4 ms·

I remember reading a Twitter thread (i know) where someone who's done a book or something on this subject realized that all the studies bacically say the same t

I remember reading a Twitter thread (i know) where someone who's done a book or something on this subject realized that all the studies bacically say the same thing. Nobody knows the reason, but the data all shows when it started. https://twitter.com/mold_time/status/1412827749828513800?t=eK_XL4E6GoAhLTmuZWrs4Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/mold_time/status/1412827749828513800?t=e...

tomjen3 4y ago
There is only one reason possible: we eat more than we need. A lot more. Why we do this is maybe up for debate (personally my guess is because we can and food is tasty), but the basics of thermodynamics is not up for debate.
- boatsie 4y ago
  This is an annoying take that comes up every time. It’s like saying people die because a critical organ stops functioning. It adds nothing to the discourse and tends to imply that it’s lack of will power.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    How is this analogy even supposed to work? When you eat too much, you can choose to eat less. When your critical organ is about to stop functioning, what can you even do? Use that organ less? Either I am missing something major in that analogy, or it is just bad.
    - 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
      I think you're missing the point of the analogy; it's not about assigning culpability for health problems, it's about illustrating the kind of comment that centers proximate causes when the surrounding discussion is about root causes.
  - tomjen3 4y ago
    It wouldn't have to come up every time if lots of people wouldn't deny it.
- mbrodersen 4y ago
  The reason is obvious: carbohydrates are addictive. The more you eat them the more you want to eat them. Brain scans show that carbs gives you the same kind of pleasure that other addictions gives you. To maximise the addition even more, you mix carbs, fat, and salt. The food industry knows this and does everything it can to turn consumers into addicts of their products. They have succeeded spectacularly.
Jach 4y ago
A note on that twitter thread's author, have another twitter thread* about them failing to address severe flaws in their pet theory (lithium): https://twitter.com/natalia__coelho/status/1541900317041627136 https://twitter.com/natalia__coelho/status/15419003170416271... * I know too; but it's not like the actual replication-crisis-suffering capital S Science reviews are that much better than twitter randos on certain topics... It's useful to reserve judgement and be skeptical about a lot of things. And demand base rates in addition to risk factors.

tomjen3 4y ago

There is only one reason possible: we eat more than we need. A lot more. Why we do this is maybe up for debate (personally my guess is because we can and food is tasty), but the basics of thermodynamics is not up for debate.

boatsie 4y ago
This is an annoying take that comes up every time. It’s like saying people die because a critical organ stops functioning. It adds nothing to the discourse and tends to imply that it’s lack of will power.
- filoleg 4y ago
  How is this analogy even supposed to work? When you eat too much, you can choose to eat less. When your critical organ is about to stop functioning, what can you even do? Use that organ less? Either I am missing something major in that analogy, or it is just bad.
  - 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the analogy; it's not about assigning culpability for health problems, it's about illustrating the kind of comment that centers proximate causes when the surrounding discussion is about root causes.
- tomjen3 4y ago
  It wouldn't have to come up every time if lots of people wouldn't deny it.
mbrodersen 4y ago
The reason is obvious: carbohydrates are addictive. The more you eat them the more you want to eat them. Brain scans show that carbs gives you the same kind of pleasure that other addictions gives you. To maximise the addition even more, you mix carbs, fat, and salt. The food industry knows this and does everything it can to turn consumers into addicts of their products. They have succeeded spectacularly.

Jach 4y ago

A note on that twitter thread's author, have another twitter thread* about them failing to address severe flaws in their pet theory (lithium): https://twitter.com/natalia__coelho/status/1541900317041627136 https://twitter.com/natalia__coelho/status/15419003170416271... * I know too; but it's not like the actual replication-crisis-suffering capital S Science reviews are that much better than twitter randos on certain topics... It's useful to reserve judgement and be skeptical about a lot of things. And demand base rates in addition to risk factors.