A Chemical Hunger – Part III: Environmental Contaminants(slimemoldtimemold.com)
slimemoldtimemold.com
A Chemical Hunger – Part III: Environmental Contaminants
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/13/a-chemical-hunger-part-iii-environmental-contaminants/
36 comments
What's wrong with bread and lard?
For many old timers it was and still is a treat. Have you ever tried it? It's good! Many of those old timers lived over a hundred years!
I am pretty sure if you actually have bread and lard like in the old times it will make you less fat than modern industrialized food.
What do you think of the growing research on other obesogenics? and of populations that have had excessive carb intake for a long, long time? I think many things seem more probable than just carbs and PUFAs.
I do agree the author's have taken some leaps. Leaps have to be taken as there is imperfect data to support any theory on the obesity epidemic, but I agree that leaps should be better acknowledged.
I do agree the author's have taken some leaps. Leaps have to be taken as there is imperfect data to support any theory on the obesity epidemic, but I agree that leaps should be better acknowledged.
>>I'm usually all about investigations like this but the repeated claims that obesity is, for sure, not caused by diet is a leap.
I think authors list convincing arguments:
1) the diets on average not working for weight loss
2) experiments with overfeeding causing a little of easily revertible weight gain
3) lipostate theory with understood possible pathways
I think authors list convincing arguments:
1) the diets on average not working for weight loss
2) experiments with overfeeding causing a little of easily revertible weight gain
3) lipostate theory with understood possible pathways
Have you read https://fireinabottle.net/? Some other HNer posted it just a few days ago.
I found the first two articles were interesting despite obvious flaws in the presented evidence. After reading the third one, it just looks like logical fallacy to me.
For example, taken from the first article:
> In the past, most people got slightly leaner as they got older.
How can you claim that with so few data. From the same data I would conclude that obese people die at young age...
I don't think we should exclude any possible cause but a global contaminant which is the only cause of obesity seems far fetched.
Simple logic would suggest that our food is the main culprit.
Personaly I would bet obesity is due to weakened gut microbiome (due to consumption of process foods), transmitted from mothers to their children. In other words, each generation consuming processed food gives birth to children more susceptible to obesity. It has actually been modeled with rats (cannot find the published link though).
For example, taken from the first article:
> In the past, most people got slightly leaner as they got older.
How can you claim that with so few data. From the same data I would conclude that obese people die at young age...
I don't think we should exclude any possible cause but a global contaminant which is the only cause of obesity seems far fetched.
Simple logic would suggest that our food is the main culprit.
Personaly I would bet obesity is due to weakened gut microbiome (due to consumption of process foods), transmitted from mothers to their children. In other words, each generation consuming processed food gives birth to children more susceptible to obesity. It has actually been modeled with rats (cannot find the published link though).
>>Simple logic would suggest that our food is the main culprit.
Then, why does it happen in wild animals? They are not eating processed foods.
Even if the food is main culprit, it leads to the question of what is exactly wrong with the food?
p.s. we have enough data to understand overall historical trends and authors cite it:
https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity
Then, why does it happen in wild animals? They are not eating processed foods.
Even if the food is main culprit, it leads to the question of what is exactly wrong with the food?
p.s. we have enough data to understand overall historical trends and authors cite it:
https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity
> Primates and rodents living in research colonies, feral rodents living in our cities, and domestic pets like dogs and cats are all steadily getting fatter and fatter.
All are fed with human produced food. Also as someone noted our food (raw food) is decreasingly nutritious when it comes to micronutrients and vitamins.
All are fed with human produced food. Also as someone noted our food (raw food) is decreasingly nutritious when it comes to micronutrients and vitamins.
I feel like this will someday be exhibit A for a presentation on "Correlation is not causation".
I am blaming sucrose being added to literally everything.
I am blaming sucrose being added to literally everything.
What do you think of the lack of correlation between sucrose and obesity that the authors' site? I think it was in one of their previous articles in this series.
high fructose corn syrup was developed in 50's and fits the timescale he is talking about, but it could be a number of things.
The altitude maps are interesting because it presents the hypothesis that less oxygen could be preventing the negative effects of some compound on metabolism.
The altitude maps are interesting because it presents the hypothesis that less oxygen could be preventing the negative effects of some compound on metabolism.
I would love to see an RCT on a ton of really common environmental contaminants at different dosages in the human diet. Of course this would be incredibly unethical and inefficient with respect to human welfare, but it would, I think, finally get people to believe that there are obesegenic compounds (and viruses) that need to be avoided for proper metabolic health.
Phthalates, Adenovirus 36, bisphenols, certain pesticides and fungicides--which ones should we be investing in getting rid of?
Phthalates, Adenovirus 36, bisphenols, certain pesticides and fungicides--which ones should we be investing in getting rid of?
if the author is correct that the cause of obesity is environmental contaminants, it would be very simple to test this. The author is using lab rat data (the cafeteria diet example) as a main point in their conclusion, so simply adding the chemicals in question to otherwise uncontaminated food and feeding it to lab rats should easily disprove or prove their point.
I think currently is all of them, until we figure it all out. The costs of obesity overweight benefits of convenience of above mentioned things. (You can argue about adenoviruses -- I've got two shots of the adenovirus based vaccine).
> People’s diets were “worse” in the past — full of lard and bread — because diet doesn’t cause obesity. The ~1% of people who were obese in the past were people with one of the various medical conditions known to cause obesity, such as Prader-Willi Syndrome, hypothyroidism, or hypothalamic lesions.
This is a very strong claim that is lacking a source. There are entire groups of people in history that were documented to be obese, especially in religion or sports.
This is a very strong claim that is lacking a source. There are entire groups of people in history that were documented to be obese, especially in religion or sports.
>This is a very strong claim that is lacking a source
They are citing overfeeding experiments.
They are citing overfeeding experiments.
There's a stretch between "overeating experiments fail to sustain body weight" and "diet doesn't cause obesity".
That kind of stretch is not even necessary for the main point of the article, so I think it is just decreasing its value.
Also I cast doubt on those overeating experiments: wrestlers and powerlifters keep fat.
That kind of stretch is not even necessary for the main point of the article, so I think it is just decreasing its value.
Also I cast doubt on those overeating experiments: wrestlers and powerlifters keep fat.
>There are entire groups of people in history that were documented to be obese, especially in religion or sports
This is also a very strong claim that is lacking a source :)
This is also a very strong claim that is lacking a source :)
Sure, my bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo
I just ate 4 Oreos I didn't need because this discussion is starting to stress me out. I'm going to stop responding, but I wanted to be on record as having said these things. Thanks for the information and perspectives.
I have never found scientific writing as gripping as I have found this series. My mouth just hangs agape as I scroll and the implications hit me.
The section on Altitude and Watershed quality is really interesting.
It's bad science. They did not do any work to rule out other factors that are correlated to altitude but that are not the watershed. Off the top of my head: lower oxygen levels leading to greater cardio-vascular fitness; affluence - in the US I would not be surprised if richer people live in the mountains, while poorer people live on the rivers like Mississippi; activity level -- more active people go to the mountains to do their mountain sports and so on.
If you have thing X that you think might be partially caused by A, B, C, D you need to rule out B, C, D, before you say that A causes X. Otherwise we're back to 5G causing covid because if you draw a map of cell towers, it lines up with a map of hard-hit covid areas.
For a concrete example, I'm reading a theoretical neuroscience paper on dimensionality. The authors found an interesting relationship, but they spend a lot of paper on showing that 3 or 4 different known things are not the cause of this interesting effect. They do this by measuring the extent to which the other known effects explain away the effect. When all that is done and a significant effect is still left, then they conclude that they've found something new and real.
Humans are wired/encultured to find narratives more interesting than facts. So the watershed thing is a well-written narrative that makes it convincing but does nothing to establish the truth of the matter.
While there are many many factors affecting obesity, I am still convinced that the most significant factor is that people are basically delusional about how much they actually need to eat and how much energy is actually in various foods. I could be wrong, but I've seen no rigorously done science that convinces me otherwise yet.
I remember what it was like in the '80s. People just ate a lot less at every meal -- our portions have become ridiculous. If you work with immigrants (e.g. Russians). Look at some trim people and see how much they bring for lunch. One small sandwich, an apple, maybe a small salad. That's it. Pretty much any store or restaurant-bought meal here is going to be much more calorific than that.
The whole "low-quality" foods thing strikes me as new-age marketing. There may be something there, but again I believe the overriding factor is that most people don't understand how little they need to eat when they're driving and sitting all day.
EDIT> Also, in the '80s it was basically a luxury to eat out. You weren't going to go to Starbucks and have a cake in a cup for $5
EDIT2> I've watched smart people struggle with weight-loss and overeating my whole life. The excuses and delusions would not be surprising coming from a heroin addict. When I was 210 pounds after being 190 in university, I looked fat to myself. When I was 230 pounds after being 245, I looked slim to myself. This tells me that I, and the other people I have observed cannot be objective about food and weight. So I am very skeptical of non-rigorous opinions or popular-press opinions on the matter. I over-eat when I feel sad about having eaten too much -- that's literally crazy, and I've observed this craziness in everyone else I know who is fat! Food is such a social thing that we have person after person enabling and affirming our own bad habits. Grandma hopefully would never offer you a hit of heroin if you told her you were trying to get sober, but she'll totally offer you a big piece of pie if you tell her you want to lose some weight. Other people around the table will tell you "It's okay -- just this one time," and if you strenuously object you're being rude. We are delusional about food.
EDIT3> In summary, we are extremely biased to find any reason other than we eat too much, and the quality of a lot of the writing and even science in this area is pretty low and compromised by financial motives.
If you have thing X that you think might be partially caused by A, B, C, D you need to rule out B, C, D, before you say that A causes X. Otherwise we're back to 5G causing covid because if you draw a map of cell towers, it lines up with a map of hard-hit covid areas.
For a concrete example, I'm reading a theoretical neuroscience paper on dimensionality. The authors found an interesting relationship, but they spend a lot of paper on showing that 3 or 4 different known things are not the cause of this interesting effect. They do this by measuring the extent to which the other known effects explain away the effect. When all that is done and a significant effect is still left, then they conclude that they've found something new and real.
Humans are wired/encultured to find narratives more interesting than facts. So the watershed thing is a well-written narrative that makes it convincing but does nothing to establish the truth of the matter.
While there are many many factors affecting obesity, I am still convinced that the most significant factor is that people are basically delusional about how much they actually need to eat and how much energy is actually in various foods. I could be wrong, but I've seen no rigorously done science that convinces me otherwise yet.
I remember what it was like in the '80s. People just ate a lot less at every meal -- our portions have become ridiculous. If you work with immigrants (e.g. Russians). Look at some trim people and see how much they bring for lunch. One small sandwich, an apple, maybe a small salad. That's it. Pretty much any store or restaurant-bought meal here is going to be much more calorific than that.
The whole "low-quality" foods thing strikes me as new-age marketing. There may be something there, but again I believe the overriding factor is that most people don't understand how little they need to eat when they're driving and sitting all day.
EDIT> Also, in the '80s it was basically a luxury to eat out. You weren't going to go to Starbucks and have a cake in a cup for $5
EDIT2> I've watched smart people struggle with weight-loss and overeating my whole life. The excuses and delusions would not be surprising coming from a heroin addict. When I was 210 pounds after being 190 in university, I looked fat to myself. When I was 230 pounds after being 245, I looked slim to myself. This tells me that I, and the other people I have observed cannot be objective about food and weight. So I am very skeptical of non-rigorous opinions or popular-press opinions on the matter. I over-eat when I feel sad about having eaten too much -- that's literally crazy, and I've observed this craziness in everyone else I know who is fat! Food is such a social thing that we have person after person enabling and affirming our own bad habits. Grandma hopefully would never offer you a hit of heroin if you told her you were trying to get sober, but she'll totally offer you a big piece of pie if you tell her you want to lose some weight. Other people around the table will tell you "It's okay -- just this one time," and if you strenuously object you're being rude. We are delusional about food.
EDIT3> In summary, we are extremely biased to find any reason other than we eat too much, and the quality of a lot of the writing and even science in this area is pretty low and compromised by financial motives.
> While there are many many factors affecting obesity, I am still convinced that the most significant factor is that people are basically delusional about how much they actually need to eat and how much energy is actually in various foods. I could be wrong, but I've seen no rigorously done science that convinces me otherwise yet.
Why do you think that people become delusional or have become increasingly delusional in the last 40 to 50 years?
I'm pretty convinced that things like adenovirus 36 infection, phthalate exposure (especially in utero and as a young child) are obesogenic. I do think you're right that people are probably eating larger portions than in the 80's and often eating more calories, but I wouldn't be surprised is a large part of the reason why was because of obesogenic compounds and diseases.
Another reason I find this easy to believe is research on body weight homeostasis is pretty convincing. The leptin system is pretty strong at getting (some) people to eat less after eating more than usual one day and getting them to eat more after eating less than usual. There is also convincing research on what researchers call the gravitostat which, independent of leptin, alters hunger through weight-dependent signals from osteocytes in the large bones of the body.
Why do you think that people become delusional or have become increasingly delusional in the last 40 to 50 years?
I'm pretty convinced that things like adenovirus 36 infection, phthalate exposure (especially in utero and as a young child) are obesogenic. I do think you're right that people are probably eating larger portions than in the 80's and often eating more calories, but I wouldn't be surprised is a large part of the reason why was because of obesogenic compounds and diseases.
Another reason I find this easy to believe is research on body weight homeostasis is pretty convincing. The leptin system is pretty strong at getting (some) people to eat less after eating more than usual one day and getting them to eat more after eating less than usual. There is also convincing research on what researchers call the gravitostat which, independent of leptin, alters hunger through weight-dependent signals from osteocytes in the large bones of the body.
> Why do you think that people become delusional or have become increasingly delusional in the last 40 to 50 years?
I don't. I think they didn't have the opportunity to eat so much food because it was more expensive and going out was socially atypical.
When my Mom is around, my Dad gains weight, but when she's away, he loses weight. Why? She's not literally force-feeding him, but when she's around there's a fully stocked fridge of delicious treats that he would not normally seek out. He/we just don't have the willpower to fight that. Here is a delicious thing -- don't eat it. So much easier not to have it in the house -- out of sight, out of mind. Same for me with COVID. When I was initially hunkered-down and buying staples I lost weight. Once I relaxed and started going on snack-runs I started gaining weight. It's the (social) environment.
Those are personal examples of how the easy availability of food and snacks makes it more likely to overeat. As the culture changes to normalize overeating, people don't realize they're overeating and start to look for reasons why everyone is gaining weight, other than the obvious.
Regarding homeostasis -- if portion sizes are increasing, everyone is overeating, and there's a culture of trying to find every factor except overeating, then you don't just eat too much one day, you eat too much every day. A rising tide bloats all floats?
I find it really strange that we mostly ignore the advice of people who seem to be able to maintain a lower body weight (eat less, exercise more). Instead we are basically bombarded with complicated information from people who have weight problems. It's like you want to find out how to do car maintenance, but you ignore the people with well-running cars, and instead listen to all the people with terribly-maintained cars.
Being overweight doesn't mean you're a bad person, although socially and emotionally the consequences are brutal. Because of these brutal consequences, I think we're biased to find any way at all that being overweight is not due to our own direct actions. Hence the search for all of these super-complicated and subtle higher-order effects.
Could be wrong, but this is where I am after decades of watching incredibly irrational behaviour in myself, my family, and my friends. I'm convinced that it would be more helpful to treat this as food addiction, given the incredible mental contortions involved.
EDIT> As another example of social factors. I seem to remember it being socially unacceptable to have one's shirt untucked in a non-athletic context in the '80s. I remember when I first started going in to work with shirt untucked. I can hide 20 pounds under there without people considering me fat. But there was a time when if you did up your belt, tucked your shirt in, and had overhang of belly over belt you were considered fat.
On the one hand it's great that we're trying to be less brutal to heavier people. In an ideal future, people wouldn't be judged by their appearances at all. But in doing this, I wonder whether we're losing sight of the reality of the causes and effects.
I don't. I think they didn't have the opportunity to eat so much food because it was more expensive and going out was socially atypical.
When my Mom is around, my Dad gains weight, but when she's away, he loses weight. Why? She's not literally force-feeding him, but when she's around there's a fully stocked fridge of delicious treats that he would not normally seek out. He/we just don't have the willpower to fight that. Here is a delicious thing -- don't eat it. So much easier not to have it in the house -- out of sight, out of mind. Same for me with COVID. When I was initially hunkered-down and buying staples I lost weight. Once I relaxed and started going on snack-runs I started gaining weight. It's the (social) environment.
Those are personal examples of how the easy availability of food and snacks makes it more likely to overeat. As the culture changes to normalize overeating, people don't realize they're overeating and start to look for reasons why everyone is gaining weight, other than the obvious.
Regarding homeostasis -- if portion sizes are increasing, everyone is overeating, and there's a culture of trying to find every factor except overeating, then you don't just eat too much one day, you eat too much every day. A rising tide bloats all floats?
I find it really strange that we mostly ignore the advice of people who seem to be able to maintain a lower body weight (eat less, exercise more). Instead we are basically bombarded with complicated information from people who have weight problems. It's like you want to find out how to do car maintenance, but you ignore the people with well-running cars, and instead listen to all the people with terribly-maintained cars.
Being overweight doesn't mean you're a bad person, although socially and emotionally the consequences are brutal. Because of these brutal consequences, I think we're biased to find any way at all that being overweight is not due to our own direct actions. Hence the search for all of these super-complicated and subtle higher-order effects.
Could be wrong, but this is where I am after decades of watching incredibly irrational behaviour in myself, my family, and my friends. I'm convinced that it would be more helpful to treat this as food addiction, given the incredible mental contortions involved.
EDIT> As another example of social factors. I seem to remember it being socially unacceptable to have one's shirt untucked in a non-athletic context in the '80s. I remember when I first started going in to work with shirt untucked. I can hide 20 pounds under there without people considering me fat. But there was a time when if you did up your belt, tucked your shirt in, and had overhang of belly over belt you were considered fat.
On the one hand it's great that we're trying to be less brutal to heavier people. In an ideal future, people wouldn't be judged by their appearances at all. But in doing this, I wonder whether we're losing sight of the reality of the causes and effects.
Since we're giving anecdotal evidence, I know people who eat whatever they want, whenever they want, don't exercise, and are thin as a rail.
This is actually more evidence for my point, if you think about it.
I don't think I caught your point then. What exactly are you arguing?
> There may be something there, but again I believe the overriding factor is that most people don't understand how little they need to eat when they're driving and sitting all day.
I don't disagree with this, but I think there must be another compounding factor. People never used to count calories, and yet in my own (150lb loss) experience it is necessary because my body wants to eat more than it needs to.
I don't disagree with this, but I think there must be another compounding factor. People never used to count calories, and yet in my own (150lb loss) experience it is necessary because my body wants to eat more than it needs to.
What does "want to eat more" mean to you?
I distinguish between "stomach hunger" and "mouth hunger". In other words, hunger and craving. If my stomach hurts, I'm hiccoughing or burping, and I'm feeling mentally jangly and irritable then I'm hungry. If I can really really taste how good that thing would be in my mouth right now, then I'm craving.
The weird thing is that they are spatially distinct. One feeling is in my mouth and one is in my gut.
EDIT> Do you think that if food were not as abundant, if it was kind of taboo to waste your money by going out and buying pre-made food, and if the people around you were not modeling over-eating that your body would still want more than it needed? Could there be a training effect?
I distinguish between "stomach hunger" and "mouth hunger". In other words, hunger and craving. If my stomach hurts, I'm hiccoughing or burping, and I'm feeling mentally jangly and irritable then I'm hungry. If I can really really taste how good that thing would be in my mouth right now, then I'm craving.
The weird thing is that they are spatially distinct. One feeling is in my mouth and one is in my gut.
EDIT> Do you think that if food were not as abundant, if it was kind of taboo to waste your money by going out and buying pre-made food, and if the people around you were not modeling over-eating that your body would still want more than it needed? Could there be a training effect?
Both. Ask anyone who knows me and they'll tell you all about the hangry, but at the same time I often experience cravings to eat even after overeating.
But in the end I don't think it matters for what I'm saying: people never used to have to count calories, and now they do. Something has changed. It might be that the food is much better, more addictive, more advertised, cheaper, easier, etc. Point is, it isn't just a matter of being deluded about calories, we are driven to consume more than we need by something.
But in the end I don't think it matters for what I'm saying: people never used to have to count calories, and now they do. Something has changed. It might be that the food is much better, more addictive, more advertised, cheaper, easier, etc. Point is, it isn't just a matter of being deluded about calories, we are driven to consume more than we need by something.
I agree that it's not just about being deluded about calories, although I perhaps overemphasized that in a few sentences. I agree that there are strong environmental (social and cultural, not chemical) factors that train/aid/abet the delusion. I thought I did write quite a bit about portion sizes, changing norms, and cultural factors, but maybe in response to others?
Very serious research .
My own opinion: we are seeing what happens when we combine an increasingly sedentary lifestyle with eating mass produced, low quality foods. Fruits and vegetables are becoming decreasingly nutritious. Animals (even organic) are force fed poor diets to slaughter them a few days earlier, whose fats contain high concentrations of these poor diets. There are lots of examples of food quality going down.
I especially think the problem is related to a combination of excessive carb intake, and PUFAs (think vegetable / seed oils found in a huge portion and variety of foods). There is a growing body of research this is the case [1].
DYOR.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16184193/