3 ms·

I don't think these researchers are saying that EBM is false per se. They state, “Conceptualizing obesity as a disorder of energy balance restates a principle o

I don't think these researchers are saying that EBM is false per se. They state, “Conceptualizing obesity as a disorder of energy balance restates a principle of physics without considering the biological mechanisms that promote weight gain.” My reading of that is that EBM isn't very helpful as a weight loss strategy because it's harder to "just eat less" if your whole diet is sugar. The CIM explains one's diet's effect on appetite, so can help come up with strategies that make it easier to eat less.

edanm 5y ago
They believe that the "causality" of weight gain is reversed as opposed to EBM - it's not that eating more calories causes weight gain, it's that your body choosing to store more fat (because of higher carb intake) causes you to eat more calories. I disagree with their ideas, but they do offer very specific differences from the EBM model, both as a tool for understanding obesity and as a tool for transforming public health. E.g. even in their abstract: > According to a commonly held view, the obesity pandemic is caused by overconsumption of modern, highly palatable, energy-dense processed foods, exacerbated by a sedentary lifestyle. However, obesity rates remain at historic highs, despite a persistent focus on eating less and moving more, as guided by the energy balance model (EBM). They're directly challenging the "orthodox" view that we need to get people to eat less and move more. But that view works! It's not the end of the discussion, because people overeat for many reasons, and in my view high palatability of food and having more wealth are the main culprits. But they clearly disagree, since they devote sections of their article to addressing exactly these ideas and why they're wrong. Btw, for the record, all these researchers are way more knowledgeable than I am about all of this - I have no education in nutrition at all. But I have pretty solid evidence that they're wrong - lots of other smart people say they're wrong, there's lots of direct evidence that they're wrong (studies in humans), I personally lost a bunch of weight by counting calories and restricting the amounts that I ate, etc.

edanm 5y ago

They believe that the "causality" of weight gain is reversed as opposed to EBM - it's not that eating more calories causes weight gain, it's that your body choosing to store more fat (because of higher carb intake) causes you to eat more calories. I disagree with their ideas, but they do offer very specific differences from the EBM model, both as a tool for understanding obesity and as a tool for transforming public health. E.g. even in their abstract: > According to a commonly held view, the obesity pandemic is caused by overconsumption of modern, highly palatable, energy-dense processed foods, exacerbated by a sedentary lifestyle. However, obesity rates remain at historic highs, despite a persistent focus on eating less and moving more, as guided by the energy balance model (EBM). They're directly challenging the "orthodox" view that we need to get people to eat less and move more. But that view works! It's not the end of the discussion, because people overeat for many reasons, and in my view high palatability of food and having more wealth are the main culprits. But they clearly disagree, since they devote sections of their article to addressing exactly these ideas and why they're wrong. Btw, for the record, all these researchers are way more knowledgeable than I am about all of this - I have no education in nutrition at all. But I have pretty solid evidence that they're wrong - lots of other smart people say they're wrong, there's lots of direct evidence that they're wrong (studies in humans), I personally lost a bunch of weight by counting calories and restricting the amounts that I ate, etc.