3 ms·

> We don't know... That's not accurate. We know that more calories in than calories burned leads to weight gain. We know that the body + mind has nutritional

> We don't know... That's not accurate. We know that more calories in than calories burned leads to weight gain. We know that the body + mind has nutritional requirements. If those are not met the body + mind will ccontinue to pursue those requirements. That is "empty calories" have a cost associated with them. We know that (urban) food deserts impact consumption of (quality) foods and inturn health. We know that humans conform to the norms they see around them. That is, "normalize" a condition and humans will adjust. Smoking is a good example. So is obesity. We know that epigenetics is a thing, and that what you consume has impact, in some cases on future generations. Obesity is a relatively new First World Problem. The idea that there's been some mass change in DNA just isn't reasonable compared to the obvious (too many calories vs not enough exercise). Oprah lied.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> We know that the body + mind has nutritional requirements. If those are not met the body + mind will ccontinue to pursue those requirements. That is "empty calories" have a cost associated with them. While this is likely true, it is not a well defined theory at the moment, it is handwavy speculation. It especially doesn't explain why this started happening in the 1980s - empty calories and deserts existed in plentiful quantities for at least a hundred years before that, with approximately 0 obesity relatively speaking. It also doesn't explain other patterns of obesity that we see today. Particularly, that obesity prevalence tends to decrease with altitude, that it varies by profession, and that it varies by country despite wealth (e.g. Japan is one of the richest but also least obese countries in the world). > We know that epigenetics is a thing, and that what you consume has impact, in some cases on future generations. Again, we know this in a handwavy sense, not in a quantifiable sense. > Obesity is a relatively new First World Problem. The idea that there's been some mass change in DNA just isn't reasonable compared to the obvious (too many calories vs not enough exercise). Oprah lied. It's not a First World Problem, it's a problem even in extremely poor countries. And yes, genetic causes are not in any way likely - not sure who is claiming that. My money is on environmental causes, some contaminant that we're not aware of at the moment, either in food or in something else. One interesting candidate is lithium, which is known to produce weight gain in therapeutic doses (it is a common psychiatric medication), and is known to be present in small doses as a contaminant in drinking water. Lithium mining became widespread sometime around the 1980s, so the time-line is possible. If you're curious to delve deeper into why common ideas about the obesity epidemic are wrong, here is a very interesting series of blog posts: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/08/02/a-chemical-hunger-part-vii-lithium/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/08/02/a-chemical-hunger-p...

tsimionescu 5y ago

> We know that the body + mind has nutritional requirements. If those are not met the body + mind will ccontinue to pursue those requirements. That is "empty calories" have a cost associated with them. While this is likely true, it is not a well defined theory at the moment, it is handwavy speculation. It especially doesn't explain why this started happening in the 1980s - empty calories and deserts existed in plentiful quantities for at least a hundred years before that, with approximately 0 obesity relatively speaking. It also doesn't explain other patterns of obesity that we see today. Particularly, that obesity prevalence tends to decrease with altitude, that it varies by profession, and that it varies by country despite wealth (e.g. Japan is one of the richest but also least obese countries in the world). > We know that epigenetics is a thing, and that what you consume has impact, in some cases on future generations. Again, we know this in a handwavy sense, not in a quantifiable sense. > Obesity is a relatively new First World Problem. The idea that there's been some mass change in DNA just isn't reasonable compared to the obvious (too many calories vs not enough exercise). Oprah lied. It's not a First World Problem, it's a problem even in extremely poor countries. And yes, genetic causes are not in any way likely - not sure who is claiming that. My money is on environmental causes, some contaminant that we're not aware of at the moment, either in food or in something else. One interesting candidate is lithium, which is known to produce weight gain in therapeutic doses (it is a common psychiatric medication), and is known to be present in small doses as a contaminant in drinking water. Lithium mining became widespread sometime around the 1980s, so the time-line is possible. If you're curious to delve deeper into why common ideas about the obesity epidemic are wrong, here is a very interesting series of blog posts: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/08/02/a-chemical-hunger-part-vii-lithium/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/08/02/a-chemical-hunger-p...