3 ms·

The quality of most of these comments makes me sad. I see snark, refusal to consider new hypothesis in light of previously held beliefs, and rejection of the id

by ericb 13y ago

The quality of most of these comments makes me sad. I see snark, refusal to consider new hypothesis in light of previously held beliefs, and rejection of the idea of entertaining other hypothesis (let's dismiss them as speculation). Here's a hint--coming up with new hypotheses is speculating. Then you test. As long as you don't hang your hat on the hypothesis as a new truth without testing it, speculating is great. Is there some subconscious need to make fat people's fatness a character flaw? I'm trying to understand the intransigence against considering what looks like a great area for research. I'm wondering if this is a case of cognitive dissonance. The reductionist calories in/calories out approach seems disingenuous to me. If large portions of the population began breathing 10% more over a long period, I wouldn't assume they were greedy-breathers, I'd look for a medical cause. This is an intriguing finding. Particularly that animals on controlled diets are gaining weight. (even if the control is simply what is available). Forgetting the reductionist view, hunger is a drive, and depends on a self-regulating system. If something is interrupting the equilibrium in animals, either type of food, type of calories, environment (not necessarily the global environment, it could be local, like room temperature or something else), or foreign agents, isn't that pretty interesting, especially if it is happening to animals on controlled diets with exceedingly similar environments?

rickdale 13y ago
Is there some subconscious need to make fat people's fatness a character flaw? As someone that was fat my whole life, then lost over 50bs to visual abs, I noticed that people aren't fat or skinny, they have fat or they don't. In other words rather than describing someone as fat, its more accurate to describe them as having a lot of fat.
jacques_chester 13y ago
The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are broadly two possibilities: 1. Some unknown phenomenon is defying everything we know about physics. Matter and energy are being created, apparently from nothing. Or perhaps transmutation is occurring without emitting lethal doses of gamma and X-ray radiation. 2. There has been uncontrolled variance due to faulty or incomplete record keeping, unobserved changes in activity, genetic drift affecting the appetite and activity of the population, changes in environment affecting the appetite and activity of the population (eg cage size change, lighting changes, temperature changes), unannounced changes in food supply composition (the food is a commercial product) etc etc et bloody cetera. In human subjects, when placed in controlled situations, weight loss or gain very closely aligns to the simplest model of calories in - calories out, modulo fluctuations in water weight and personal variations in digestion and activity. Furthermore, when zoomed out to a population level, BMI tracks calories consumed per capita very closely[1]. The increase in wealthy country population obesity reflects that food is cheaper, easier to get and more calorically dense that at any time in history[2]. Calories in/out is reductionist. But it's all you need to control weight. [1] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-still-matter.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-st... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828708 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828708
- ericb 13y ago
  > 1. Some unknown phenomenon is defying everything we know about physics. You have entirely missed the point if you are arguing about physics when discussing this. It is like stating tornadoes occur because the wind moves faster. When one has data a theory doesn't explain, you hypothesize, and re-test. That's science. Regardless of whether you have convenient correlations like your 1 and 2, you don't assume those correlations are causation and stop researching. What you don't do is dismiss the outlying data and call it a day.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    But that's the point: when people or animals are placed under controlled conditions specifically to measure changes in mass vs caloric balance, it all averages out as expected. The samples in this study come from a mix of uncontrolled wild populations living in contact with humans and from captive populations who were not subject to a long term control. In science you don't get to declare any old thing you like and then everyone else has to immediately agree to test it. Everyone else is free to propose other hypotheses that fit the facts and it is generally accepted that the simplest hypothesis consistent with the evidence is more likely to be correct. The concept of a viral or epigenetic effect on either the efficiency of digestion or the efficiency of metabolism is worth investigating. However it would require a complicated mechanism to explain how and why it happened simultaneously across a mix of populations. Another explanation, given that all these populations are in contact with the human food supply, is that the human food supply has changed to be more calorifically dense. And, of course, it may be some combination of the above. A simple way to examine the mystery would be to look at animal populations in other countries. If the wild animal populations of places where people are starving to death are becoming obese, there might be something to it.
    - ericb 13y ago
      > But that's the point: when people or animals are placed under controlled conditions specifically to measure changes in mass vs caloric balance, it all averages out as expected. No, that's not the point at all. Whether something is causing a greater appetite is the point.

by ericb 13y ago

rickdale 13y ago

Is there some subconscious need to make fat people's fatness a character flaw? As someone that was fat my whole life, then lost over 50bs to visual abs, I noticed that people aren't fat or skinny, they have fat or they don't. In other words rather than describing someone as fat, its more accurate to describe them as having a lot of fat.

jacques_chester 13y ago

The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are broadly two possibilities: 1. Some unknown phenomenon is defying everything we know about physics. Matter and energy are being created, apparently from nothing. Or perhaps transmutation is occurring without emitting lethal doses of gamma and X-ray radiation. 2. There has been uncontrolled variance due to faulty or incomplete record keeping, unobserved changes in activity, genetic drift affecting the appetite and activity of the population, changes in environment affecting the appetite and activity of the population (eg cage size change, lighting changes, temperature changes), unannounced changes in food supply composition (the food is a commercial product) etc etc et bloody cetera. In human subjects, when placed in controlled situations, weight loss or gain very closely aligns to the simplest model of calories in - calories out, modulo fluctuations in water weight and personal variations in digestion and activity. Furthermore, when zoomed out to a population level, BMI tracks calories consumed per capita very closely[1]. The increase in wealthy country population obesity reflects that food is cheaper, easier to get and more calorically dense that at any time in history[2]. Calories in/out is reductionist. But it's all you need to control weight. [1] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-still-matter.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-st... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828708 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828708

ericb 13y ago
> 1. Some unknown phenomenon is defying everything we know about physics. You have entirely missed the point if you are arguing about physics when discussing this. It is like stating tornadoes occur because the wind moves faster. When one has data a theory doesn't explain, you hypothesize, and re-test. That's science. Regardless of whether you have convenient correlations like your 1 and 2, you don't assume those correlations are causation and stop researching. What you don't do is dismiss the outlying data and call it a day.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  But that's the point: when people or animals are placed under controlled conditions specifically to measure changes in mass vs caloric balance, it all averages out as expected. The samples in this study come from a mix of uncontrolled wild populations living in contact with humans and from captive populations who were not subject to a long term control. In science you don't get to declare any old thing you like and then everyone else has to immediately agree to test it. Everyone else is free to propose other hypotheses that fit the facts and it is generally accepted that the simplest hypothesis consistent with the evidence is more likely to be correct. The concept of a viral or epigenetic effect on either the efficiency of digestion or the efficiency of metabolism is worth investigating. However it would require a complicated mechanism to explain how and why it happened simultaneously across a mix of populations. Another explanation, given that all these populations are in contact with the human food supply, is that the human food supply has changed to be more calorifically dense. And, of course, it may be some combination of the above. A simple way to examine the mystery would be to look at animal populations in other countries. If the wild animal populations of places where people are starving to death are becoming obese, there might be something to it.
  - ericb 13y ago
    > But that's the point: when people or animals are placed under controlled conditions specifically to measure changes in mass vs caloric balance, it all averages out as expected. No, that's not the point at all. Whether something is causing a greater appetite is the point.