "complicated" phenomena are simply people not doing the math and not understanding what the simple model actually predicts.

Houshalter 11y ago
That doesn't really fit with this part of my link: >Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin. ... And even if it was as simple as Calories in Calories out, it doesn't explain why some people want to eat more food than others: >The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged. I'm also not disputing that rapid weight loss is possible. But then why don't most people that try radical diets experience it? Yet those who gained weight unnaturally seem to lose the weight effortlessly in months. >The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I said "Many complicated phenomenon", not all. Obviously Harris-Benedict - which is not a theory of the mind - will not explain why I'm obsessed with food while others don't care.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    The point is it doesn't explain anything. Otherwise the fat people who had lost weight would have the same metabolisms as people naturally their weight.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Metabolism (like mental state) is exogenous to Harris-Benedict so claiming it fails to predict metabolism is entirely besides the point. Harris-Benedict does explain "prisoners that intentionally overeat quickly return to their original weight" and "As soon as they [people on restricted diets in lab conditions] were allowed to leave the hospital, they quickly returned to their normal weights." These are exactly predictions of Harris-Benedict (with metabolism held constant).