6 ms·

1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. 2. The article does in no way say that pesticides "might make you fat" - that

1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. 2. The article does in no way say that pesticides "might make you fat" - that is also pure non-sense, read (1) again if you didn't get the point. The article mentions it increases risk factors for obesity. (risk factors for obesity could be thought to be increased hunger). 3. This isn't entirely new knowledge. The gut microbiome has been in the spotlight for a while now. I first heard of this 3 or 4 years ago

paulmd 7y ago
Why can't it be any other way? Gut biome and other factors clearly play a large role in how much energy you absorb from the food you eat - the human body isn't a blast calorimeter where all food is converted to fat with 100% efficiency.
- manjana 7y ago
  I'm making a strict logical point. You cannot make adipose tissue out of thin air, you need to be in a caloric surplus for that to happend is the point I want to get across. Saying "pesticides make you fat" is wrong, it is not a direct cause of the buildup of fat. I'm not trying to troll or anything, but just let us not contribute to any more ignorance on nutrition.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Saying "pesticides make you fat" is wrong, It may be, but your argument doesn't support that. > it is not a direct cause of the buildup of fat. Indirect causes are still causes, and often the more important causes in terms of practical decision making. “My stabbing him didn't kill him, his brain tissue being oxygen deprived killed him” may often be true if you limit concern to the most immediate direct cause, but we tend to look beyond that in assigning responsibility for good reason.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    Yes, if calories in > calories out then you will gain weight. There are significant factors which affect both how many calories your body will take in, as well as how many it burns out, even if two people have identical activity levels. So while that "calories in vs calories out" statement is true, it's also trite. Faster metabolisms or better metabolic efficiency can lead to lower weight gain than another person might experience for a given level of activity. It is useful advice on an individual scale - you yourself cannot directly affect your metabolism or your gut biome at the present time so the only thing you can really affect is exercise and caloric intake. It is not predictive between persons in the sense that two people on identical diets and exercise regimes will experience identical amounts of weight change. Fecal transplants are an interesting wildcard - the idea is to kill off your own gut microbiome as much as possible and then replace it with someone else's. In some case studies, this has had significant efficacy in weight loss. My understanding is these fauna have significant effects in "pre-processing" this food as well as consuming some of the energy for themselves, so yes, microbiome can directly affect weight gain/loss.
sp332 7y ago
A calorie is not a calorie. A calorie of animal protein is less efficient to digest than a calorie of sucrose. If you're lactose intolerant, you will get a different number of calories from a glass of milk than someone who is not. Chugging a can of Mountain Dew quickly probably means you won't digest all the sugar before your gut bacteria get to it. Messing with metabolites in your gut can change the way your body absorbs and stores energy.
- manjana 7y ago
  So you disagree that obesity is caused by excess caloric consumption? I fail to see your logic on that part if that is so. It seems you are arguing with me about something (entirely) different on which I never said anything about..
  - sp332 7y ago
    Guess what makes people eat more? Being hungry. If pesticides cause hunger, they make people fat. If pesticides are literally lowering people's blood sugar, it could be dangerous for them not to eat more calories.
    - manjana 7y ago
      I know that, you are missing the point. Re-read the original post or read through the thread...
  - intopieces 7y ago
    Pointing directly and solely to caloric intake when discussing obesity is the “It’s just economics 101” of the nutrition issue: technically right, but so lacking in nuance that it ceases to be interesting.
    - manjana 7y ago
      That's a fair point. But saying pesticides causes obesity just paints the wrong picture imo. Contributes would've been a better word.
glogla 7y ago
> 1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. This might be true in thermodynamic sense but it is a useless and trite statement. It's like saying "people are in debt because they borrowed money" - true, but banal and trivial, and pretending it's the whole story and saying nothing of medical debt, student loans or living from paycheck to paycheck and payday loans dayloans is only good for feeling better than someone, most likely while pretending that all people in debt are stupid because they buy too many cars and TVs or whatever. The whole area (both nutrition and debt/poverty) is very complex, especially when looking at whole society. Thinking in simple caricatures, and dismissing people as stupid is helping nobody.
- manjana 7y ago
  I get you, it was simply a critique of the wording which I should've made more clear. Like I wrote in another comment on this thread, saying instead that pesticides are (might be, really) contributing to obesity would have been more accurate and doesn't accidently paint the wrong picture.
std_throwaway 7y ago
> 1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. So, why do you consume so much? Who calls for more and more calories? Why do you get hungry all the time? Why do you not get the needed nutrients from the food you eat? What destroyed the function of your digestive system? Why is your microbiome so different from a healthy person?
- manjana 7y ago
  We entirely agree, that is not what I stated either. I'm simply saying that it isn't a direct causation.

paulmd 7y ago

Why can't it be any other way? Gut biome and other factors clearly play a large role in how much energy you absorb from the food you eat - the human body isn't a blast calorimeter where all food is converted to fat with 100% efficiency.

manjana 7y ago
I'm making a strict logical point. You cannot make adipose tissue out of thin air, you need to be in a caloric surplus for that to happend is the point I want to get across. Saying "pesticides make you fat" is wrong, it is not a direct cause of the buildup of fat. I'm not trying to troll or anything, but just let us not contribute to any more ignorance on nutrition.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Saying "pesticides make you fat" is wrong, It may be, but your argument doesn't support that. > it is not a direct cause of the buildup of fat. Indirect causes are still causes, and often the more important causes in terms of practical decision making. “My stabbing him didn't kill him, his brain tissue being oxygen deprived killed him” may often be true if you limit concern to the most immediate direct cause, but we tend to look beyond that in assigning responsibility for good reason.
- paulmd 7y ago
  Yes, if calories in > calories out then you will gain weight. There are significant factors which affect both how many calories your body will take in, as well as how many it burns out, even if two people have identical activity levels. So while that "calories in vs calories out" statement is true, it's also trite. Faster metabolisms or better metabolic efficiency can lead to lower weight gain than another person might experience for a given level of activity. It is useful advice on an individual scale - you yourself cannot directly affect your metabolism or your gut biome at the present time so the only thing you can really affect is exercise and caloric intake. It is not predictive between persons in the sense that two people on identical diets and exercise regimes will experience identical amounts of weight change. Fecal transplants are an interesting wildcard - the idea is to kill off your own gut microbiome as much as possible and then replace it with someone else's. In some case studies, this has had significant efficacy in weight loss. My understanding is these fauna have significant effects in "pre-processing" this food as well as consuming some of the energy for themselves, so yes, microbiome can directly affect weight gain/loss.

sp332 7y ago

A calorie is not a calorie. A calorie of animal protein is less efficient to digest than a calorie of sucrose. If you're lactose intolerant, you will get a different number of calories from a glass of milk than someone who is not. Chugging a can of Mountain Dew quickly probably means you won't digest all the sugar before your gut bacteria get to it. Messing with metabolites in your gut can change the way your body absorbs and stores energy.

manjana 7y ago
So you disagree that obesity is caused by excess caloric consumption? I fail to see your logic on that part if that is so. It seems you are arguing with me about something (entirely) different on which I never said anything about..
- sp332 7y ago
  Guess what makes people eat more? Being hungry. If pesticides cause hunger, they make people fat. If pesticides are literally lowering people's blood sugar, it could be dangerous for them not to eat more calories.
  - manjana 7y ago
    I know that, you are missing the point. Re-read the original post or read through the thread...
- intopieces 7y ago
  Pointing directly and solely to caloric intake when discussing obesity is the “It’s just economics 101” of the nutrition issue: technically right, but so lacking in nuance that it ceases to be interesting.
  - manjana 7y ago
    That's a fair point. But saying pesticides causes obesity just paints the wrong picture imo. Contributes would've been a better word.

glogla 7y ago

> 1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. This might be true in thermodynamic sense but it is a useless and trite statement. It's like saying "people are in debt because they borrowed money" - true, but banal and trivial, and pretending it's the whole story and saying nothing of medical debt, student loans or living from paycheck to paycheck and payday loans dayloans is only good for feeling better than someone, most likely while pretending that all people in debt are stupid because they buy too many cars and TVs or whatever. The whole area (both nutrition and debt/poverty) is very complex, especially when looking at whole society. Thinking in simple caricatures, and dismissing people as stupid is helping nobody.

manjana 7y ago
I get you, it was simply a critique of the wording which I should've made more clear. Like I wrote in another comment on this thread, saying instead that pesticides are (might be, really) contributing to obesity would have been more accurate and doesn't accidently paint the wrong picture.

std_throwaway 7y ago

> 1. The only thing making you fat is excess calories - it cannot be any other way. So, why do you consume so much? Who calls for more and more calories? Why do you get hungry all the time? Why do you not get the needed nutrients from the food you eat? What destroyed the function of your digestive system? Why is your microbiome so different from a healthy person?

manjana 7y ago
We entirely agree, that is not what I stated either. I'm simply saying that it isn't a direct causation.