4 ms·

Still not sold on seed oils: 8/10 Mysteries of Obesity explained.

8 points by janandonly 3y ago

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
That county-level obesity rate map of the US looks nearly identical to a county-level map of average household income. This search for a complex chemical cause is farcical in the face of the obvious: poor people eat cheap food. Cheap food contains high amounts of carbohydrates, containing well beyond the caloric needs a normal person should be eating in a day, while not being nearly as satiating as a more healthy option. So more gets eaten.
- riotnrrd 3y ago
  Although the simplicity is appealing, this theory isn't supported by the evidence. Read the 'Chemical Hunger' series at that site, starting here: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
  - whatscooking 3y ago
    Half his arguments are bad. Like the argument against the correlation between BMI and altitude level? “Here’s a study that was poorly done. Because it was poorly done, it cannot be caused from lower oxygen levels.”
- anononaut 3y ago
  I've seen this brought up time and time again on fitness forums. I strongly contest the assertion that cheap food is unhealthy food. Beans, rice, veggies, unprocessed protein can be bought in bulk for very cheap and are massively more healthy to eat for every meal than a dollar burger. This is anecdotal, sure, but I'm only arguing against what you consider obvious.
  - perrygeo 3y ago
    Beans rice veggies and protein can be cheap - but you need the skills, tools, a kitchen, a fridge, a freezer, and a couple free hours a day to travel to the store, shop, prep, cook and clean. If you live in poverty and need to rely on "cheap food", you probably don't have access to these things. People working 2 full time jobs in a food desert without a regularly stocked kitchen cannot do what you suggest.
    - heattemp99 3y ago
      You make America sound like a 3rd world country without a fridge or freezer. If you don't have a fridge or freezer you have such big problems going on, you'll probably not be obese because you can't even afford food and you'll be rationing like crazy.
      - birdyrooster 3y ago
        You’ve clearly never met people who live on 7/11 food
        heattemp99 3y ago
        I buy gas and energy drinks every day almost. I see them. They are not 'poor'. If they ARE living paycheck to paycheck though, it's because they buy food at 7/11.
      - jfengel 3y ago
        It's less about the fridge than about the stove. Or rather, the time to spend in front of it. Healthy, inexpensive meals can take a lot of time to prepare. You could spend an hour making beans and rice, or you can take something labeled "Healthy!" out of the freezer and nuke it for two minutes. A lot of the poorest people don't have time or energy for that. Even people with more money often think of themselves as time-starved. It would be better for their health and well-being to get around that, but it's hard to compete with the messages of fast food marketing. That marketing is often deliberately misleading with false "healthy" claims, and the food itself is incredibly easy to eat. They are fine-tuned to appeal to people, in part by packing in a ton of calories and excluding anything else that would dilute the flavors. Combined with a ton of mixed messages and extraordinary amounts of wishful thinking, even people who should know better often don't put it into practice. And a lot of people genuinely don't have the time or energy to know better.
- perrygeo 3y ago
  Cheap food is high in sugar and refined carbs but also lots and lots of seed oil (most likely rancid) along with additives etc. We have the sugar/carb hypothesis of obesity. We have the seed oil hypothesis. We have various claims of additives causing metabolic problems. Por que no los tres? These aren't mutually exclusive, and they're all correlated with shitty industrial foods.
generalenvelope 3y ago
What are the qualifications of the author? Much of this content is contrary to content I'm familiar with written by those with Phds in nutrition science
- heattemp99 3y ago
  I live my life basically going against anything an average PhD in nutrition science would ever say. If the people you're familiar with are anything but the top 2% in their field, their advice is basically worthless if not a net negative.
  - birdyrooster 3y ago
    How does one distinguish the top of a field in which 98% of practitioners are incorrect? Seems like we need a breakthrough of some sort.
    - heattemp99 3y ago
      IMO the top 2% know their stuff 10x better than someone at even the top 10% level. So imagine if you lined up 100 people with a PhD in nutrition. To the average person they seem like they know their stuff. But imo, the bottom ones are druggies, weirdos, and frauds. The middle are what you'd expect. The top 2 stand out clearly.
- whatscooking 3y ago
  Sigh, why do his qualifications matter… You should be asking if his argument is sound and backed by evidence instead. People with PhDs have been wrong many times in the past.
  - generalenvelope 3y ago
    What makes you think a layman can assess whether the argument is sound and backed by evidence?
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Lithium and fluoride: two deadly chemical by-products that were rehabilitated a few decades ago, so they could be force-fed to the general population. Yum!
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Fluorinated water reduced the rate of permanent dental damage among children by 25%. It's easy, cheap, and extremely effective.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    I am skeptical that it is physically possible for water to be retained in a child's mouth long enough to make a difference. Might the 25% also have something to do with introduction of enhanced dental care, and encouraging frequent brushing of teeth with fluoridated toothpaste? You know, the stuff that leaves a significant residue, and is not completely wet and slippery? I'm also skeptical whether you realize that "fluorinated water" is rather impossible. Fluorine is a gas, and a highly reactive one. It will explode (oxidize) if you mix it with water, you know. So, for your 25% factoid, [citation needed]. http://envis.tropmet.res.in/ExtremEvents/Extreme%20Pollution%20Event-%20Global%20-%20All%20-%20Copy1.htm http://envis.tropmet.res.in/ExtremEvents/Extreme%20Pollution...
fnfjfk 3y ago
> things like “diet and exercise” are non-explanations what? CICO, period. You can’t beat thermodynamics. You can certainly separately explain why CI has gone up and/or CO has gone down, but the energy has to come from somewhere and go somewhere.
- whatscooking 3y ago
  Yep. Coming from someone who has lost a lot of weight and got into the best shape of my life using CICO, there is no other explanation. Of course food quality matters a lot because you won’t feel as hungry. I’d argue even exercise makes you less hungry as a whole. Of course there are probably chemicals in our environment that are making us fatter, but it's definitely not a silver bullet, maybe responsible for 10-20lbs of excess fat if even that.
- maxk42 3y ago
  Unfortunately you're not arguing for what you think you're arguing for. Food is not metabolized via combustion. However there is a way to measure the energy the human body gets from food and that's to measure the amount of ATP generated by the metabolism of a single molecule of the constituent parts of that food. And it turns out this doesn't track calories very closely at all. I'm fact, fat produces nearly 2x the ATP we would expect, except in the absence of oxaloacetic acid, in which case it produces a mere 16% of the expected value, implying that utilizing OOA for things like glycogen production can force your body to burn loads of fat for the same metabolic output, completely invalidating CICO.
  - maxk42 3y ago
    And that doesn't even begin to account for how much mass we eat which is utilized structurally or excreted without being exhausted. CICO works for thermodynamics, not dieting.
    - maxk42 3y ago
      Or there's the layman's refutation of CICO: Poop burns.
cycomanic 3y ago
The lithium hypothesis doesn't really much scrutiny. I mean they include Canada, but exclude Norway because it's not a warm arid climate? Also how do they explain obesity in New Zealand (a country that they conveniently forgot when talking about high obesity countries), which had a single refinery which closed 2 years ago. Also if proximity to oil production would be a reason, maybe don't treat a place like Australia as a single entity. The oil producing places are largely (with the exception of Gipps basin) quite far away from where people live. If that is still close enough, than all of Europe should be affected by e.g. Norwegian oil production.
lock-the-spock 3y ago
Not to be a downer but this is not the first time there are rather unqualified opinions from this blog presented as factual/scientific writing. The starting point is a theory looking for evidence. This is the wrong way around.
- generalenvelope 3y ago
  Exactly. Two things: 1. The vast majority of people do not need to worry about nuances of nutrition. Most Americans (90%+) don't even meet physical activity guidelines, for which there is extremely strong evidence of far more significant benefits. 2. OP responded to another comment of mine that they actively go against what Phd nutritionists say. This was never a post about facts/science.

8 points by janandonly 3y ago

That county-level obesity rate map of the US looks nearly identical to a county-level map of average household income. This search for a complex chemical cause is farcical in the face of the obvious: poor people eat cheap food. Cheap food contains high amounts of carbohydrates, containing well beyond the caloric needs a normal person should be eating in a day, while not being nearly as satiating as a more healthy option. So more gets eaten.

riotnrrd 3y ago
Although the simplicity is appealing, this theory isn't supported by the evidence. Read the 'Chemical Hunger' series at that site, starting here: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
- whatscooking 3y ago
  Half his arguments are bad. Like the argument against the correlation between BMI and altitude level? “Here’s a study that was poorly done. Because it was poorly done, it cannot be caused from lower oxygen levels.”
anononaut 3y ago
I've seen this brought up time and time again on fitness forums. I strongly contest the assertion that cheap food is unhealthy food. Beans, rice, veggies, unprocessed protein can be bought in bulk for very cheap and are massively more healthy to eat for every meal than a dollar burger. This is anecdotal, sure, but I'm only arguing against what you consider obvious.
- perrygeo 3y ago
  Beans rice veggies and protein can be cheap - but you need the skills, tools, a kitchen, a fridge, a freezer, and a couple free hours a day to travel to the store, shop, prep, cook and clean. If you live in poverty and need to rely on "cheap food", you probably don't have access to these things. People working 2 full time jobs in a food desert without a regularly stocked kitchen cannot do what you suggest.
  - heattemp99 3y ago
    You make America sound like a 3rd world country without a fridge or freezer. If you don't have a fridge or freezer you have such big problems going on, you'll probably not be obese because you can't even afford food and you'll be rationing like crazy.
    - birdyrooster 3y ago
      You’ve clearly never met people who live on 7/11 food
      - heattemp99 3y ago
        I buy gas and energy drinks every day almost. I see them. They are not 'poor'. If they ARE living paycheck to paycheck though, it's because they buy food at 7/11.
    - jfengel 3y ago
      It's less about the fridge than about the stove. Or rather, the time to spend in front of it. Healthy, inexpensive meals can take a lot of time to prepare. You could spend an hour making beans and rice, or you can take something labeled "Healthy!" out of the freezer and nuke it for two minutes. A lot of the poorest people don't have time or energy for that. Even people with more money often think of themselves as time-starved. It would be better for their health and well-being to get around that, but it's hard to compete with the messages of fast food marketing. That marketing is often deliberately misleading with false "healthy" claims, and the food itself is incredibly easy to eat. They are fine-tuned to appeal to people, in part by packing in a ton of calories and excluding anything else that would dilute the flavors. Combined with a ton of mixed messages and extraordinary amounts of wishful thinking, even people who should know better often don't put it into practice. And a lot of people genuinely don't have the time or energy to know better.
perrygeo 3y ago
Cheap food is high in sugar and refined carbs but also lots and lots of seed oil (most likely rancid) along with additives etc. We have the sugar/carb hypothesis of obesity. We have the seed oil hypothesis. We have various claims of additives causing metabolic problems. Por que no los tres? These aren't mutually exclusive, and they're all correlated with shitty industrial foods.

generalenvelope 3y ago

What are the qualifications of the author? Much of this content is contrary to content I'm familiar with written by those with Phds in nutrition science

heattemp99 3y ago
I live my life basically going against anything an average PhD in nutrition science would ever say. If the people you're familiar with are anything but the top 2% in their field, their advice is basically worthless if not a net negative.
- birdyrooster 3y ago
  How does one distinguish the top of a field in which 98% of practitioners are incorrect? Seems like we need a breakthrough of some sort.
  - heattemp99 3y ago
    IMO the top 2% know their stuff 10x better than someone at even the top 10% level. So imagine if you lined up 100 people with a PhD in nutrition. To the average person they seem like they know their stuff. But imo, the bottom ones are druggies, weirdos, and frauds. The middle are what you'd expect. The top 2 stand out clearly.
whatscooking 3y ago
Sigh, why do his qualifications matter… You should be asking if his argument is sound and backed by evidence instead. People with PhDs have been wrong many times in the past.
- generalenvelope 3y ago
  What makes you think a layman can assess whether the argument is sound and backed by evidence?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Lithium and fluoride: two deadly chemical by-products that were rehabilitated a few decades ago, so they could be force-fed to the general population. Yum!

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Fluorinated water reduced the rate of permanent dental damage among children by 25%. It's easy, cheap, and extremely effective.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I am skeptical that it is physically possible for water to be retained in a child's mouth long enough to make a difference. Might the 25% also have something to do with introduction of enhanced dental care, and encouraging frequent brushing of teeth with fluoridated toothpaste? You know, the stuff that leaves a significant residue, and is not completely wet and slippery? I'm also skeptical whether you realize that "fluorinated water" is rather impossible. Fluorine is a gas, and a highly reactive one. It will explode (oxidize) if you mix it with water, you know. So, for your 25% factoid, [citation needed]. http://envis.tropmet.res.in/ExtremEvents/Extreme%20Pollution%20Event-%20Global%20-%20All%20-%20Copy1.htm http://envis.tropmet.res.in/ExtremEvents/Extreme%20Pollution...

fnfjfk 3y ago

> things like “diet and exercise” are non-explanations what? CICO, period. You can’t beat thermodynamics. You can certainly separately explain why CI has gone up and/or CO has gone down, but the energy has to come from somewhere and go somewhere.

whatscooking 3y ago
Yep. Coming from someone who has lost a lot of weight and got into the best shape of my life using CICO, there is no other explanation. Of course food quality matters a lot because you won’t feel as hungry. I’d argue even exercise makes you less hungry as a whole. Of course there are probably chemicals in our environment that are making us fatter, but it's definitely not a silver bullet, maybe responsible for 10-20lbs of excess fat if even that.
maxk42 3y ago
Unfortunately you're not arguing for what you think you're arguing for. Food is not metabolized via combustion. However there is a way to measure the energy the human body gets from food and that's to measure the amount of ATP generated by the metabolism of a single molecule of the constituent parts of that food. And it turns out this doesn't track calories very closely at all. I'm fact, fat produces nearly 2x the ATP we would expect, except in the absence of oxaloacetic acid, in which case it produces a mere 16% of the expected value, implying that utilizing OOA for things like glycogen production can force your body to burn loads of fat for the same metabolic output, completely invalidating CICO.
- maxk42 3y ago
  And that doesn't even begin to account for how much mass we eat which is utilized structurally or excreted without being exhausted. CICO works for thermodynamics, not dieting.
  - maxk42 3y ago
    Or there's the layman's refutation of CICO: Poop burns.

cycomanic 3y ago

The lithium hypothesis doesn't really much scrutiny. I mean they include Canada, but exclude Norway because it's not a warm arid climate? Also how do they explain obesity in New Zealand (a country that they conveniently forgot when talking about high obesity countries), which had a single refinery which closed 2 years ago. Also if proximity to oil production would be a reason, maybe don't treat a place like Australia as a single entity. The oil producing places are largely (with the exception of Gipps basin) quite far away from where people live. If that is still close enough, than all of Europe should be affected by e.g. Norwegian oil production.

lock-the-spock 3y ago

Not to be a downer but this is not the first time there are rather unqualified opinions from this blog presented as factual/scientific writing. The starting point is a theory looking for evidence. This is the wrong way around.

generalenvelope 3y ago
Exactly. Two things: 1. The vast majority of people do not need to worry about nuances of nutrition. Most Americans (90%+) don't even meet physical activity guidelines, for which there is extremely strong evidence of far more significant benefits. 2. OP responded to another comment of mine that they actively go against what Phd nutritionists say. This was never a post about facts/science.