4 ms·

But what if genetics hasn't changed? I honestly don't know, and it certainly looks like the first world diet has gotten higher in calories and that people in th

by weeksie 12y ago

But what if genetics hasn't changed? I honestly don't know, and it certainly looks like the first world diet has gotten higher in calories and that people in the first world have gotten more sedentary—but, what if it's another factor? Epigenetics is a possibility but there are others as well. Another major difference is antibiotic intake. I don't know if humans consume enough antibiotics to affect their weight, but antibiotics are regularly administered to livestock primarily to fatten them up. We're just scratching the surface of the human biome and it's entirely possible that there's an answer in there. You might be right (and my intuition agrees with you) but I wouldn't be so certain of it. Life is incredibly complex.

jacques_chester 12y ago
Life is definitely complex, but most of the variables with some influence on weight are either unobservable or unchangeable. Luckily, you don't need to observe them or change them. You can ignore them and focus on what is observable -- appearance and weight -- and on what is controllable -- diet and exercise. It may well be that gut biomes, antibiotic usage, inflammation, corn syrup, global warming, diesel particulates, preservatives etc etc have an influence. But the forcing factor in the weight system is net caloric balance, which is also the easiest to control.
- weeksie 12y ago
  That may be, and on an individual level it makes sense to focus on diet and exercise. From a science and a policy point of view it makes a lot of sense to investigate what might be causing N% of the population to balloon in weight if they maintain their default diets and levels of activity. //edited to add Reason being that it might be possible to give someone a pill or a treatment that allows them to consume tons of calories and be sedentary without the health drawbacks related to obesity. From a policy point of view that would be a big win.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    The default diet has increased and default levels of activity have fallen. Put another way: the environment has changed. People have not. For any given gradient across the population of desire to eat tasty food and desire to not engage in physical activity, the environment is progressively affecting more and more of the population.
    - weeksie 12y ago
      I'm not sure you're responding to my post. I agree with regards to activity levels and caloric intake—but I'm saying it is worth investigating further. It reminds me a lot of the lead hypothesis in regards to crime. The simple model would state that more people in prison and harsher law enforcement causes crime to decrease. However, if the lead hypothesis is true, then we can stop wasting resources on crowded prisons and draconian law enforcement, instead focusing on getting lead out of the environment. Or, more realistically, do something in between those extremes and at a policy level be far more successful.
      - jacques_chester 12y ago
        > I agree with regards to activity levels and caloric intake—but I'm saying it is worth investigating further. Absolutely. Science is worthy for its own sake, it doesn't need an extrinsic policy motivation. As for falling crime, my understanding is that the criminologists are still arguing about that one. Especially since it seems to be a global phenomenon.
        weeksie 12y ago
        Check out the Mother Jones article by Kevin Drum. It's got quite a lot of references. The lead hypothesis is fascinating. The change in crime tracks lead levels internationally as well. While it is probably not the _only_ cause of the late 20th century crime wave, it's likely one of them, and might be a major one. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
- glenra 12y ago
  > But the forcing factor in the weight system is net caloric balance, which is also the easiest to control. Are you kidding? Almost nobody who diets to lose weight manages to keep it off for 3 years. In the very short term (say, up to 6 months) people can control their weight via diet/exercise changes, but in the long term they generally can't. If we figured out what was going on and it turned out to be any of those other sorts of factors it would almost certainly be MUCH EASIER to control weight using those other factors than via diet and exercise.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    This "most people don't keep it off" soundbite is usually based on studies of pathological cases in obesity clinics. Not the general population. I'm in the general population. I peaked at 139kg 4 years ago. I've been around 100kg for about 18 months now.

by weeksie 12y ago

jacques_chester 12y ago

Life is definitely complex, but most of the variables with some influence on weight are either unobservable or unchangeable. Luckily, you don't need to observe them or change them. You can ignore them and focus on what is observable -- appearance and weight -- and on what is controllable -- diet and exercise. It may well be that gut biomes, antibiotic usage, inflammation, corn syrup, global warming, diesel particulates, preservatives etc etc have an influence. But the forcing factor in the weight system is net caloric balance, which is also the easiest to control.

weeksie 12y ago
That may be, and on an individual level it makes sense to focus on diet and exercise. From a science and a policy point of view it makes a lot of sense to investigate what might be causing N% of the population to balloon in weight if they maintain their default diets and levels of activity. //edited to add Reason being that it might be possible to give someone a pill or a treatment that allows them to consume tons of calories and be sedentary without the health drawbacks related to obesity. From a policy point of view that would be a big win.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  The default diet has increased and default levels of activity have fallen. Put another way: the environment has changed. People have not. For any given gradient across the population of desire to eat tasty food and desire to not engage in physical activity, the environment is progressively affecting more and more of the population.
  - weeksie 12y ago
    I'm not sure you're responding to my post. I agree with regards to activity levels and caloric intake—but I'm saying it is worth investigating further. It reminds me a lot of the lead hypothesis in regards to crime. The simple model would state that more people in prison and harsher law enforcement causes crime to decrease. However, if the lead hypothesis is true, then we can stop wasting resources on crowded prisons and draconian law enforcement, instead focusing on getting lead out of the environment. Or, more realistically, do something in between those extremes and at a policy level be far more successful.
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      > I agree with regards to activity levels and caloric intake—but I'm saying it is worth investigating further. Absolutely. Science is worthy for its own sake, it doesn't need an extrinsic policy motivation. As for falling crime, my understanding is that the criminologists are still arguing about that one. Especially since it seems to be a global phenomenon.
      - weeksie 12y ago
        Check out the Mother Jones article by Kevin Drum. It's got quite a lot of references. The lead hypothesis is fascinating. The change in crime tracks lead levels internationally as well. While it is probably not the _only_ cause of the late 20th century crime wave, it's likely one of them, and might be a major one. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
glenra 12y ago
> But the forcing factor in the weight system is net caloric balance, which is also the easiest to control. Are you kidding? Almost nobody who diets to lose weight manages to keep it off for 3 years. In the very short term (say, up to 6 months) people can control their weight via diet/exercise changes, but in the long term they generally can't. If we figured out what was going on and it turned out to be any of those other sorts of factors it would almost certainly be MUCH EASIER to control weight using those other factors than via diet and exercise.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  This "most people don't keep it off" soundbite is usually based on studies of pathological cases in obesity clinics. Not the general population. I'm in the general population. I peaked at 139kg 4 years ago. I've been around 100kg for about 18 months now.