5 ms·

Scientists Claim That Overeating Is Not the Primary Cause of Obesity

35 points by bdz 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago
> Public health messaging exhorting people to eat less and exercise more has failed to stem rising rates of obesity and obesity-related diseases. This isn't because eating less and exercising more don't make you lose weight (they do). It's because people don't follow the messaging. Also, aren't Twinkies the exact kind of food that this says makes you obese? How does the Twinkie diet work then?
- mcswell 5y ago
  It doesn't.
  - AnEro 5y ago
    I have done the McDonald's diet to prove a point, it does work. Where I only ate from McDonald's over 3 weeks at recomp calories and worked out 3 hours a week, and I still lost 3 pounds while gaining muscle. It is 'calories in calories out', but you have to actively find what your maintenance calories is over 2 to 3 week periods. So you effectively have to do cycles of cutting and maintenance to maintain an effective loss. Doing this and keeping 30-40% protein in your meals will have you lose weight doing pretty much anything
- AnEro 5y ago
  Carbs, not because they're inherently wrong, but rather it is super easy to eat an extra 200+ calories when eating them. All it takes to gain weight is 200+ calories than your maintenance. That can be an extra handful of chips or another slice or two of bread. I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight. This science is showing more the combination of extremely fatty and carby food at once has a distinct reaction in our body. Where yes it is 'calories in calories out' but that doesn't mean that our bodies don't have their own agenda in terms of using the calories in for fat stores vs energy for activities. Almost like moving your maintenance calories to a lower number when you're eating mostly heavy fats and heavy carbs while being extremely stressed out has a ton of hormones that screams to your body save as much of this as possible. If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread. The only problem is cost, if you're not careful you go from a daily cost of 3-5$ in groceries to 10-15$ to eat enough protein. However, means doing bare minimum exercise daily with this diet going over in calories will build muscle, and going under (not going past 400-500 deficit) you can lose fat and gain muscle.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight. Isn't this a fairly easy problem to solve? Don't you just need to make a reasonable guess, calculate your expected weight change over some time period, then follow the diet to see what actually happens to your weight, and adjust your guess accordingly? > If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread. Agreed. Eating healthier kinds of food can make it easier to lose weight, by making you not still feel hungry after you've eaten the correct amount of food, and so making it require less self-control to stick to the diet.
    - AnEro 5y ago
      > Isn't this a fairly easy problem to solve? Don't you just need to make a reasonable guess, calculate your expected weight change over some time period, then follow the diet to see what actually happens to your weight, and adjust your guess accordingly? It's easy if you do the work, weigh your food and find the number that's unique to your situation, which could take a month or so adding or taking away calories to find. Having a model to account for all the ephemeral things that plays into that unique number consistently for the population at large is the hard part Nutritional science is hard because adherence to the diet is to be taken with a grain of salt, you have to just trust participants. Where outside of athletes I doubt may people have the energy to weigh everything, which also starts to feel unhealthy mental health wise making you seem crazy. I get alot of push back for it myself, and have to plan around not weighing and counting calories to not get to anxious about it since I am so aware of how a small bit of extra food can have me 'lose' so much progress
      - josephcsible 5y ago
GoToRO 5y ago
When I eat vegs I just feel "not hungry" for long periods of time. This, and eating breakfast made a change. If you don't feel like eating breakfast is because you ate too late in the evening and still have food in the system.
ProjectArcturis 5y ago
If there is a field of science that needs a paradigm shift, it's obesity research. I can't think of any other aspect of health that has continually worsened, worldwide, for decades on end.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- techbio 5y ago
  Psychiatric prescriptions over the same decades correlate with a large rise in the disorders they treat. Drug addiction has responded to imprisonment more than any healthcare initiatives. Not saying it's exactly analogous, just that obesity health is not so unique, and really only stands out because of its innocuous or "innocent" causes and visible ubiquity.
rytcio 5y ago
Carbohydrates cause obesity. Wasn't until the change in the food pyramid for more bread/pasta/rice/etc. that obesity started being a problem.
- otterley 5y ago
  It's hard to square this hypothesis with the fact that much of the world (Asia, Africa, etc.) lives on carbohydrates such as rice, and that meat and other dense proteins are too expensive for many people to afford - yet, those people tend not to be overweight.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    How much high fructose corn syrup do they consume?
    - techbio 5y ago
      The answer is "carbs". Let's not quibble with the details. EDIT: /s
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Based on data around obesity, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Those who argue “calories in, calories out” have been doing everyone a great disservice when it turns out gut biome and what you’re eating plays a material role in the human energy balance.
        techbio 5y ago
        I think calorie IO is a rule of thumb, and a reasonable summary though obviously incomplete. Where it is used as an argument against more sophisticated understanding of metabolism, it would be wrong. Sweet tastes change a number of digestive processes, as does severe calorie restrictions.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
techbio 5y ago
The considered ambiguity in this style of headline ("Scientists claim") between "all scientists claim" and "more than one scientist claims" is terribly disinformative in itself, and clickbait because the article must be read to determine where to place this, if anywhere, on an infinite continuum of scientific progress.
mcswell 5y ago
This is not new, is it? There have been lots of claims over the last few decades that during the 1960s, the sugar industry pushed the idea that eating fat was what made people fat, rather than eating sugar-like carbohydrates. Disclaimer: I don't know that the claim that sugar (and similar carbohydrates) are what causes weight gain is true, I'm just saying that this argument has been around for a long time.
lazyeye 5y ago
Carbs are very cheap to produce, cheap to transport, have a long shelf-life and are hunger inducing. Our dietary guidelines for the last few decades have been largely designed to serve the interests of the food industry and agriculture.
- prirun 5y ago
  This reminds me of cat foods' recommended portions. With my previous 2 cats, one pigged out and gained weight but the other cat didn't. Since both were about the same body size (length & height), I decided to measure how much the non-overeater was eating and feed that to both cats every day. It worked great. What was amazing was how little food they really needed (both were indoor-only). I was feeding them about half of what the bag said to feed them based on their weight. If the bag says to feed 1 cup per 15 lbs for example, it's a good bet they will gain weight. And the solution according to the bag's guidelines? Feed them 1.25 cups of course, because bigger animals need more food! Sheesh, what a racket...

35 points by bdz 5y ago

> Public health messaging exhorting people to eat less and exercise more has failed to stem rising rates of obesity and obesity-related diseases. This isn't because eating less and exercising more don't make you lose weight (they do). It's because people don't follow the messaging. Also, aren't Twinkies the exact kind of food that this says makes you obese? How does the Twinkie diet work then?

mcswell 5y ago
It doesn't.
- AnEro 5y ago
  I have done the McDonald's diet to prove a point, it does work. Where I only ate from McDonald's over 3 weeks at recomp calories and worked out 3 hours a week, and I still lost 3 pounds while gaining muscle. It is 'calories in calories out', but you have to actively find what your maintenance calories is over 2 to 3 week periods. So you effectively have to do cycles of cutting and maintenance to maintain an effective loss. Doing this and keeping 30-40% protein in your meals will have you lose weight doing pretty much anything
AnEro 5y ago
Carbs, not because they're inherently wrong, but rather it is super easy to eat an extra 200+ calories when eating them. All it takes to gain weight is 200+ calories than your maintenance. That can be an extra handful of chips or another slice or two of bread. I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight. This science is showing more the combination of extremely fatty and carby food at once has a distinct reaction in our body. Where yes it is 'calories in calories out' but that doesn't mean that our bodies don't have their own agenda in terms of using the calories in for fat stores vs energy for activities. Almost like moving your maintenance calories to a lower number when you're eating mostly heavy fats and heavy carbs while being extremely stressed out has a ton of hormones that screams to your body save as much of this as possible. If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread. The only problem is cost, if you're not careful you go from a daily cost of 3-5$ in groceries to 10-15$ to eat enough protein. However, means doing bare minimum exercise daily with this diet going over in calories will build muscle, and going under (not going past 400-500 deficit) you can lose fat and gain muscle.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight. Isn't this a fairly easy problem to solve? Don't you just need to make a reasonable guess, calculate your expected weight change over some time period, then follow the diet to see what actually happens to your weight, and adjust your guess accordingly? > If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread. Agreed. Eating healthier kinds of food can make it easier to lose weight, by making you not still feel hungry after you've eaten the correct amount of food, and so making it require less self-control to stick to the diet.
  - AnEro 5y ago
    > Isn't this a fairly easy problem to solve? Don't you just need to make a reasonable guess, calculate your expected weight change over some time period, then follow the diet to see what actually happens to your weight, and adjust your guess accordingly? It's easy if you do the work, weigh your food and find the number that's unique to your situation, which could take a month or so adding or taking away calories to find. Having a model to account for all the ephemeral things that plays into that unique number consistently for the population at large is the hard part Nutritional science is hard because adherence to the diet is to be taken with a grain of salt, you have to just trust participants. Where outside of athletes I doubt may people have the energy to weigh everything, which also starts to feel unhealthy mental health wise making you seem crazy. I get alot of push back for it myself, and have to plan around not weighing and counting calories to not get to anxious about it since I am so aware of how a small bit of extra food can have me 'lose' so much progress
    - josephcsible 5y ago

GoToRO 5y ago

When I eat vegs I just feel "not hungry" for long periods of time. This, and eating breakfast made a change. If you don't feel like eating breakfast is because you ate too late in the evening and still have food in the system.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

If there is a field of science that needs a paradigm shift, it's obesity research. I can't think of any other aspect of health that has continually worsened, worldwide, for decades on end.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
techbio 5y ago
Psychiatric prescriptions over the same decades correlate with a large rise in the disorders they treat. Drug addiction has responded to imprisonment more than any healthcare initiatives. Not saying it's exactly analogous, just that obesity health is not so unique, and really only stands out because of its innocuous or "innocent" causes and visible ubiquity.

rytcio 5y ago

Carbohydrates cause obesity. Wasn't until the change in the food pyramid for more bread/pasta/rice/etc. that obesity started being a problem.

otterley 5y ago
It's hard to square this hypothesis with the fact that much of the world (Asia, Africa, etc.) lives on carbohydrates such as rice, and that meat and other dense proteins are too expensive for many people to afford - yet, those people tend not to be overweight.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  How much high fructose corn syrup do they consume?
  - techbio 5y ago
    The answer is "carbs". Let's not quibble with the details. EDIT: /s
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Based on data around obesity, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Those who argue “calories in, calories out” have been doing everyone a great disservice when it turns out gut biome and what you’re eating plays a material role in the human energy balance.
      - techbio 5y ago
        I think calorie IO is a rule of thumb, and a reasonable summary though obviously incomplete. Where it is used as an argument against more sophisticated understanding of metabolism, it would be wrong. Sweet tastes change a number of digestive processes, as does severe calorie restrictions.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago

techbio 5y ago

The considered ambiguity in this style of headline ("Scientists claim") between "all scientists claim" and "more than one scientist claims" is terribly disinformative in itself, and clickbait because the article must be read to determine where to place this, if anywhere, on an infinite continuum of scientific progress.

mcswell 5y ago

This is not new, is it? There have been lots of claims over the last few decades that during the 1960s, the sugar industry pushed the idea that eating fat was what made people fat, rather than eating sugar-like carbohydrates. Disclaimer: I don't know that the claim that sugar (and similar carbohydrates) are what causes weight gain is true, I'm just saying that this argument has been around for a long time.

lazyeye 5y ago

Carbs are very cheap to produce, cheap to transport, have a long shelf-life and are hunger inducing. Our dietary guidelines for the last few decades have been largely designed to serve the interests of the food industry and agriculture.

prirun 5y ago
This reminds me of cat foods' recommended portions. With my previous 2 cats, one pigged out and gained weight but the other cat didn't. Since both were about the same body size (length & height), I decided to measure how much the non-overeater was eating and feed that to both cats every day. It worked great. What was amazing was how little food they really needed (both were indoor-only). I was feeding them about half of what the bag said to feed them based on their weight. If the bag says to feed 1 cup per 15 lbs for example, it's a good bet they will gain weight. And the solution according to the bag's guidelines? Feed them 1.25 cups of course, because bigger animals need more food! Sheesh, what a racket...