More and more, the evidence on diet is showing just how effective your appetite is at putting your weight where your body wants it to be. From Tyler Cowen comes this on a new paper:
Matsa and Anderson next looked at data on individual eating habits from a survey conducted between 1994 and 1996. When eating out, people reported consuming about 35 percent more calories on average than when they ate at home. But importantly, respondents reduced their caloric intake at home on days they ate out (that's not to say that people were watching their weight, since respondents who reported consuming more at home also tended to eat more when going out). Overall, eating out increased daily caloric intake by only 24 calories.
Appetite is an evolutionarily wired signal on par with pain; urging obese people to just eat less is like urging someone to tough out root canal surgery without anaesthesia. Every day.
I am pretty convinced by Seth Roberts' theory that the hyperpalatability of modern processed food is kicking up everyone's set point. (Well . . . almost everyone). But another of the paper's findings, that closeness to fast food doesn't seem to make you fatter, does seem to cast a little doubt on this.
It certainly casts doubt on the effectiveness of labelling, or a "fat tax". I'm not against putting calorie counts on fast food; I just don't think it will do any good. Peoples' calorie consumption is dictated by their appetite. Which makes sense, if you think about it; it only takes a swing of ten calories a day (about five tic-tacs) to gain or lose a pound over the course of a year. If our appetites weren't doing a surprisingly good job of regulating our weight, we'd all be bone thin or morbidly obese.
"I am pretty convinced by Seth Roberts' theory that the hyperpalatability of modern processed food is kicking up everyone's set point. (Well . . . almost everyone). But another of the paper's findings, that closeness to fast food doesn't seem to make you fatter, does seem to cast a little doubt on this."
Eh. I'm more inclined to point to increasingly sedentary lifestyles, the dual wage earner household, and easy access to cheap, calorie dense food. Most of the food being eaten at home these days is as processed as the food in restaurants, and ignorance about portion sizes has made meals, but more so, snacks and drinks, into calorie bombs. Since an obesity epidemic is infinitely preferable to famine, I'm not inclined to lose much sleep over it. We'll make an adjustment over time. Or invent a pill.
Peoples' calorie consumption is dictated by their appetite.
If the incidence of fatness and obesity has been increasing over time, the causes of those conditions are obviously much more complex than simply appetite. The price and availability of food, and the amount of physical exercise people get, also seem to be important factors, perhaps much more important than appetite.
In general, I take a dim view of attempts to excuse or explain away fatness and obesity by appealing to genes and other things that people have no control over. In the end, most fat people are fat because of the choices they make about their diet and physical activity, not because they are destined to be fat by forces beyond their control. I realize it may be significantly harder to make the choices that keep you thin in an environment that encourages poor diet and exercise behaviors, but it's still ultimately a matter of personal responsibility.
"In general, I take a dim view of attempts to excuse or explain away fatness and obesity by appealing to genes and other things that people have no control over."
Thank God we have a medicine that threw over the "dim view" paradigm and went for empiricism.
I disagree that people's appetite dictates the consumption because we eat so many calories our bodies don't know what to do with. Maybe in another generation or two we'll adapt to high fructose corn syrup and processed corn pastries.
But I'm pretty certain many folks overeat because they're lacking important nutrients and overloading on things the body doesn't know what to do with.
Appetite is an evolutionarily wired signal on par with pain.
But set points and appetite are adjustable to an extent. Here are two things that will adjust them:
- Periods of starvation adjust the set-point upward. If you live in an environment where famines occur, your body raises its set-point for safety. Restricted calorie diets mimic famine.
- Exercise adjusts the set-point downward. Not because you're burning more calories (you could easily eat enough -- and more -- to make up for that), but because if you live in an environment where physical exertion is necessary, you can't afford to carry around the extra weight.
So, get lots of exercise and avoid restricted calorie diets.
Thank God we have a medicine that threw over the "dim view" paradigm and went for empiricism.
Let me know when "empiricism" has demonstrated that people have no choice about their diet and exercise behavior.
Mixner: I don't know what the answer is but I think it is bad science to decide what the answer is ahead of time because it fits your moral perspective. I understand the slippery slope of it all--if we let fat people off the hook what's next? Serial killers.
You seem to be making the claim that appetite is an exogenous factor that is beyond one's control. However, from personal experience, I disagree. I've noticed that during periods of time in which I am active, my appetite is supressed. It's as if my body becomes more efficient at using the calories I take in. The periods I'm speaking of are measured in several weeks, not hours.
In addition, appetite is a function of body weight. Your appetite is designed to maintain your current weight. Thus, my appetite would be larger if I were 200 lbs than if I were 170. It takes more calories to maintain a 200 lb body because it burns more. Losing weight entails being a little hungry just as gaining weight entails eating when not hungry.
Lastly, just because one has a physical desire (hunger, in this case) doesn't mean one has to succumb to it. Nor does it mean that it is in the individual's (or even species') best interests to submit to the desire. If that were the case, I'd have been slapped in the face by thousands of women, if not arrested, for attempting to satisfy other physical desires!
Mixner: I don't know what the answer is but I think it is bad science to decide what the answer is ahead of time because it fits your moral perspective.
"I decided what the answer is ahead of time because it fits my moral perspective" is certainly a novel interpretation of the phrase "I take a dim view."
Slocum:
- Periods of starvation adjust the set-point upward. If you live in an environment where famines occur, your body raises its set-point for safety. Restricted calorie diets mimic famine.
- Exercise adjusts the set-point downward. Not because you're burning more calories (you could easily eat enough -- and more -- to make up for that), but because if you live in an environment where physical exertion is necessary, you can't afford to carry around the extra weight.
If you're right, this is one of the strongest explanations for an increase in obesity rates--dieting, a form of artificial starvation, increases set points. There's a lot more evidence for this than for most things in nutritional "science".
Hmmm... A modest proposal to increase the incentive for appetite control.
Considering the latest research on "The Economic Impact Of Obesity On Automobile Fuel Consumption perhaps drivers should be requierd to buy gasoline using a debit or credit card that automatically adds a extra tax based on Body Mass Index.
Maybe compounding the desire to be lean and sexy times the desires to stop global warming and defund arab terrorists will be enough to motivate one to put down that box of Oreos and get off to the gym instead.
More seriously, perhaps, it's all very well to talk about the uncontrollable genetic drive behind appetite, but the fact is that the US population has gotten measurably fatter during the last generation, during which time it is very doubtful that the genetic code has much shifted to account for it. That leaves change in behavior as the explanation. "My genetic code made me do it" doesn't seem to cut it as an excuse on a societal basis.
Mixner: You said "In the end, most fat people are fat because of the choices they make about their diet and physical activity, not because they are destined to be fat by forces beyond their control." You said this in response to a post by Megan suggesting otherwise. Megan provided some studies (that I admit it is pretty hard to pull her conclusions out of). You just said "Nope" and provided a moral position--people are personally responsible for their obesity. Note you didn't say we as a culture should hold people accountable for their obesity notwithstanding what science says on the subject. If that is what you meant, I apologize for misreading you.
Jim Glass: You say "change in behavior" but I think "change in environment" would be a better way to put it. People will lose weight if you change their environment--stick them on "Survivor". In my humble experience, people seem to have a harder time changing their behavior if you leave their environment the same.
Mixner: You said "In the end, most fat people are fat because of the choices they make about their diet and physical activity, not because they are destined to be fat by forces beyond their control." You said this in response to a post by Megan suggesting otherwise. Megan provided some studies (that I admit it is pretty hard to pull her conclusions out of). You just said "Nope" and provided a moral position
Huh?
If you read the article she links to, you find
Sounds scientific to me.
Regular exercise is the major key to weight control. This should be obvious to pretty much everyone, but seems to be met with surprise and/or disbelief by far too many people.
What you choose to eat and how much is the next major variable.
Either of these are within the control of most human beings with a normal intelligence.
Let me know when "empiricism" has demonstrated that people have no choice about their diet and exercise behavior.
While it is true to an extent that people make choices about their diet and exercise, hunger is a powerful motivating mechanism and its operations are not the same in all people. When the body is sending signals of "eat...NOW", it can be just as hard to abstain as to continue holding onto a coffee cup that was slightly hotter than expected, even though it may be temporarily healthier to life and property to do both for some period of time.
Note that this isn't an argument to excuse gluttony. However, it does becomes easier to understand what the above means when you get into your late 20s, and find that your body is mysteriously losing the ability to metabolize even modest quantities of crap without consequence -- even though it still likes the taste of those things.
So why are all the summer associates at this law firm getting so fat on those big lunches?
This is something I recall about fat people starving I read a few months back:
also:
And for those who sneer that it's just a question of 'willpower' or 'gumption':
I'm rather thin, btw, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. Also - surprise just about everyone living on both sides of my family are thin (supporting the genetic argument), even though some of them are in their 60's, eat like pigs, and never exercise.
I was born and now live in Los Angeles. As a kid in the late 60's however, I lived in rural Texas on my grandparents' farm. At age 8, the summer between 2nd and 3rd grade, I "joined the workforce", and began helping my grandfather with the farm chores. This entailed an entirely new schedule (up at 4:30am) and entirely new diet for me. I would eat three eggs, bacon, juice, milk, hot chocolate and cinnamon rolls everyday for breakfast at 5:00am. That was followed by seven hours of chores (in summer). Then came noon "dinner": steak, BBQ, fried chicken, fried catfish, chicken fried steak or some other delicacy with mashed potatoes and gravy, rolls, fried okra, tomato salad, etc., every day. Five more hours of work, then "supper" at 6:00pm, generally a cheeseburger or tacos or tamales. All in all, every day, I would consume about 4,500-5,000 calories, but do 12 hours of hard physical work. I was a normal, skinny kid. When we moved back to California, I almost immediately gained about 35 pounds, and became a fat kid, because I didn't adjust my diet to the change in my physical activity. I learned over the course of adolescence to match my food intake with my physical activity and my weight eventually came back down.
Today, I'm a chef in Los Angeles, and I again eat about 4,000-4,500 calories a day, mostly because I'm tasting things all the time (he says as he polishes off a "snack" of bittersweet chocoloate flan). To maintain a normal weight, I have to exercise at least two hours every day on top of the physical activity I undertake cooking 8-10 hours a day.
I think an enormous part of the obesity "epidemic" is just a slow adjustment to the change in our economy from Agrarian/Industrial to Service-based. It seems scary "up close" in temporal terms, but we'll eventually adjust over a longer period of time. In the meantime, there's really no deeper meaning or genetic explanation, and as my grandfather always said, there's no reason to punch the panic button.
So why are all the summer associates at this law firm getting so fat on those big lunches?
I lost 15 lbs during my one big-firm summer. Portion control and exercise, folks.
i agree with stc1. I love to run, but once I was sidelined for a month because of an injury that left me scarcely able to walk, I was astonished at how much weight I gained, even though I ate less. It didn't help that not being able to exercise left me sleeping more poorly, either.
I have no idea how anyone lives without lots of exercise.
Another interesting quote...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE6DB113CF930A15752C0A960948260
I don't doubt that genetics plays a big part. I am curious though - if genetics plays a super-majority role in obesity, how is the dramatic increase in obesity rates in recent decades explained?
Is this...wait...no...can this be...anecdotal evidence??
;) Couldn't resist.
TakeFlight,
Sounds scientific to me.
Me too. I'm not sure why you seem to think it conflicts with anything I have written here.
Haven't there been numerous studies that demonstrate that the sedintary lifestyle of so many Americans is directly correlated with increased obesity? I believe so. And isn't a sedintary lifestyle a choice? So obesity is a lifestyle choice. Eating a lot may have a genetic component, but never moving besides getting from your car to the freezer to the microwave with your hotpocket isn't genetic.
SOV,
And for those who sneer that it's just a question of 'willpower' or 'gumption':
I haven't seen anyone sneer that it's "just" a question of willpower. As I said in my first post, environment and other factors obviously influence how easy or difficult it is to make responsible choices about diet and exercise. But the idea that fat people have little or no reasonable choice about their condition, that they are fat because of an overwhelming urge to eat, or an overwhelming urge to avoid physical activity, that they cannot reasonably be expected to resist, just isn't remotely plausible. There's no evidence that genes regulating appetite, "set points," the desire to engage in physical activity, etc., have changed significantly in the U.S. population in the past few decades, and yet the rate of obesity has increased substantially over that period. The key is behavior, not genes.
Mixner: Genes haven't changed. Environment has changed. I honestly don't have a practical opinion on what "choice" fat people might have to change their condition (without going off on some pointless philosophical tangent about free will and determinism) but I am bothered by your unsubstantiated certainty: "the idea that fat people have little or no reasonable choice about their condition, that they are fat because of an overwhelming urge to eat, or an overwhelming urge to avoid physical activity, that they cannot reasonably be expected to resist, just isn't remotely plausible." Why is this not plausible? Where is your data? It seems as plausible to me that some genetic characteristic might be related to certain people becoming fat during a long period of energy surplus as it is that some genetic characteristic might be related to certain people starving (or surviving) during a long period of energy defecit.
One food that is associated with obesity is soda, and by extension those "juices" that are 2% juice and 98% sweetened water. They are loaded with calories, but do not reduce the amount of other calories a person consumes. One soda a day is an extra 200 calories per day, which would cause most people to gain weight.
There is also increasing evidence that artificial sweeteners interfere with the bodies ability to estimate caloric intake as well, possibly increasing caloric intake.
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2004/040629.Swithers.research.html
Why is this not plausible?
Because eating and exercising are undeniably activities over which human beings have conscious control. The hypothesis that environmental conditions have changed so dramatically since, say, the 1970s that tens of millions of Americans who were formerly able to resist the urge to behave in ways that made them fat or obese are now no longer able to do so, and therefore have no real choice about being fat, is implausible for that reason. Again, I don't deny that environment is a significant influence on dietary and exercise behavior. If you're surrounded by cheap and plentiful high-calorie food, you're probably going to eat more of it than if you're not. If you own a car, you're probably going to get less exercise than if you don't. But what evidence do you have that the influence of environment is so powerful, so overwhelming, so irresistable, that it effectively eliminates the ability of fat people to maintain a normal weight?
Putting certain species of microbes from fat mice into thin mice made the thin mice fat. In line with this, not all instances of "it runs in my family" should automatically be assumed to be genetic.
Also, Vitamin D metabolites suppress the production of human growth hormone, which would slow metabolism. I wonder how much increase in obesity could be linked to increasing Vit. D content of foods.
I'm not saying that these are primary reasons that people gain weight. Sedentary lifestyles and access to food are probably more important. But they may be contributing factors.
Mixner,
Me too. I'm not sure why you seem to think it conflicts with anything I have written here.
I don't. I was disagreeing with themightypuck's characterization of your post as simply a "moral perspective".
Mixner: I need no evidence because I am making no claims. You are the one making the claims. You state first that "eating and exercising are undeniably activities over which human beings have conscious control." This is like your "isn't remotely plausible" argument all over again. Undeniable is a great lawyer word but means nothing to me. I'd rather hear some facts. I can't say what environmental factors have changed since the 70's but it is conceivable some have. It isn't any less plausible than there was some sudden loss of will in the culture that caused the "obesity epidemic." I'd prefer to draw no conclusions until someone provides some evidence. I know when I was a kid in the 70s I walked to school and played outside and people had jobs that involved manual labor but I have no idea whether my experience has any broad statistical meaning.
p.s. For anyone questioning the Vit D - hGH link, it's important to be careful about distinguishing between calcium induced effects and Vit. D induced effects since the literature so often blurs them together. Negative effects of Vit. D could easily be masked by increased calcium intake.
We have also noted that increasing dietary calcium of obese patients for 1 year resulted in a 4.9 kg loss of body fat (P
TakeFlight: I suppose then that my response is Huh? How does your response relate to my post? Are you suggesting that the cited studies prove out Mixner's position?
In any case I'm kinda at this point in this fight so I'm gonna pack it in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4hrP4Y_8UM
This makes a bit of a mistake. Calorie expenditure increases with weight, so you eventually equilibriate in most cases; if you engage in the same activity patterns as before with 5 extra pounds of weight on you, you're going to spend more calories doing it. If your calorie consumption is high enough that the extra weight necessary to balance it out with the same activity pattern would significantly decrease your mobility, the feedback can become positive rather than negative, but this normally requires a pretty ridiculous number of calories or some metabolic issue.
TakeFlight: I suppose then that my response is Huh? How does your response relate to my post? Are you suggesting that the cited studies prove out Mixner's position?
Well, "prove" would be too strong a word, IMHO. BUT...the cite I posted suggested that cheaper food & more sedentary lifestyles - two factors that are very much non-hereditary, and the same two that Mixner happened to say "...choices they make about their diet and physical activity..." - have a lot to do with obesity. My objection was simply that (it sounded like) you were just dismissing these as bunk that just "fits your moral perspective."
Have I misunderstood everyone?
A modest proposal to increase the incentive for appetite control: Considering the latest research on "The Economic Impact Of Obesity On Automobile Fuel Consumption" perhaps drivers should be requierd to buy gasoline using a debit or credit card that automatically adds an extra tax based on Body Mass Index..."
This proposal now has been formalized and the IP rights reserved.
TakeFlight: I guess we see things differently. My problem with Mixner was not that he was right or wrong but rather that he (and I'm saying he again--I do not know Mixner's gender so apologies if I'm stuck in habit of using he as a generic term) seemed to be basing his conclusions on what seemed to me a moral position--people are responsible for their fatness--notwithstanding what the science said. My take on Megan's bit was that she saw things the other way. Mixner "took a dim view" of such studies without either citing the proffered studies to show what he didn't like and without citing any other evidence. That's all I'm saying. It also seems to me that people have some weird notion that genes are destiny without taking environment into effect. Again, I'm no biologist much less a geneticist, but from my limited understanding, gene expression is deeply related to environment. To say there is a gene that makes people fat (to oversimply for argument) isn't to say there is a gene that makes people fat all the time (that's the opposite of what most adaptionist explanations would say). I think a geneticist would say a complex interaction of various genes and environmental factors predisposes certain people to obesity. Then again, I'm no geneticist so w/e.
Ok, lots of trafficking in very debunkable deductive myths - typically polarized between the Responsibility vs Fate schools of thought. Both are more mythic than true, and really say more about those who espouse them than those they want to apply them to.
The real fact is that there are all sorts of competing orthodoxies that are induced from average data and made to fit into certain deductive templates. The problem is that many aspects of these don't work anywhere near universally on an individual basis.
For example, I weigh 3X my ostensibly normal body weight (but my body fat % is 20 pts below my BMI). I swim nonstop 3K a day, 6-7 days a week, do resistance training, walk miles a week, et cet (about 3 hrs of exercise each day). And I keep my caloric intake to about what I should eat for my *normal* weight with moderate exercise. And my endocrinological labwork is impressively healthy on all scores - endocrinologists say I am very healthy. So they admit they don't know exactly how I would lose weight despite all this effort.
I am very sick and tired of people who think they know one sure way to resolve what are obviously very individual situations.
So my demand of others is: stop thinking you know what is best for any other person. It's a morally violent and evil thing to do for someone else (if you're Catholic, go confess it; Catholics are supposed to maintain what's called "custody of the eyes" and it doesn't only refer to lustful thoughts but more generally anything that makes you get in someone else's business for your own benefit.) Get your brain and eyes off of them. Keep them on yourself. Now. (And observe how much work that will take you.)
"The problem is that many aspects of these don't work anywhere near universally on an individual basis."
This is certainly true. And what does it suggest? If you are a vulgar Darwinian like myself, it suggests that there is some "genetic" difference between people such that one ring doesn't rule them all. You need to figure out what works for you.
OK, so long as you also realize: there may not be any answer to figure out for you or anyone else. That tragic option, however, is something that flies in the face of the American civic religion, and people resist it mightily. That resistance is one of the reasons people insist on apply their myths to other people.
So, so long as you equally stress there may not be an answer, I am OK with what you say here.
As a nurse, I work with patients of all types, including many obese (sometimes extremely so) patients. These experiences, along with many scientific studies in the past 20 years, has taught me that there are a wide range of reasons of why individuals are obese and why our population as a whole is becoming more obese.
The problem with punitive measures like a "fat tax" is it can be extremely difficult to determine why an individual is obese. Grouping obese people into one group doesn't make a lot of sense, especially nowadays. About 1/3 of Americans are considered obese (going by BMI). That's over 100 million Americans. We don't contribute to a solution by trying to figure out how to punish people.
Phil
freddiemac wrote:
Haven't there been numerous studies that demonstrate that the sedintary lifestyle of so many Americans is directly correlated with increased obesity? I believe so. [logic chain snipped]
That may well be but you flunked Causation 101, since correlation doesn't show causation. There could be---probably are---third variables floating around. For instance, other things may be causing both, and they do tend to reinforce each other once things get started.
Anyway, having just read Seth Roberts' book, his argument is much more subtle than the "dim view" crowd seems to credit. His big point is that certain foods are set point increasing, while others are set point decreasing or neutral. In particular, highly processed foods that are extremely consistent in taste increase set point a lot. The big shift in diet over the last generation or so has lead to far more set point increasing foods in the diet. Portions went up in response to increased demand. So his argument is, essentially, that shifts in the menu have lead to an upward move in set point, hence weight gain.
There are many people (me included) who've lost a bunch of weight only to gain it back over time because we climbed right back on the set point escalator (holidays and social functions seem to be my bane). This doesn't remove choice from the equation at all: You can do things that alter your set point. Roberts' research is about finding things that are easy to do and don't lead to hunger pangs so you don't need to even think about it. By contrast, most diet plans require a lot of thought and willpower, which really gets frustrating. I'm giving it a spin now... we'll see.
Sigh....
Exercise and better diet are proven methods for weight loss/control for almost all of those that actually exercise and hold to a better diet. For those unable to stick to it, obviously this method will not work.
Eating at home helped me
Of course, not one thing reduces weight. Most main stream thinkers say that loosing weight is due to reducing one's intake and increasing one's exercise FOREVER.
On the other hand, I found that eating out less helped as it allowed me to read the calorie content, think about the amount of food I consumed and to be required to spend more time to get more, i.e. prepairing the foor rather than just reaching for another slice of bread or ordering a desert.
Tell that to a top Boston bariatric specialist (who is but one among many) who insists that exercise is essential for maintenance but not very useful (other than for enhancing fitness) for weight loss. I ran into her just last week. Fun.
Again, folks, the universal truths are pretty thin out there.
Just be a lot more humble about what you know is true and only apply it to yourself.
Yancy - Exercise and better diet are proven methods for weight loss/control for almost all of those that actually exercise and hold to a better diet.
Part of the problem is the popular confusion over what constitutes a "better diet." Remember when people were eating rice crisps to lose weight?
I hear a lot of philisophical reasons for why people are fat... And there are really only 2...eating too much, moving too little. If people want to reduce their weight, they must eat less, and move more. I find that working out during the work week, and trying to stay in and prepare healthy (and not always extremely healthy!) and on the weekends, if I want to just "veg" out, watch movies, or eat whatever, then that's ok. Or even go on a nice hike. Either way. It's all in moderation. Eating smaller more frequent meals (snacks as I call them)is also better than 3 large meals. I try to never eat past 7pm. Little things like this can make a big difference. And a GREAT workout class is Body Pump. (trademark) Check your surrounding gyms to see if they offer it. It's an entire body workout (don't worry, guys, it AINT an aerobics class!) It's a one-hour class of weight lifting (less weight/high repetitions) of all the muscle groups in the body, set to some great music. New music releases for Body Pump come out quarterly, so the music is always changing. Really beefs up guys (as they increase their weights and their stamina will increase. Also really tones up women. I recommend it to anyone wanting to make a change. I've been taking the class 3 times a week now for a year and a half, and have completely changed my appearance. I've lost 20 pounds of fat(now stand 5'8" weighing 175 at age 36) feel great. Have a ton more energy. Try it. Ok...not preachy here. Just speaking from my experience... From the land of Sin City where gluttony of every sort exists right in front of my face! And drop the beer as much as possible guys! Especially once you hit 30 and the metabolism slows down! It's the most amount of calories to buzz ratio you can drink! Try some wine. Maybe an occasional Vodka (Ketel One of course!) with Diet Tonic...twist of lime. Much better caloric intake for the buzz...
It works for you. Accept that it may not work at all for everyone.
I hear a lot of philisophical reasons for why people are fat... And there are really only 2...eating too much, moving too little.
But there are many different reasons for why people get hungry or why they burn calories at a particular rate relative to their food intake or even relative to their genetics. In terms of weight gain, that matters.
I realize the same things may not work for everyone, but they could work for some. My suggestions certainly can't hurt... If anyone is wanting a change, they just have to start somewhere...
Actually, they can certainly hurt depending on how humbly and qualified they are offered. That's my point. They can do more damage than good, depending how you do it and who you are offering unsolicited advice to. I speak from personal experience. A lot of people think they are very entitled to offer universal truths that are not universal, and it's really more about their need to believe it's universal - it's more self-serving than actually helpful.
Well said, Liam. And very to the point.
According to Gary Taubes ("Good Calories, Bad Calories"), a rigorous examination of the literature actually seems to indicate that lack of physical exercise is a symptom of obesity, rather than the other way around. It's the perturbation of one's body chemistry by a diet rich in easily digestible refined carbohydrates that's one of the more insidious causes of obesity, as well as a whole host of other health issues, from hemorrhoids to cancer. I'd recommend this book to anyone looking for a rigorously scientific survey of nutritional science in the last century, as well as a good read.
I have to agree with Tyson. Taubes' book is illuminating. Using both empirical and anecdotal evidence from 200 years of research he convincing argues that carbohydrates, particularly the highly refined stuff that is ubiquitous in the foods we eat , and the corresponding insulin reaction that is induced by eating them, is the source of a great many health problems in modern society. The bibliography is 66 pages long! The man did his research.
Just discussing this yesterday, but look here, for me at least, there are periods when i have been eating a lot and my stomach ecxpands in more than just size. I get hungry more often, i need to eat more to be satisfied. Then when I reduce my caloric intake to something more reasonable (say 15-1700 cals a day) I start eating smaller meals.
Also that I think a fat tax might be nice. Sometimes I just get a little weak and binge, and it's those times I'd appreciate some help from the government as a kind of booster of my will power or safety net if you will to make eating the junk food or the extra portions more expensive enough so that I can afford to think twice.
While those who weigh too much because of medical or chemcial conditions might not benefit, those of us who just lack will power a a few times every 2-3 weeks would benefit greatly.
MNPundit: Perhaps you should just "tax" yourself when you overindulge, then after a few months buy yourself a bike or something. Some people don't have a problem with willpower; why should everybody have to pay more for an occasional treat so that you can reap the (so far only imagined) benefits of this weird manipulative willpower "booster?"
I wish you the best of luck -- just please keep your mitts off my wallet.
Taubes's book is much better at poking hole in the logic of certain mythic principles of the obesity hypothesis than it is in establishing the carbohydrate hypothesis. He's much more selective what he deals with in the latter, and relies on subtle leaps of logic not too dissimilar from what he debunks in the first part of the book.
Taubes, like almost all writers attempting a comprehensive conceptual approach, fails as well but tries mightily to avoid looking like he's failed.
MNPundit
You don't need to wait for the government to tax all of us - you can simply write an extra check to the government yourself. Very simple.
I never offered any suggestions as "universal truths". Just mentioned a couple of things that seem to have worked for me. And I'm certainly not a physician, just a normal guy. I don't believe anything I said may be harmful, and I don't think I was being self-serving. Every person has to find their own way, figure out what works for them. I get so tired of seeing all of these commercials on television for the latest miracle pill to lose weight or this restrictive diet, or that one. These "fly by night" gimmicks prey on peoples' vulnerabilities, and weight loss gimmicks are a HUGE business. Eating a bit less, and moving a bit more is good for everyone. And not really expensive...
Vegas Mark
Your first enthusiastic post was pretty universal. You've trimmed your sales in response to my criticism. I will acknowledge that. But understand my criticism was of the tone and substance of your initial exclamatory advice. I know it's well meaning, but I recommend in the future you start with less exclamations and that you only talk about your experience rather than extrapolate it for anyone else. If you find it hard to do that, reflect on why that is hard. Then you might understand my comment about self-serving.
"Taubes's book is much better at poking hole in the logic of certain mythic principles of the obesity hypothesis than it is in establishing the carbohydrate hypothesis. He's much more selective what he deals with in the latter, and relies on subtle leaps of logic not too dissimilar from what he debunks in the first part of the book."
Liam, care to back that up with something? His book seems quite convincing to me and gybes quite nicely with my own as well as several others' experiences. Both the experimental and anecdotal evidence is very compelling. If you can counter that or illuminate his omissions then you ought to.
The leaps of logic that he debunks are not subtle at all. When faced with the data, they're painfully obvious. So, I'm calling you out. Show me the data.
Tripp
YOu can call me out all you want. This comment thread is hardly the place to fisk Taubes.
I don't own the book - borrowed it from the library. And I didn't make notes to prepare a fisking for you. Jeesh. What's the Internet coming to these day that people expect jot and tittle defenses?
What I find interesting is how threatened your tone is when someone expresses a mild general impression of a book that's garnered a fair share of detailed criticisms elsewhere. Says a lot.
So, if you want to know where I get off bothering to register a mild general criticism of the book, it's because I wanted to believe him, but I realized there were a number of places where I found my yearning to believe him was masking a disquiet about things omitted. The pattern left an impression on me - it made me realize that the author was relying (probably subconsciously) on the audience's desire for a satisfying solution to mask missing links. So that's why I think the way I do. You obviously didn't feel that way. It's a big enough country for both of us.
Three things:
A - Soda (vast quantities)
B - Snack foods.
C - Sedentary Life styles
Never before has there been so much availability of snack foods available to consumers.
Liam,
I'm just asking you to provide some examples. If you have a reasonable, logical argument, I'm all ears. You just made some fairly sweeping statements with nowt to back them up. You talk about various shortcomings without really providing any substance. I'm curious and you're leaving me hangin', mate.
I've found that the carbohydrate theory seems spot on. The preponderance of evidence that supports it is pretty impressive. I've also found that it's born out in my own experience. Sitting on my arse for the last 5 months with a sports injury (hence no exercise) I've LOST weight without restricting my eating. I've simply cut out refined carbs (rice, most processed foods, soda) and replaced them with protein and fat. I eat a lot of peanut butter and various nuts (almonds and pistacios in particular). I don't feel hungry, I don't feel lethargic either. And yet I've dropped from about 170 lbs to about 160 lbs, all while not being able to exercise.
I will say that Taubes' book does not mention the poor quality of modern, industrial meat. It's loaded with Omega-6 fatty acids and is pro-inflamatory. As a rheumatoid arthritis sufferer I've erradicated this food source because of the inflammation it can cause. While the Innuit and plains Indians of 100 years ago could live on an all meat diet, in this modern age I think that it's rather unhealty unless you're buying purely grassfeed meat.
Cheers