5 ms·

Interesting article. One of the obvious problems in the typical discussion is that folks think of human bodies as mechanistic and identically so. I.e. we can

Interesting article. One of the obvious problems in the typical discussion is that folks think of human bodies as mechanistic and identically so. I.e. we can reduce obesity to calories in/out because all human bodies are effectively identical or can be assumed to be such. But we know that assumption is false (this happens with remarkable regularity in the sciences, that important theories that generally work are built on assumptions known to be false). People metabolize pharmaceuticals differently (google "cytochrome P450 defect", and try to convince me that such natural variation in metabolism of certain pharmaceuticals is a defect from any perspective other than big pharma's). Now, the assumption, even though it is false, is generally useful because we know also that exercise changes metabolism. In other words, the human body isn't even static and so the abstractions generally work to an extent even though we know they are wrong. I think this sort of thing is why Heisenberg argued at book length that data does not imply theory.

gooseus 12y ago
Indeed, even comments here present the (calories in) < (calories out) == (weight loss) simplification. Currently reading Antifragile by Taleb and it goes in to these fallacies at length (machine vs body and data vs theory).
- fredophile 12y ago
  Could you explain what's wrong with (calories in) < (calories out) == (weight loss)? This article doesn't refute this idea and specifically talks about it. This is just showing that some genetic mutations affect metabolism in ways that reduce (calories out) independent of activity level. This shouldn't be shocking. Metabolism varies across different people and across the same person over time.
  - gooseus 12y ago
    I wasn't really commenting on this article, so much as on the comment I was replying to. But, what's wrong is that it's an oversimplification of how the human body regulates fat levels. This oversimplification leads many to employ strategies of weight loss that revolve around simply measuring the calories they expend vs the calories they consume while ignoring the source of calories or other habits which affect hormone levels. I'm not an expert on nutrition, fitness, biology, genetics or medicine... so you are free to dismiss my assertions if you require such a qualification. Though, I do recommend reading some Nassim Nicolas Taleb, as he makes a much better case for what I'm discussing while also dismissing the idea that one needs to be an expert to recognize bullshit. Also, I personally think articles drawing conclusions from scientific studies shouldn't be published before the study is replicated... but of course, that would reduce the supply of articles for the ravenous pseudo-scientific commenter and we'd have to have more rigorous arguments on a smaller set of more rigorous information and people would run the risk of coming to all sorts of agreements and reducing click-through.
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    There are all kinds of cases where calories in < calories out which could result in weight gain. For example, if you already have an excess of body fat and you are building muscle quickly, remember muscle has 4kcal/g while fat has 9. If you are building muscle 1-2x breaking down fat, you will gain weight while losing fat, and expending more calories than what you are taking in. Again, it's an abstraction which mostly works but it is also clearly not entirely true.
    - fredophile 12y ago
      Obviously there are issues that can mask the weight loss from losing fat in the short term (water retention is a prime culprit here). However, in the long term (at least 8-12 weeks) the trend should be fairly obvious. The situation you described where someone is packing on 1-2 lbs of muscle for every lb of fat lost is very hard to achieve and generally only seen in beginners. Once the beginner gains are out of the way they'll see the same pattern as everyone else.
      - einhverfr 12y ago
        I am saying delta weight does not necessarily relate to delta fat. Delta fat contributes to delta weight but to say that other factors mask weight gain or loss makes me wonder if there is a fundamental confusion here...
        fredophile 12y ago
        I didn't say other factors mask weight loss. I said other factors mask weight loss from fat. Most of the time when someone says they want to lose weight they really mean they want to lose fat.
  - glenra 12y ago
    Your body contains a feedback mechanism that is extraordinarily good at fine-tuning how much you WANT to eat and WANT to move in order to maintain its desired weight. You can fool this system in the short term, but most people can't fool it in the long run - it will correct - and likely overcorrect - any imbalance you try to impose. So the problem with the equation is that it strongly suggests that (calories in) and (calories out) are variables that are independent of one another and freely changeable by you, which they are not. But if you still question this, let's consider an EVEN SIMPLER equation that governs your weight: we'll ignore calories and instead focus on MASS! Here's the equation: (mass in) < (mass out) == (mass loss) So if you want to lose mass, all you have to do is breathe out more than you breathe in and poop/pee more than you eat/drink. This is clearly literally true - if you lose mass you must have done that! (Okay, I'm simplifying a little - there's also dandruff, perspiration, hair and nail trimming and absorbing water through the skin - but those factors are probably small enough to safely ignore.) So go out and use my simple equation to lose mass! But wait, you say that you can't MAKE your body exhale more mass than it inhales or excrete more mass than you consume on a consistent basis? Well, maybe you're just not trying hard enough. Exercise more willpower! :-) Both equations are true, yet both are useless.
- aaxe 12y ago
  Taleb is a smart man, but considering he thinks carbs are "bad" for you, it's a classical case of someone who thinks being a master in one domain makes him a master in another completely-unrelated domain. His nutritional theories are asinine.
jacques_chester 12y ago
You're conflating calories-in/calories-out according to food labels and tabulated exercise studies with actual calories-in/calories-out, which is the simple physics which all the complex biological mechanisms eventually boil down to. The food labels are averages, adjusted based on other averages. The exercise tables are averages, based on small studies. Any figure you come up with is an estimate, and unsurprisingly, they won't always work for outliers. But for any given individual, on any given day, there is a net caloric balance. It will be different someone else's, given the same conditions. But there is still a net caloric balance. "Individuals have varying responses to the environment" is not the same as "aha! physics is wrong".
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Caloric equilibrium in the physical sense is a tautology that provides no enlightenment to the long-term obesity solution.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    And I suppose, since you've read Taubes, you believe it's all due to carbs.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      No, I haven't read Taubes, I just have (and have had) friends across the entire spectrum of weight, height, fitness, etc. Some people can eat anything they want (including massive amounts of soda) and maintain a visible six pack with minimal exercise. Others in the same age range may have similar or better diets and struggle just to stay below 250lbs. That alone suggests there's more to obesity than caloric willpower.
      - jacques_chester 12y ago
        Typically, when controlled studies are done on this, "naturally skinny" people systematically over-estimate their dietary calories and "naturally fat" people systematically under-estimate. Under controlled conditions there is variation, but it is actually pretty modest. And it can be swamped by a habit of buying one Starbucks sugarcreamacino per day.
SixSigma 12y ago
90% of everyone sampled were within 300kcals of the average metabolic rate http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people.html http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...
- einhverfr 12y ago
  But you are still assuming that the metabolism is effectively qualitatively identical. I.e, that the only thing changing is the quantity of calories burned rather than how the excess calories are used. Part of what makes this research fascinating is that it raises doubt about that, which isn't really surprising given what we know about Cytochrome P450 variance and pharmaceutical metabolism. Some people, for example, do not find vicodin effective because the pro-drug is metabolized much slower than the active metabolites....
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    Ah, that does make a difference. Still, weight gain is still a function of calories in > calories out
    - einhverfr 12y ago
      Assuming that: 1. All excess calories end up as fat, and 2. All weight gain is fat Then it is a function generally. However, if that is not the case, then you have many possible outputs for any given input, and that's not a function. For a forum where functional programming is frequently discussed, I think it is worth using the term "function of" in the strict sense.
      - SixSigma 12y ago
        Agreed. I was too lazy to correct by misuse of "function", hoping you would understand me.

gooseus 12y ago

Indeed, even comments here present the (calories in) < (calories out) == (weight loss) simplification. Currently reading Antifragile by Taleb and it goes in to these fallacies at length (machine vs body and data vs theory).

fredophile 12y ago
Could you explain what's wrong with (calories in) < (calories out) == (weight loss)? This article doesn't refute this idea and specifically talks about it. This is just showing that some genetic mutations affect metabolism in ways that reduce (calories out) independent of activity level. This shouldn't be shocking. Metabolism varies across different people and across the same person over time.
- gooseus 12y ago
  I wasn't really commenting on this article, so much as on the comment I was replying to. But, what's wrong is that it's an oversimplification of how the human body regulates fat levels. This oversimplification leads many to employ strategies of weight loss that revolve around simply measuring the calories they expend vs the calories they consume while ignoring the source of calories or other habits which affect hormone levels. I'm not an expert on nutrition, fitness, biology, genetics or medicine... so you are free to dismiss my assertions if you require such a qualification. Though, I do recommend reading some Nassim Nicolas Taleb, as he makes a much better case for what I'm discussing while also dismissing the idea that one needs to be an expert to recognize bullshit. Also, I personally think articles drawing conclusions from scientific studies shouldn't be published before the study is replicated... but of course, that would reduce the supply of articles for the ravenous pseudo-scientific commenter and we'd have to have more rigorous arguments on a smaller set of more rigorous information and people would run the risk of coming to all sorts of agreements and reducing click-through.
- einhverfr 12y ago
  There are all kinds of cases where calories in < calories out which could result in weight gain. For example, if you already have an excess of body fat and you are building muscle quickly, remember muscle has 4kcal/g while fat has 9. If you are building muscle 1-2x breaking down fat, you will gain weight while losing fat, and expending more calories than what you are taking in. Again, it's an abstraction which mostly works but it is also clearly not entirely true.
  - fredophile 12y ago
    Obviously there are issues that can mask the weight loss from losing fat in the short term (water retention is a prime culprit here). However, in the long term (at least 8-12 weeks) the trend should be fairly obvious. The situation you described where someone is packing on 1-2 lbs of muscle for every lb of fat lost is very hard to achieve and generally only seen in beginners. Once the beginner gains are out of the way they'll see the same pattern as everyone else.
    - einhverfr 12y ago
      I am saying delta weight does not necessarily relate to delta fat. Delta fat contributes to delta weight but to say that other factors mask weight gain or loss makes me wonder if there is a fundamental confusion here...
      - fredophile 12y ago
        I didn't say other factors mask weight loss. I said other factors mask weight loss from fat. Most of the time when someone says they want to lose weight they really mean they want to lose fat.
- glenra 12y ago
  Your body contains a feedback mechanism that is extraordinarily good at fine-tuning how much you WANT to eat and WANT to move in order to maintain its desired weight. You can fool this system in the short term, but most people can't fool it in the long run - it will correct - and likely overcorrect - any imbalance you try to impose. So the problem with the equation is that it strongly suggests that (calories in) and (calories out) are variables that are independent of one another and freely changeable by you, which they are not. But if you still question this, let's consider an EVEN SIMPLER equation that governs your weight: we'll ignore calories and instead focus on MASS! Here's the equation: (mass in) < (mass out) == (mass loss) So if you want to lose mass, all you have to do is breathe out more than you breathe in and poop/pee more than you eat/drink. This is clearly literally true - if you lose mass you must have done that! (Okay, I'm simplifying a little - there's also dandruff, perspiration, hair and nail trimming and absorbing water through the skin - but those factors are probably small enough to safely ignore.) So go out and use my simple equation to lose mass! But wait, you say that you can't MAKE your body exhale more mass than it inhales or excrete more mass than you consume on a consistent basis? Well, maybe you're just not trying hard enough. Exercise more willpower! :-) Both equations are true, yet both are useless.
aaxe 12y ago
Taleb is a smart man, but considering he thinks carbs are "bad" for you, it's a classical case of someone who thinks being a master in one domain makes him a master in another completely-unrelated domain. His nutritional theories are asinine.

jacques_chester 12y ago

You're conflating calories-in/calories-out according to food labels and tabulated exercise studies with actual calories-in/calories-out, which is the simple physics which all the complex biological mechanisms eventually boil down to. The food labels are averages, adjusted based on other averages. The exercise tables are averages, based on small studies. Any figure you come up with is an estimate, and unsurprisingly, they won't always work for outliers. But for any given individual, on any given day, there is a net caloric balance. It will be different someone else's, given the same conditions. But there is still a net caloric balance. "Individuals have varying responses to the environment" is not the same as "aha! physics is wrong".

nitrogen 12y ago
Caloric equilibrium in the physical sense is a tautology that provides no enlightenment to the long-term obesity solution.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  And I suppose, since you've read Taubes, you believe it's all due to carbs.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    No, I haven't read Taubes, I just have (and have had) friends across the entire spectrum of weight, height, fitness, etc. Some people can eat anything they want (including massive amounts of soda) and maintain a visible six pack with minimal exercise. Others in the same age range may have similar or better diets and struggle just to stay below 250lbs. That alone suggests there's more to obesity than caloric willpower.
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      Typically, when controlled studies are done on this, "naturally skinny" people systematically over-estimate their dietary calories and "naturally fat" people systematically under-estimate. Under controlled conditions there is variation, but it is actually pretty modest. And it can be swamped by a habit of buying one Starbucks sugarcreamacino per day.

SixSigma 12y ago

90% of everyone sampled were within 300kcals of the average metabolic rate http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people.html http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...

einhverfr 12y ago
But you are still assuming that the metabolism is effectively qualitatively identical. I.e, that the only thing changing is the quantity of calories burned rather than how the excess calories are used. Part of what makes this research fascinating is that it raises doubt about that, which isn't really surprising given what we know about Cytochrome P450 variance and pharmaceutical metabolism. Some people, for example, do not find vicodin effective because the pro-drug is metabolized much slower than the active metabolites....
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Ah, that does make a difference. Still, weight gain is still a function of calories in > calories out
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    Assuming that: 1. All excess calories end up as fat, and 2. All weight gain is fat Then it is a function generally. However, if that is not the case, then you have many possible outputs for any given input, and that's not a function. For a forum where functional programming is frequently discussed, I think it is worth using the term "function of" in the strict sense.
    - SixSigma 12y ago
      Agreed. I was too lazy to correct by misuse of "function", hoping you would understand me.