6 ms·

I feel like you might have just skimmed the article, as the points you make here were addressed directly, yet you don't take the points made head on. Quoting:

by lkey 5y ago

I feel like you might have just skimmed the article, as the points you make here were addressed directly, yet you don't take the points made head on. Quoting: 'Similarly "[Obesity] is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended" is a fantastic definition of obesity.' It isn't though: 'Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of /body fat/.' is how the Mayo cilic puts it. Not all energy imbalances in either direction result in a loss or gain of /fat/, which is the point the article is trying to make. I'll quote from the article: "Although researchers have rarely thought to control for energy intake in their experiments, when they did, testing whether their animals get fatter than lean controls even when eating as little or less food, they almost invariably report that they do. “These mice will make fat out of their food under the most unlikely circumstances, even when /half-starved/ [my italics],” as Jean Mayer wrote about obese mice he studied in the 1950s. This fundamental observation directly challenges the notion that obesity is caused by poorly regulated eating behavior." Quoting again: "as if that means alcoholism isn't an intake problem" Explaining why curing alcoholism isn't as simple 'stopping overdrinking' is just as tiresome as explaining why losing weight on a nationwide scale isn't as simple as 'eating less', as the article spills much ink to make clear.

ghshephard 5y ago
The problem with this theory is that in clinically controlled lab studies, where both food and exertion are measured carefully, the weight gain (or loss) is almost 100% predictable based on the inputs of food, exercise, and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). Unless your hypothesis is that the weight gain/loss is going into something else other than /fat/? I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science?
- lkey 5y ago
  "I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science?" One of the article's main points is that the obsession with the calorie-only model (with the assumption that it's solved) has stymied even asking these fat-metabolism questions in the first place (outside of veterinary science, where they actively trying to make animals that get fat very quickly). But yes, your body is free to store/burn mass and energy in muscles, tissue, glycogen and whatnot if it chooses to store the excess at all. Of course if you force an environment of extreme depletion (like bootcamp as mentioned elsewhere), you body will get to its adipose tissue, but that's not going to solve the obesity epidemic. Most veterans get just as fat as the rest of the population after they leave the service. I personally can feel when my glycogen has been depleted when working out. Once it's gone I look a bit anemic and /pushing/ beyond certain limits becomes impossible. Normally it's a precursor to me entering ketosis, which pretty much guarantees I'll be burning fat or muscle only from then out.
  - ghshephard 5y ago
    Now if only Taubes had written this essay with the same clarity and conciseness that your analysis of it just did, it would have gotten a lot more traction with me. I mean, he can at times be a great writer - "Why we get Fat" was a book that I and a lot of friend bought and debated at length - it was revolutionary (to us).
    - lkey 5y ago
      You might prefer the study itself. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab270/6369073 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aj... Judging from the reactions here, he meandered too much and made his point badly with the majority of the commenting cohort, but there's a fair bit of selection bias to account for.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Not true, for example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125114.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125114.h... Also >Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) What increases or decreases BMR? E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the... Why are there very slim people who struggle to gain weight regardless of how much they try to eat more? What causes hunger pangs for people when they have half a million calories strapped to their waist? >I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science? Exactly this type of thinking has stymied research into very interesting questions.

by lkey 5y ago

ghshephard 5y ago

The problem with this theory is that in clinically controlled lab studies, where both food and exertion are measured carefully, the weight gain (or loss) is almost 100% predictable based on the inputs of food, exercise, and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). Unless your hypothesis is that the weight gain/loss is going into something else other than /fat/? I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science?

lkey 5y ago
"I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science?" One of the article's main points is that the obsession with the calorie-only model (with the assumption that it's solved) has stymied even asking these fat-metabolism questions in the first place (outside of veterinary science, where they actively trying to make animals that get fat very quickly). But yes, your body is free to store/burn mass and energy in muscles, tissue, glycogen and whatnot if it chooses to store the excess at all. Of course if you force an environment of extreme depletion (like bootcamp as mentioned elsewhere), you body will get to its adipose tissue, but that's not going to solve the obesity epidemic. Most veterans get just as fat as the rest of the population after they leave the service. I personally can feel when my glycogen has been depleted when working out. Once it's gone I look a bit anemic and /pushing/ beyond certain limits becomes impossible. Normally it's a precursor to me entering ketosis, which pretty much guarantees I'll be burning fat or muscle only from then out.
- ghshephard 5y ago
  Now if only Taubes had written this essay with the same clarity and conciseness that your analysis of it just did, it would have gotten a lot more traction with me. I mean, he can at times be a great writer - "Why we get Fat" was a book that I and a lot of friend bought and debated at length - it was revolutionary (to us).
  - lkey 5y ago
    You might prefer the study itself. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab270/6369073 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aj... Judging from the reactions here, he meandered too much and made his point badly with the majority of the commenting cohort, but there's a fair bit of selection bias to account for.
belltaco 5y ago
Not true, for example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125114.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125114.h... Also >Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) What increases or decreases BMR? E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the... Why are there very slim people who struggle to gain weight regardless of how much they try to eat more? What causes hunger pangs for people when they have half a million calories strapped to their waist? >I'm guessing the reason nobody runs these studies is that it's solved science? Exactly this type of thinking has stymied research into very interesting questions.