5 ms·

Right, I agree, the major thing we need to be studying when it comes to diet are the psychological aspects of it. But the difference is the important part is n

by wdewind 10y ago

Right, I agree, the major thing we need to be studying when it comes to diet are the psychological aspects of it. But the difference is the important part is not "you absorb more food due to your gut makeup" because that part is real, but not hugely significant. Put simply: obesity is a food addiction. There are a ton of things that go into it, like depression, the reward system etc. We aren't likely to find the solution to obesity in small dietary tweaks, or fecal transplants.

gingerrr 10y ago
Your claim about obesity being psychologically caused ignores the growing amount of research indicating that gut flora may very well impact decisionmaking, stress response and anxiety/depression [1]. Gut bacteria can even create and dispatch their own neurotransmitters [2]. You're firmly claiming causal direction on something the current research no longer supports. Psychology may be a result of digestive biome (or at least influenced by), rather than the seminal cause as you seem to think. Edit: none of the above is to claim causality in the other direction, but to point out that the absolute nature of the claims you are making is not necessarily borne out by the prevailing research. -- [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050 http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050 [2] http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(15)00065-5/fulltext http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-39...
- wdewind 10y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. The "mind body connection" makes the line between physical and psychological issues hard to draw. I think the addiction framework is extremely apt. But the point is that there is evidence that suggests certain factors cause you to eat more, but there is not really evidence to suggest that similar people do significantly different things with similar caloric loads and that it's just a matter of tweaking biology to make people process the same caloric load differently. The problem with this study is that it's suggesting inflammation as a cause to obesity, but we know that the only long term cause for obesity is caloric surplus. Inflammation definitionally is not causing caloric surplus (in fact it's using more calories than one otherwise would) so it doesn't seem like a useful thing to be studying, and the fat gains from it don't immediately appear to be permanent. The most important thing to study is why people eat more than they should, not necessarily what happens in the body after they eat it (though, again, I agree with your larger point that those two could be connected).
  - gingerrr 10y ago
    I see - I think we disagree less than I originally thought. However, I am not sure there is no gain to be had from a change in digestive bacteria in terms of caloric intake, because chemical changes in the digestive process could conceivably alter the efficiency of energy extraction. In the case study linked above, the woman who received fecal transplant and gained weight was placed on a medically supervised liquid diet and exercise program, and still kept gaining. She had never been obese prior, so it's not as likely that she had the kind of dietary habits that would predispose her to obesity. Also strange: her weight gain closely tracked the weight gain experienced over the same time by the fecal donor, despite dietary and exercise differences between the two. It was enough of an effect that the researchers who presented the case study have since ensured they only use fecal donations from healthy-weight donors. That all being said, I do think you're right that psychology of obesity is a very important aspect to consider, especially that of food addiction. I hope this is solved in our lifetimes, because it will be interesting to discover just how much gut influences brain and vice versa.
    - wdewind 10y ago
      Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page, sorry if I was not clear before. > However, I am not sure there is no gain to be had from a change in digestive bacteria in terms of caloric intake, because chemical changes in the digestive process could conceivably alter the efficiency of energy extraction. The reason I react negatively so strongly to stuff like this is that I fear it overcomplicates an issue that is relatively simple. It gives people an idea that there is probably something really out of their control that's causing them to gain weight. We can argue about the specifics, but at the end of the day for the vast majority of people it is within their control, and it certainly isn't within anyone else's control so... > was placed on a medically supervised liquid diet and exercise program, and still kept gaining > She had never been obese prior > Also strange: her weight gain closely tracked the weight gain experienced over the same time by the fecal donor, despite dietary and exercise differences between the two > It was enough of an effect that the researchers who presented the case study have since ensured they only use fecal donations from healthy-weight donors. There is enough wacky shit going on in this study that it warrants taking it with a heavy grain of salt. I'd argue the results give compelling evidence that the fecal transplant was not in fact related to the weight gain at all, and it seems odd that the conclusion taken was to stop taking fecal transplants from obese people when a sample from a non-obese (at the time) person might've caused someone to become obese. All of this stuff would be interesting to study more, but without further science really doesn't mean a lot. > That all being said, I do think you're right that psychology of obesity is a very important aspect to consider, especially that of food addiction. I hope this is solved in our lifetimes, because it will be interesting to discover just how much gut influences brain and vice versa. Definitely. Meditation (among other things) seems to have had a significant positive impact on my digestive system, so I am certainly super interested in this connection.

by wdewind 10y ago

gingerrr 10y ago

Your claim about obesity being psychologically caused ignores the growing amount of research indicating that gut flora may very well impact decisionmaking, stress response and anxiety/depression [1]. Gut bacteria can even create and dispatch their own neurotransmitters [2]. You're firmly claiming causal direction on something the current research no longer supports. Psychology may be a result of digestive biome (or at least influenced by), rather than the seminal cause as you seem to think. Edit: none of the above is to claim causality in the other direction, but to point out that the absolute nature of the claims you are making is not necessarily borne out by the prevailing research. -- [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050 http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050 [2] http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(15)00065-5/fulltext http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-39...

wdewind 10y ago
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. The "mind body connection" makes the line between physical and psychological issues hard to draw. I think the addiction framework is extremely apt. But the point is that there is evidence that suggests certain factors cause you to eat more, but there is not really evidence to suggest that similar people do significantly different things with similar caloric loads and that it's just a matter of tweaking biology to make people process the same caloric load differently. The problem with this study is that it's suggesting inflammation as a cause to obesity, but we know that the only long term cause for obesity is caloric surplus. Inflammation definitionally is not causing caloric surplus (in fact it's using more calories than one otherwise would) so it doesn't seem like a useful thing to be studying, and the fat gains from it don't immediately appear to be permanent. The most important thing to study is why people eat more than they should, not necessarily what happens in the body after they eat it (though, again, I agree with your larger point that those two could be connected).
- gingerrr 10y ago
  I see - I think we disagree less than I originally thought. However, I am not sure there is no gain to be had from a change in digestive bacteria in terms of caloric intake, because chemical changes in the digestive process could conceivably alter the efficiency of energy extraction. In the case study linked above, the woman who received fecal transplant and gained weight was placed on a medically supervised liquid diet and exercise program, and still kept gaining. She had never been obese prior, so it's not as likely that she had the kind of dietary habits that would predispose her to obesity. Also strange: her weight gain closely tracked the weight gain experienced over the same time by the fecal donor, despite dietary and exercise differences between the two. It was enough of an effect that the researchers who presented the case study have since ensured they only use fecal donations from healthy-weight donors. That all being said, I do think you're right that psychology of obesity is a very important aspect to consider, especially that of food addiction. I hope this is solved in our lifetimes, because it will be interesting to discover just how much gut influences brain and vice versa.
  - wdewind 10y ago
    Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page, sorry if I was not clear before. > However, I am not sure there is no gain to be had from a change in digestive bacteria in terms of caloric intake, because chemical changes in the digestive process could conceivably alter the efficiency of energy extraction. The reason I react negatively so strongly to stuff like this is that I fear it overcomplicates an issue that is relatively simple. It gives people an idea that there is probably something really out of their control that's causing them to gain weight. We can argue about the specifics, but at the end of the day for the vast majority of people it is within their control, and it certainly isn't within anyone else's control so... > was placed on a medically supervised liquid diet and exercise program, and still kept gaining > She had never been obese prior > Also strange: her weight gain closely tracked the weight gain experienced over the same time by the fecal donor, despite dietary and exercise differences between the two > It was enough of an effect that the researchers who presented the case study have since ensured they only use fecal donations from healthy-weight donors. There is enough wacky shit going on in this study that it warrants taking it with a heavy grain of salt. I'd argue the results give compelling evidence that the fecal transplant was not in fact related to the weight gain at all, and it seems odd that the conclusion taken was to stop taking fecal transplants from obese people when a sample from a non-obese (at the time) person might've caused someone to become obese. All of this stuff would be interesting to study more, but without further science really doesn't mean a lot. > That all being said, I do think you're right that psychology of obesity is a very important aspect to consider, especially that of food addiction. I hope this is solved in our lifetimes, because it will be interesting to discover just how much gut influences brain and vice versa. Definitely. Meditation (among other things) seems to have had a significant positive impact on my digestive system, so I am certainly super interested in this connection.