5 ms·

> mean US citizen's calorie intake increased by nearly a quarter over the period that obesity rose simply by saying "that's not a jaw dropping increase" I thin

by zamfi 4y ago

> mean US citizen's calorie intake increased by nearly a quarter over the period that obesity rose simply by saying "that's not a jaw dropping increase" I think the context here is that while 400 extra calories a day might seem like a lot, it's within the observed variability going back as far as we have measurements. Americans ate more calories in 1909 than in 1960, and were no more obese then. > He thinks a study in which people's food intake was increased by 50% showed a significant average weight gain in just three weeks undermines the argument that feeding a population an average 25% more per day for the rest of their lives could increase obesity Hmm, I think the point here is that there is more complexity than the "eat more, gain weight" hypothesis: there was wide variability in how much weight people gained when being overfed, and all of these people, when they stopped being overfed, lost the weight they'd gained effortlessly -- which is emphatically not the case for most obese folks today. This implies something is different about being temporarily overfed (which makes weight loss trivial) and what's causing the obesity epidemic (which makes weight loss very challenging). Also worth noting that the increased caloric intake also doesn't answer the question of what's causing people to eat more than they burn. (And again, there's not really any question that obese folks are eating more than they burn -- it's the only way to actually gain weight, after all -- the whole point of this line of inquiry is to figure out why.) I'll cite what they say about this: > From this study [0], for example, consider this sentence: "TDEE was 2404±95 kcal per day in lean and 3244±48 kcal per day in Class III obese individuals.” From this perspective, the average daily consumption per Pew being 2,481 calories per day doesn’t seem like much — that’s about what lean people expend daily. Obese individuals generally burn 3000+ kcal/day, and while not every modern person is obese, it does make the increase from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010 look relatively small. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2012172 https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2012172

notahacker 4y ago
> Americans ate more calories in 1909 than in 1960, and were no more obese then. That's his assertion, but all we've got is a link to a complex dataset on "food availability" and his word for it (and some probably-unjustified ancillary assumptions about calorie burning between the two eras being similar, of course). Extraordinary claims, I think, demand a higher standard of evidence. > Hmm, I think the point here is that there is more complexity than the "eat more, gain weight" hypothesis: there was wide variability in how much weight people gained when being overfed, and all of these people, when they stopped being overfed, lost the weight they'd gained effortlessly -- which is emphatically not the case for most obese folks today. Sure. But that's furiously demolishing a straw man that there's no variability in weight gain between individuals whilst dismissing the actual finding that it takes as little as 3 weeks to show a clear increase in weight from eating 1000 extra calories as incidental. And he's trying to use it to argue against the notion that average calorie intake data consistent with the obese ~40% of the US population eating ~1000 extra calories on a permanent basis could have caused the latter group to have gained weight! > This implies something is different about being temporarily overfed (which makes weight loss trivial) and what's causing the obesity epidemic (which makes weight loss very challenging). One obvious difference is that people overfeed for longer. This doesn't seem to be a gotcha for the basic assumption "people eat too much" and nor does the fact that eating "too much" is obviously likely to be caused by different factors in different people. But whilst "people eat too much" might have little explanatory power, its not nearly as dubious as the blog's assertion that "diet and exercise are out as explanations for the epidemic" despite them being both consistent with macro trends and a change in one undoubtedly entirely to blame for some individuals' weight changes
- zamfi 4y ago
  Wait, I think we’re talking past each other. “People eat too much” (where “too much” is defined not in raw calorie numbers but in terms of “more than burned or excreted”) is the obvious proximate cause, and I don’t think these folks are denying that. The confusing question is: why is everyone suddenly eating “too much” and seemingly unable to control it? Why does it now require willpower and dieting to not become obese? People in the 1960s had plenty of food access, plenty of cars, etc. etc., and did not have obesity rates in the 40%+ range. Their diets were not so different from today’s diets in terms of macronutrient composition, in fact they were probably worse: plenty of sugar, fat, etc., components that have since been demonized. Why are so many people eating “too much” now?
  - watwut 4y ago
    In general, I agree with stance that obesity issue is more complicated. But: > People in the 1960s had plenty of food access, plenty of cars, etc. etc., and did not have obesity rates in the 40%+ range. I don't think they had comparable level of physical movement. They had more of it just by existing. Take office worker - today I come to work and sit on chair until I go to toilet or home. Communication is done via keyboard, documents are in computer. Compared to my parents in 80-90ties - when they wanted to talk to people, they would stand up and go physically to another office. If they wanted documents, they would stand up and search for it. People did used walking to stores and public transport more too. In 1960, 1980 kids walked to school and that includes 6 years old. They played unsupervised outside for hours. Again, expectation today is that they are driven. The 6 years old playing outside is outrage, so they dont do it (plus indoor tablet is more fun to them subjectively). None of that is huge amount of movement. But I think these frequent low effort movements counts and adds up. And, just turning wheel on 1960 car requires more strength then on current one. A lot of housework (both the one done by women and men) requires less effort then people in 1960 needed - cleaning cooking too. Everything is physically easier. I have car, but used public transport to get to work. I made around 8000 steps every day just by existing. When covid hit and I was at home, the amount of steps went down drastically - could be just few hundred.
    - 4y ago
burntoutfire 4y ago
> Americans ate more calories in 1909 than in 1960 They also did A LOT more manual labor back then. Heavy construction projects (roads, dams etc.) were still performed by thousands of people literally swinging a pick-axe 10 hours a day, slowly chipping away at the hill that stood in the way. That must have required couple thousand of extra kcal per day. Meanwhile, in 1960, a lot of most energy-consuming work was already performed by machines.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Some of them just worked at desks. Actually quite a few. And they were thin too. You can find pictures of the typical city office-worker if you hunt through the Library of Congress archives.

by zamfi 4y ago

notahacker 4y ago

> Americans ate more calories in 1909 than in 1960, and were no more obese then. That's his assertion, but all we've got is a link to a complex dataset on "food availability" and his word for it (and some probably-unjustified ancillary assumptions about calorie burning between the two eras being similar, of course). Extraordinary claims, I think, demand a higher standard of evidence. > Hmm, I think the point here is that there is more complexity than the "eat more, gain weight" hypothesis: there was wide variability in how much weight people gained when being overfed, and all of these people, when they stopped being overfed, lost the weight they'd gained effortlessly -- which is emphatically not the case for most obese folks today. Sure. But that's furiously demolishing a straw man that there's no variability in weight gain between individuals whilst dismissing the actual finding that it takes as little as 3 weeks to show a clear increase in weight from eating 1000 extra calories as incidental. And he's trying to use it to argue against the notion that average calorie intake data consistent with the obese ~40% of the US population eating ~1000 extra calories on a permanent basis could have caused the latter group to have gained weight! > This implies something is different about being temporarily overfed (which makes weight loss trivial) and what's causing the obesity epidemic (which makes weight loss very challenging). One obvious difference is that people overfeed for longer. This doesn't seem to be a gotcha for the basic assumption "people eat too much" and nor does the fact that eating "too much" is obviously likely to be caused by different factors in different people. But whilst "people eat too much" might have little explanatory power, its not nearly as dubious as the blog's assertion that "diet and exercise are out as explanations for the epidemic" despite them being both consistent with macro trends and a change in one undoubtedly entirely to blame for some individuals' weight changes

zamfi 4y ago
Wait, I think we’re talking past each other. “People eat too much” (where “too much” is defined not in raw calorie numbers but in terms of “more than burned or excreted”) is the obvious proximate cause, and I don’t think these folks are denying that. The confusing question is: why is everyone suddenly eating “too much” and seemingly unable to control it? Why does it now require willpower and dieting to not become obese? People in the 1960s had plenty of food access, plenty of cars, etc. etc., and did not have obesity rates in the 40%+ range. Their diets were not so different from today’s diets in terms of macronutrient composition, in fact they were probably worse: plenty of sugar, fat, etc., components that have since been demonized. Why are so many people eating “too much” now?
- watwut 4y ago
  In general, I agree with stance that obesity issue is more complicated. But: > People in the 1960s had plenty of food access, plenty of cars, etc. etc., and did not have obesity rates in the 40%+ range. I don't think they had comparable level of physical movement. They had more of it just by existing. Take office worker - today I come to work and sit on chair until I go to toilet or home. Communication is done via keyboard, documents are in computer. Compared to my parents in 80-90ties - when they wanted to talk to people, they would stand up and go physically to another office. If they wanted documents, they would stand up and search for it. People did used walking to stores and public transport more too. In 1960, 1980 kids walked to school and that includes 6 years old. They played unsupervised outside for hours. Again, expectation today is that they are driven. The 6 years old playing outside is outrage, so they dont do it (plus indoor tablet is more fun to them subjectively). None of that is huge amount of movement. But I think these frequent low effort movements counts and adds up. And, just turning wheel on 1960 car requires more strength then on current one. A lot of housework (both the one done by women and men) requires less effort then people in 1960 needed - cleaning cooking too. Everything is physically easier. I have car, but used public transport to get to work. I made around 8000 steps every day just by existing. When covid hit and I was at home, the amount of steps went down drastically - could be just few hundred.
  - 4y ago

burntoutfire 4y ago

> Americans ate more calories in 1909 than in 1960 They also did A LOT more manual labor back then. Heavy construction projects (roads, dams etc.) were still performed by thousands of people literally swinging a pick-axe 10 hours a day, slowly chipping away at the hill that stood in the way. That must have required couple thousand of extra kcal per day. Meanwhile, in 1960, a lot of most energy-consuming work was already performed by machines.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
Some of them just worked at desks. Actually quite a few. And they were thin too. You can find pictures of the typical city office-worker if you hunt through the Library of Congress archives.