3 ms·

There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it

by sph 3y ago

There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it's not a conspiracy theory to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place. "We're eating too much" does not explain it either, and you just need to have read a couple papers after 1995 to see this is exactly where mainstream science is going. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not scientific rebuttal. Again, there is no discussion to be had where there's dogma, and painting everything with the same brush, and certainly not on a forum comment.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place I don't really know about keto, but the problem as widely understood with obesity is calories, not just calories from fat. And the easiest way to onboard calories without realising is to snack on sugary food and drinks. Also, your point relies on the idea that the population is doing low-fat dieting. They may not be in the first place. The only sensible diet I know of is the No S diet[0], which is so simple (and free) that it fits into the hover title of its web page. [0] https://www.nosdiet.com https://www.nosdiet.com
- sph 3y ago
  I have banged on why calories doesn't explain the full picture probably a dozen times on this site, and I'm not sure I want to go into that any more. Yes, "thermodynamics". But we are not a simple furnace (which is by the way the very thing used to calculate the calories in food. A furnace). We are a complex machine with thousands of chemical pathways, feedback loops, some more efficient than others. You do not eat pure energy, you eat organic matter that is chemically turned into multiple forms of energy. Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out)
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out) I doubt that's true. The availability of Mars Bars and magic food diets (Fat is bad! No, now carbs are bad!) are more likely culprits. People don't fail to lose weight if they count calories. People fail to stick to their diets if they count calories, because it's a joyless activity; biology divorced from psychology.
    - sph 3y ago
      The Mars Bar is available and says "can be part of a healthy diet" BECAUSE of the calorie bullshit. People see "it's only 250 calories" and "it's less fat than cheese" and happily chomp on them, while demonising red meat or saturated fat.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        I genuinely don't see a logic chain of reasoning from you. 250 calories is massive. If someone were worried about calories they wouldn't be eating something that's over 10% of their daily allowance. The "it's less fat than cheese" isn't a calorie thing. You seem to be mixing things up.
    - htss2013 3y ago
      I used to think it was as simple as calories in/out, until I learned that certain fibers (and their calories) and totally non absorbable by the body, so their calorie content doesn't matter...among other things that don't follow the in/out rule.
- guerby 3y ago
  The often forgotten assumption of the "calories out minus calories in is all we need to look at" is that the metabolic rate is independant of the kind of food we ingest. There is also food => inflammation change => body water gain/loss.
UncleMeat 3y ago
> There are quacks in particle physics as well. Not nearly as many, unless you consider "unpublished people posting videos on youtube" to be "in particle physics." There is a meaningful difference between scientific communities that are centered in universities and wellness communities that are happy to include every influencer with enough followers on tiktok.

by sph 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

> to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place I don't really know about keto, but the problem as widely understood with obesity is calories, not just calories from fat. And the easiest way to onboard calories without realising is to snack on sugary food and drinks. Also, your point relies on the idea that the population is doing low-fat dieting. They may not be in the first place. The only sensible diet I know of is the No S diet[0], which is so simple (and free) that it fits into the hover title of its web page. [0] https://www.nosdiet.com https://www.nosdiet.com

sph 3y ago
I have banged on why calories doesn't explain the full picture probably a dozen times on this site, and I'm not sure I want to go into that any more. Yes, "thermodynamics". But we are not a simple furnace (which is by the way the very thing used to calculate the calories in food. A furnace). We are a complex machine with thousands of chemical pathways, feedback loops, some more efficient than others. You do not eat pure energy, you eat organic matter that is chemically turned into multiple forms of energy. Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out) I doubt that's true. The availability of Mars Bars and magic food diets (Fat is bad! No, now carbs are bad!) are more likely culprits. People don't fail to lose weight if they count calories. People fail to stick to their diets if they count calories, because it's a joyless activity; biology divorced from psychology.
  - sph 3y ago
    The Mars Bar is available and says "can be part of a healthy diet" BECAUSE of the calorie bullshit. People see "it's only 250 calories" and "it's less fat than cheese" and happily chomp on them, while demonising red meat or saturated fat.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I genuinely don't see a logic chain of reasoning from you. 250 calories is massive. If someone were worried about calories they wouldn't be eating something that's over 10% of their daily allowance. The "it's less fat than cheese" isn't a calorie thing. You seem to be mixing things up.
  - htss2013 3y ago
    I used to think it was as simple as calories in/out, until I learned that certain fibers (and their calories) and totally non absorbable by the body, so their calorie content doesn't matter...among other things that don't follow the in/out rule.
guerby 3y ago
The often forgotten assumption of the "calories out minus calories in is all we need to look at" is that the metabolic rate is independant of the kind of food we ingest. There is also food => inflammation change => body water gain/loss.

UncleMeat 3y ago

> There are quacks in particle physics as well. Not nearly as many, unless you consider "unpublished people posting videos on youtube" to be "in particle physics." There is a meaningful difference between scientific communities that are centered in universities and wellness communities that are happy to include every influencer with enough followers on tiktok.