Plastic might be making us obese(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Plastic might be making us obese
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/plastic-might-be-making-you-obese/2022/09/11/73c0f132-31d2-11ed-a0d6-415299bfebd5_story.html
390 comments
> even bog standard bread
Yes, we definitely have too much sugar in everything, but as an amateur baker I will defend sugar in bread. Sure, you don't need it in a baguette or a rustic boule, but it is indispensable for a nice, soft sandwich loaf. It's not there to make the bread sweeter. It makes the bread softer, it boosts the yeast for a nicer rise, and it keeps it from going stale as quickly.
Granted, I don't use a ton of it. My favorite sandwich bread recipe[0] is 8g of sugar to 500g flour, and with my long loaf pan I typically get 20-25 slices, so maximum 400mg a slice. Quite good compared to my favorite supermarket bread at 2g a slice.
Sure, "bog standard" bread could have less sugar, but some sugar is essential for this style of bread.
[0] https://www.nigella.com/recipes/old-fashioned-sandwich-loaf, omitting the butter and oil and using cultured buttermilk instead of spoiled milk or sour cream. I say "omitting the butter", but I do still butter the loaf pan. I just don't include any in the dough itself.
Yes, we definitely have too much sugar in everything, but as an amateur baker I will defend sugar in bread. Sure, you don't need it in a baguette or a rustic boule, but it is indispensable for a nice, soft sandwich loaf. It's not there to make the bread sweeter. It makes the bread softer, it boosts the yeast for a nicer rise, and it keeps it from going stale as quickly.
Granted, I don't use a ton of it. My favorite sandwich bread recipe[0] is 8g of sugar to 500g flour, and with my long loaf pan I typically get 20-25 slices, so maximum 400mg a slice. Quite good compared to my favorite supermarket bread at 2g a slice.
Sure, "bog standard" bread could have less sugar, but some sugar is essential for this style of bread.
[0] https://www.nigella.com/recipes/old-fashioned-sandwich-loaf, omitting the butter and oil and using cultured buttermilk instead of spoiled milk or sour cream. I say "omitting the butter", but I do still butter the loaf pan. I just don't include any in the dough itself.
> Sure, "bog standard" bread could have less sugar, but some sugar is essential for this style of bread.
I fully agree. As a German I do want to point out that American style sandwich bread is a very specific style. Sugar goes into it much as it does into challah dough or brioche - but all these stradle the cake-bread boundary for me.
If you want sugar in your bread, you gotta suffer through the process of making pumpernickel like everyone else, gosh darn it! /j
I fully agree. As a German I do want to point out that American style sandwich bread is a very specific style. Sugar goes into it much as it does into challah dough or brioche - but all these stradle the cake-bread boundary for me.
If you want sugar in your bread, you gotta suffer through the process of making pumpernickel like everyone else, gosh darn it! /j
what does pumpernickel have to do with sugar?
Its very high acidity dough combined with its long, low bake makes the starches break down into sugars more compared to other breads.
Thanks
I'll add to this: A lot of home cooks were taught to add a bit of sugar to the bread to help the yeast. I used to mix yeast, water, and a bit of sugar together to get the yeast started. I mostly did this because I learned to make bread before the internet, and this was common in instructions that I could access.
https://youtu.be/AqFeXxa_NTk
This guy experiments with sugar levels and how it affects yeast.
Turns out the water absorbing properties of sugar also has a large effect in the other direction, so maybe it doesn't really help the yeast
This guy experiments with sugar levels and how it affects yeast.
Turns out the water absorbing properties of sugar also has a large effect in the other direction, so maybe it doesn't really help the yeast
Sugar can inhibit yeast development: This is generally only an issue with sweet doughs, though. A teaspoon of yeast won't have that effect, especially if it is in a half cup of water.
But more importantly, in the times before the internet, you just couldn't reason like that. If your mother and grandmother and great-grandmother all start bread by dissolving yeast and a small amount of sugar in some water... well, you do it too. The cookbooks sometimes told you this if it wasn't too terribly old (old cookbooks expect you to know a lot, and directions get sparse).
But more importantly, in the times before the internet, you just couldn't reason like that. If your mother and grandmother and great-grandmother all start bread by dissolving yeast and a small amount of sugar in some water... well, you do it too. The cookbooks sometimes told you this if it wasn't too terribly old (old cookbooks expect you to know a lot, and directions get sparse).
> but it is indispensable for a nice, soft sandwich loaf
There's a difference between the kind of bread you're making, and Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread is just an oversized marshmallow.
There's a difference between the kind of bread you're making, and Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread is just an oversized marshmallow.
The difference between a nice brioche - made with plenty of sugar, with a soft, fluffy character - and a standard loaf of french bread is quite large. I spring for the french bread only because it's cheaper. Bread with sugar is superior.
I consume nothing but sourdough, because of the simplicity of ingredients and no sugar is necessary in its recipe. Lately I've found that "take-and-bake" loaves can be purchased, frozen, and freshly baked on demand. It works out great, and I love the simple, honest flavor of San Francisco style sourdough for sandwiches or just a buttered slice to go with my supper.
That’s pretty much the point though isn’t it? Everything is a bit (or a lot) better to the human brain when you add sugar
> Peanut butter, mayonnaise, beef jerky
But that's packed with fat calories as well and fat has a much higher energy density as carbohydrates. As an European I'm very very astonished over the size of the food portions in fast food restaurants in the US. If this portion size is the same on the diner table than it's not only sugar but a lot of non necessary calories. I don't think it's entirely caused by sugar but by a big surplus of calories in day to day food (combined with too little physical activity)
But that's packed with fat calories as well and fat has a much higher energy density as carbohydrates. As an European I'm very very astonished over the size of the food portions in fast food restaurants in the US. If this portion size is the same on the diner table than it's not only sugar but a lot of non necessary calories. I don't think it's entirely caused by sugar but by a big surplus of calories in day to day food (combined with too little physical activity)
But fat increases satiety much more quickly than sugar. 500 cals of fats will make you feel "fuller" than 750 or even 1k cals of sugar. That's what makes sugar so much worse. Is may not be as colorically dense, but we can comfortably guzzle down far more empty calories from sugar than from fat.
I think separating the two is not a good idea.
Very few people will just eat a spoon of white sugar. Very few people will eat a stick of butter.
But almost everyone can binge on a box of cookies, where the main ingredients are butter and sugar (and flour I suppose.)
Very few people will just eat a spoon of white sugar. Very few people will eat a stick of butter.
But almost everyone can binge on a box of cookies, where the main ingredients are butter and sugar (and flour I suppose.)
Drink a soda. There's a couple of spoons of white sugar.
US restaurant portions are huge. If you eat like that every day, it will kill you. I think one reason is that the ingredients are cheap relative to other costs including labor. It used to be rationalized by saying that a restaurant meal was supposed to be a rare indulgence, but I don't think that's true any more for a large swath of the population.
Anecdote: I had two long meetings at work last week, that crossed over the lunch hour, so they brought in lunch. Each was from a "fast casual" or "fast food" sandwich shop. There was like 1/2 inch slab of processed meat on each sandwich. I would typically put one thin slice of the same meat on a sandwich that I make for the lunch that I bring to work. I discreetly removed most of the meat and threw it away. I know some people who will take a delivered meal like that, cut it in half, and save the second half for the next day.
Another anecdote: There was an article about a town in Texas that was losing its last restaurant, and the author wondered how people would eat.
Of course to maintain a higher body weight, you need to eat more.
Anecdote: I had two long meetings at work last week, that crossed over the lunch hour, so they brought in lunch. Each was from a "fast casual" or "fast food" sandwich shop. There was like 1/2 inch slab of processed meat on each sandwich. I would typically put one thin slice of the same meat on a sandwich that I make for the lunch that I bring to work. I discreetly removed most of the meat and threw it away. I know some people who will take a delivered meal like that, cut it in half, and save the second half for the next day.
Another anecdote: There was an article about a town in Texas that was losing its last restaurant, and the author wondered how people would eat.
Of course to maintain a higher body weight, you need to eat more.
I'm American living in Europe. There is sugar in every packaged food here too just FYI.
And not just in the country I live in, it's basically everywhere in grocery stores.
So sugar is not the only culprit.
And not just in the country I live in, it's basically everywhere in grocery stores.
So sugar is not the only culprit.
I'm an American in Europe, and really, what I've noticed here is it's natural sugar in stuff, whereas in America it's HFCS. I can't help but wonder if that's part of the difference. I list 5-10kg easily without watching what I ate (and drank much more cause there's nothing else to do of an evening in Ireland), while keeping the same activity level or slightly less. There's something different in the food, and I can't help but think real sugar and lower levels of it is a key thing.
It IS _natural_ sugar in stuff, not HFCS. You are right about that.
So that is one difference.
But let's look at the other differences between W. Europe (this is the Europe I am thinking of at least).
1.There are ZERO local national restaurant chains in this country. Zero Chipotles, zero In-n-outs. The only national food chains are McDonald's and Burger King.
2. There are zero drive-thru restaurants. Not even starbucks. So food is not as easy to get.
3. There are fewer restaurants in general.
4. When you do go out to a restaurant the portions are smaller. I haven't weighed two things, but my best estimate is about 1/3 less. For instance, where I live, the local burrito "chain" of two locations, the burritos are about one-third smaller while the portion of chips that come with it is 60-70% smaller.
5. The food here costs more when going to a restaurant. There is no way to get a full meal for less than $10. A Mcdonald's combo meal is $15-$19. So food costs twice as much. Mcdonald's portions are not way smaller than the US, but every other restaurant's are. Because a meal is 50-100% more expensive and you get smaller portions, food is actually 3x the cost. This, obviously, has the effect of people eating less.
6. A greater percentage of people live and work in cities in Europe than the States [citation needed; would love to know the actual number]. So they probably burning 100-200 more calories a day because of this.
7. There are also zero billboards for any industry. So way less food advertising to go along with that.
These are the differences I think that make the biggest difference. There is simply less of an emphasis on food too.
But portion size, which is culture, and amount of physical activity are what I personally believe make the biggest difference.
So that is one difference.
But let's look at the other differences between W. Europe (this is the Europe I am thinking of at least).
1.There are ZERO local national restaurant chains in this country. Zero Chipotles, zero In-n-outs. The only national food chains are McDonald's and Burger King.
2. There are zero drive-thru restaurants. Not even starbucks. So food is not as easy to get.
3. There are fewer restaurants in general.
4. When you do go out to a restaurant the portions are smaller. I haven't weighed two things, but my best estimate is about 1/3 less. For instance, where I live, the local burrito "chain" of two locations, the burritos are about one-third smaller while the portion of chips that come with it is 60-70% smaller.
5. The food here costs more when going to a restaurant. There is no way to get a full meal for less than $10. A Mcdonald's combo meal is $15-$19. So food costs twice as much. Mcdonald's portions are not way smaller than the US, but every other restaurant's are. Because a meal is 50-100% more expensive and you get smaller portions, food is actually 3x the cost. This, obviously, has the effect of people eating less.
6. A greater percentage of people live and work in cities in Europe than the States [citation needed; would love to know the actual number]. So they probably burning 100-200 more calories a day because of this.
7. There are also zero billboards for any industry. So way less food advertising to go along with that.
These are the differences I think that make the biggest difference. There is simply less of an emphasis on food too.
But portion size, which is culture, and amount of physical activity are what I personally believe make the biggest difference.
This is going to be an extremely challenging thesis to explain the phenomena, as HFCS and sucrose are effectively chemically identical once they hit the stomach.
Yes, but HFCS is cheaper. Cheaper means it ends up in more products. Cheaper means more gets consumed.
I mentioned in another comment above that circa 2003-ish the NYT Sunday mag ran an opinion piece that proposed that gov subsidies of corn were contributing to the obesity crisis. Lower corn prices === lower price for HFCS === more HFCS in more products === more products at lower prices === more sweetener calories being consumed.
Our gut microbes aren't evolved for this type of diet.
I mentioned in another comment above that circa 2003-ish the NYT Sunday mag ran an opinion piece that proposed that gov subsidies of corn were contributing to the obesity crisis. Lower corn prices === lower price for HFCS === more HFCS in more products === more products at lower prices === more sweetener calories being consumed.
Our gut microbes aren't evolved for this type of diet.
Sugar is negligibly expensive. It's just so cheap. In a wealthy region such as W. Europe, I can't even see the price differential mattering.
When you're manufacturing at scale pennies add up. If not, then how else do we explain the rise in the use of HFCS?
"Lower" is far more important than "real".
> Is it the plastic though, or is it the sugar?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We know fructose is a problem. We know bisphenols and phthalates (endocrine disruptors found in plastics) are problems as well.
It's both.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We know fructose is a problem. We know bisphenols and phthalates (endocrine disruptors found in plastics) are problems as well.
It's both.
I've tracked my diet pretty regularly over the last several years. The one constant in every weight-gain cycle for me is a sugary treat after a meal. This is true even when I've otherwise kept my caloric intake constant.
Blood sugar spikes do strange things to our hunger response.
If your blood sugar is too high the body may produce an emergency response to keep blood sugar down and it may overshoot which makes you hungry much sooner.
If your blood sugar is too high the body may produce an emergency response to keep blood sugar down and it may overshoot which makes you hungry much sooner.
Sugar and seed oils (vegetable oils). Practically impossible to avoid especially in "food deserts".
I've seen a lot of broscience that says "seed oils and PUFAs are bad". Is there actual evidence for this?
Yes, broscience exaggerated the point, but they are not far from correct.
It depends on genetics and the amount and type of PUFA consumed. The Fatty Acid Destaurase genes will dictate how bad short chain PUFA's (Seed oil's) are for a person. These people should stick to fatty fish.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00260...
Omega 6 PUFAs are more inflammatory than long chain PUFA's.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7990530/
It just so happens that most seed oils contain tremendous amounts of Short Chain Omega 6 fatty acids.
It depends on genetics and the amount and type of PUFA consumed. The Fatty Acid Destaurase genes will dictate how bad short chain PUFA's (Seed oil's) are for a person. These people should stick to fatty fish.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00260...
Omega 6 PUFAs are more inflammatory than long chain PUFA's.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7990530/
It just so happens that most seed oils contain tremendous amounts of Short Chain Omega 6 fatty acids.
Whether or not peer-reviewed studies show an impact on health, seed oils are just kind of gross:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI
Compare this to making butter - shake up some cream for a little bit to separate out the buttermilk.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI
Compare this to making butter - shake up some cream for a little bit to separate out the buttermilk.
For balance, here’s a rebuttal to the fad that seed oils are our nemesis: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
There is a great book that goes into this whole topic called Deep Nutrition. Also, anecdotally, I see a lot of correlation between PUFAs and FUPAs.
arbitrage(4)
I consume multiple times more sugar than the average person, and I'm thin as a rail with a healthy metabolism. Sugar in itself isn't likely to be bad. Sugar in addition to a deranged metabolism is probably bad. Fixing the deranged metabolism, (which is likely to be caused by various environmental factors) will probably be the best solution.
> I consume multiple times more sugar than the average person, and I'm thin as a rail with a healthy metabolism.
The average American consumes around 125g of sugar per day [1, 2]. This is about 500 kcals. Multiple times that would mean most of your daily calories are coming from sugar, unless you are very physically active.
[1] https://www.sugar.org/diet/intake/
[2] https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on...
The average American consumes around 125g of sugar per day [1, 2]. This is about 500 kcals. Multiple times that would mean most of your daily calories are coming from sugar, unless you are very physically active.
[1] https://www.sugar.org/diet/intake/
[2] https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on...
Yesterday, I had 3 bottles of coke at 40g of sugar each, 4 cups of OJ at 25g of sugar each, and 1/3 a pound of fudge, which I think is about 50g. That's around 270g of simple sugars. If you care about carb intake, I also had 7 idlis, which is an indian rice cake, and a dosa, which is a rice crepe, which probably adds a significant amount of starch.
I probably reliably have 2x the average for simple sugars
I probably reliably have 2x the average for simple sugars
May I ask if you're under 45?
Yes haha. I'm sure my habits will change as I age
What's your daily caloric intake, though? It's not just sugar that's negative. Traditional diets which are high in either carbohydrates or fats are broadly ok, it's the combination which is problematic, because it's all the caloric consumption of fats at 9kcal/g along with ghrelin/insulin spiking/dropping with carbohydrates (at 4kcal/g) which is an issue, because all of a sudden daily caloric intake is much higher.
The OP’s point was that sugar is a problem in itself, so I was addressing that. You’re saying it’s total caloric intake which is a different claim. I do eat a good amount of fat, from the fudge and the dosa for example. Idk what my total caloric intake is like, but it’s probably around 2k
> Fixing the deranged metabolism
> with a healthy metabolism.
how are you measuring that you have 'healthy metabolism'.
> with a healthy metabolism.
how are you measuring that you have 'healthy metabolism'.
Standard measures like blood pressure, avg body temp, thyroid levels
those don't measure 'healthy metabolism', what does that even mean.
I've found myself looking at 8 different kinds of mayonnaise now, and still can't find one that has added sugar (apart from the ingredients listed under 'contains less than 2% of...").
There is Miracle Whip but that is a bit of a reach to call mayonnaise.
There is Miracle Whip but that is a bit of a reach to call mayonnaise.
Look for real sourdough bread. ("San Francisco style") The loaf is round, and the bread has to rise more slowly.
Years ago I dug through every bread in the aisle to find the one with the least amount of sugar. I went home with a weird-looking sourdough loaf, and I've been hooked ever since.
In CA, most grocery stores carry it, because it's a local style. In MA, I have to go to Trader Joes to get it at a good price.
Years ago I dug through every bread in the aisle to find the one with the least amount of sugar. I went home with a weird-looking sourdough loaf, and I've been hooked ever since.
In CA, most grocery stores carry it, because it's a local style. In MA, I have to go to Trader Joes to get it at a good price.
Timeline doesn't work out, really. People ate a lot of sugar before the 80s and 90s where the obesity epidemic took off. Timeline points more to plastic and/or lithium, as suggested by Slime Mold Time Mold.
Sugar is pretty bad for you, though.
Sugar is pretty bad for you, though.
It could be both, and might even include other factors as well.
Here's the answer. It's a factor. As is sugar. No one thing is going to solve the problem, but everything helps.
I’ve seen it discussed here in the past that when controlling for sugar consumption there isn’t any correlation with obesity and that the causes of the obesity epidemic are more enigmatic than blaming it on sugar.
If a factor can't explain why non-Hispanic Asians have much lower prevalence of obesity than any other race, I tend not to trust it. Are Asians simply using less plastic than other races?
Look at the chart: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf The chart is simply striking. We should all be investigating what are the Asians doing right that all of us should learn from.
Look at the chart: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf The chart is simply striking. We should all be investigating what are the Asians doing right that all of us should learn from.
>Are Asians simply using less plastic than other races?
Considering that Japanese use an absolutely terrifying amount of plastic for food packaging and aren't landwhales, I'd say the theory from TFA's headline is bunk.
Considering that Japanese use an absolutely terrifying amount of plastic for food packaging and aren't landwhales, I'd say the theory from TFA's headline is bunk.
Or it could simply be explained as the Japanese culture of eating conservatively; portions tend not be "supersized" unlike in America.
That's right, but it's consistent with what the parent comment is saying: it's not the plastic packaging causing obesity. You're agreeing with a tone of disagreement.
The data presented is Asian-Americans. Cultural traits, sure, but trying to explain the phenomena by referring to non-American Japanese culture is a bit of a stretch.
Exactly. Lack of obesity in Asians, like good grades, is only a mystery to people who didn't grow up with Asian friends. It's behavior. More specifically it's discipline, both personal and familial. For an Asian kid, drifting out of line often means getting insulted and humiliated at home. I'm not saying it's worth it, but someone who gets shamed for ordering extra fries tends not to grow up to eat fast food five times a week.
Well if you want the One Number That Affects Asians, I think what stands out to me the most is the prevalence of lactose intolerance over there, approaching 90% the more easterly you go. They just do not do very much dairy.
Less scientific, but a couple years ago I decided to transition to a more meat-lite diet and ended up turning to Asian cookbooks to make that happen. Veg entrees are just a novelty to western cuisines and everyone is stunlocked on meat substitutes instead of just doing well with the stuff that grows right out of the ground.
Less scientific, but a couple years ago I decided to transition to a more meat-lite diet and ended up turning to Asian cookbooks to make that happen. Veg entrees are just a novelty to western cuisines and everyone is stunlocked on meat substitutes instead of just doing well with the stuff that grows right out of the ground.
You might be onto something. The US government has been subsidizing dairy products [1] and it has caused a huge surplus[2], which processed food manufacturers then try to add into anything they can because it's a cheap filler. But it wouldn't be a cheap filler if it hadn't been for the government propping up the production. Dairy farmers in this country make so much milk that they will sometimes dump it rather than sell it [3].
[1] https://www.farmanddairy.com/top-stories/a-brief-history-of-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/28/ameri...
[3] https://youtu.be/orTNTwaZauQ
[1] https://www.farmanddairy.com/top-stories/a-brief-history-of-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/28/ameri...
[3] https://youtu.be/orTNTwaZauQ
About 20 yrs ago The NYT Sunday mag had an article (read: op-ed-y piece) that proposed the same about corn.
That is, fed subsidies for corn ultimately made high fructose corn syrup dirt cheap. That price point. made it more appealing to add sweetness to more food products. Or made sweet products (e.g., soda) cheaper.
Lower prices...higher consumption... Hello obesity as a cultural norm.
That is, fed subsidies for corn ultimately made high fructose corn syrup dirt cheap. That price point. made it more appealing to add sweetness to more food products. Or made sweet products (e.g., soda) cheaper.
Lower prices...higher consumption... Hello obesity as a cultural norm.
BMI really isn't comparable across races. A better measure of body fat with regards to its predictive power on health outcomes is "central adiposity" i.e belly size. Asians tend to preferentially accumulate fat around the belly and have lower BMIs at similar body fat %s compared to EU and Americans. I know i've seen this tendency in myself and a lot of other Asians. There are some studies about it too [1].
Asians have as much or more heart disease and type 2 diabetes as any other race which is the outcome that actually matters.
It seems to be a broader problem in medicine. A lot of ranges and typical levels on blood tests or other quantitative tests are calibrated to native populations. With more immigration and genetic mixing the levels don't make a lot of sense.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8617748/
Asians have as much or more heart disease and type 2 diabetes as any other race which is the outcome that actually matters.
It seems to be a broader problem in medicine. A lot of ranges and typical levels on blood tests or other quantitative tests are calibrated to native populations. With more immigration and genetic mixing the levels don't make a lot of sense.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8617748/
I would say food - most asian people I know (even ones that eat a pretty western diet) still randomly incorporate a lot of things that are Real Foods or processed type foods that are close to Real Foods. They also eat a lot (generally) more mushrooms and fermented food (and great variety of fermented food - not just yeast based stuff like yogurt).
Does it really make sense that Western diets basically just ignore a whole kingdom of foods? Plants, Animals, Fungi. Those are the three. Why do we eat so few of the latter?
Does it really make sense that Western diets basically just ignore a whole kingdom of foods? Plants, Animals, Fungi. Those are the three. Why do we eat so few of the latter?
> They also eat a lot (generally) more mushrooms and fermented food (and great variety of fermented food - not just yeast based stuff like yogurt).
Not that this detracts from the rest of your point at all, but yogurt is fermented by bacteria. There are milk drinks that are fermented by SCOBY though, like kefir.
Not that this detracts from the rest of your point at all, but yogurt is fermented by bacteria. There are milk drinks that are fermented by SCOBY though, like kefir.
Yogurt might be, but nearly all non-plain yogurt (in US supermarkets) is loaded with sugar. People eating such yogurt believing they're eating "healthy" are making a mistake.
Yeast is a fungus? So if you eat bread or drink wine/beer you're probably consuming some amount of fungus that way.
Most commercial beer completely removes the yeast though, even many microbreweries. If you don't visibly see sediment in the bottle, it has been filtered. The reason is consistency in product and consumer preferences.
Then why are lab rats also overweight?[1] What are they doing that asians aren't? Really I think you can't look at one single factor no matter how convincing you think it is
1- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lab-rats-are-...
1- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lab-rats-are-...
This article is not stating that lab rats are overweight. It is stating that some rats were made overweight by dosing them with these chemicals.
There was a 2010 study that did suggest lab animals were fatter than previous years. However, it was not statistically significant for rats. Only mice. It did not specify a causal factor.
There was a 2010 study that did suggest lab animals were fatter than previous years. However, it was not statistically significant for rats. Only mice. It did not specify a causal factor.
This article is."A significant rise in obesity incidence has even been noted in laboratory rodents and primates – animals raised under strictly controlled conditions of caloric intake and exercise. The only possible factors driving weight gain for these animals, researchers believe, would be subtle chemical changes in the nature of the foods they eat, or in the materials used to build their pens."
"This article" referred to the one cited by the parent comment.
The OP article does make this claim, though it does not cite a source. The only source for this claim that exists is the study I referenced, which you can read here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/#!po=35...
The OP article does make this claim, though it does not cite a source. The only source for this claim that exists is the study I referenced, which you can read here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/#!po=35...
Higher BMI correlates with various morbidities, but is not necessarily the direct cause.[1] East Asians have higher rates of type-2 diabetes than Caucasians, both in the U.S. and in East Asia, despite having lower BMIs. So, theoretically, plastics could absolutely be a factor here.
But this nonetheless bolsters your larger point, which is that we need to better appreciate how diseases manifest and evolve across different populations, with an eye toward shared but less obvious (i.e. less superficial) similarities and pathways. And studies--or at least their conclusions--which fail to do so should receive greater scrutiny than they currently do.
[1] Notably, East Asians tend to be more prone to intra-abdominal (visceral) fat, which more strongly correlates with type-2 diabetes than BMI. Plenty more East Asians are walking around with diagnosed metabolic syndrome than you would guess simply by how they look. So fat might still be directly involved, just not the obvious, subcutaneous fat which people of Caucasian and African ancestry put on faster and more evenly distributed across the body than some other populations.
But this nonetheless bolsters your larger point, which is that we need to better appreciate how diseases manifest and evolve across different populations, with an eye toward shared but less obvious (i.e. less superficial) similarities and pathways. And studies--or at least their conclusions--which fail to do so should receive greater scrutiny than they currently do.
[1] Notably, East Asians tend to be more prone to intra-abdominal (visceral) fat, which more strongly correlates with type-2 diabetes than BMI. Plenty more East Asians are walking around with diagnosed metabolic syndrome than you would guess simply by how they look. So fat might still be directly involved, just not the obvious, subcutaneous fat which people of Caucasian and African ancestry put on faster and more evenly distributed across the body than some other populations.
[deleted]
This is the blank slate fallacy, but about food. Human populations have natural variations -- and even if we all ate the same foods, some populations would be heavier than others.
Imagine if you looked only to food to explain why the Dutch are taller than the Vietnamese. At best you'd get a small part of the answer.
Imagine if you looked only to food to explain why the Dutch are taller than the Vietnamese. At best you'd get a small part of the answer.
> Imagine if you looked only to food to explain why the Dutch are taller than the Vietnamese. At best you'd get a small part of the answer
Isn't Dutch height supposed be due to natural selection (taller men have more children, who are in turn tall), better nutrition (such as more high-quality dairy/cheese), and better sleep (promoting growth)?
Nutrition may be an important part of the equation.
Isn't Dutch height supposed be due to natural selection (taller men have more children, who are in turn tall), better nutrition (such as more high-quality dairy/cheese), and better sleep (promoting growth)?
Nutrition may be an important part of the equation.
Why does the Mediterranean diet work so well? Because of the socialized healthcare.
(in other words: "it's not the diet dummy", just like it's not the plastic)
(in other words: "it's not the diet dummy", just like it's not the plastic)
After living a year in Florida and then living a year in Serbia, I can't say I'm convinced it's the socialized healthcare is what makes Europeans so much skinnier than Americans.
I think the skinnier Europeans are what makes socialized healthcare work. Lots of expensive to treat diseases are just a result of a poor diet.
Doesn't Serbia have one of the highest rates of tobacco smoking in the world?
Totally. It also has friendly, hilarious, tall and broad shouldered men who love to drink and gamble on soccer, women with great fashion sense who get their nails done religiously, and some of my favorite local folk music I've ever heard. I think the point I'm trying to make is that broad, multi-faceted cultural differences that span generations are a better explanation for differing obesity rates than one single factor like the lack of socialized healthcare.
I think it takes living in Europe and also living in rural America to really understand just how different we are across the Atlantic, so broad demographic differences like this aren't something we can neatly attribute to one cause, nor should we aim to.
I think it takes living in Europe and also living in rural America to really understand just how different we are across the Atlantic, so broad demographic differences like this aren't something we can neatly attribute to one cause, nor should we aim to.
The article said it isn't plastic only. The chart compared groups of Americans. Asian Americans were the only mostly immigrant group. The article said exposing mice to obesogenic chemicals before birth had effects later in their lives. 1 chemical had effects for 3 generations.
Why not genetics?
Any explanation to the American obesity epidemic needs to explain why it exploded in the 1980s and has accelerated since then.
Genetics would exactly fail this test.
Genetics would exactly fail this test.
There are hardly any situations where genetic differences between humans are the entire causal chain for any outcome.
When someone tells you otherwise, it’s a good sign they don’t understand statistics. (Scientists commonly don’t understand statistics, since it’d be harder to get papers published if they did.)
Strictly speaking it’s never true, because the environment could always contain a cure for your genetic disorder and your environment just happens to not have contained one so far in your life.
When someone tells you otherwise, it’s a good sign they don’t understand statistics. (Scientists commonly don’t understand statistics, since it’d be harder to get papers published if they did.)
Strictly speaking it’s never true, because the environment could always contain a cure for your genetic disorder and your environment just happens to not have contained one so far in your life.
What exactly is a non Hispanic Asian? Aren’t virtually all Asians non Hispanic?
Perhaps in those populations many generations consuming soy products selected for resistance against ill-effects from plant phytosterols, and against other endocrine disruptors as a side-effect.
Asians effectively use body shaming and community/peer pressure to essentially mold people into staying fit.
That shouldn’t help unless they know effective ways to stay fit. According to the article that’s avoiding microplastics, which is not what Asian mothers are harassing their daughters into doing.
[deleted]
Is it lower consumption of alcohol?
Food. Just see what they eat (and how much). It really is simple as that.
Don't forget that Japanese actively shame fat people!
This is very much frown upon in Western societies but it works for them I guess.
They don't feel even slightly bad about it. It's as prevalent as obesity isn't.
There’s fat Japanese people. They drink so much it’d be a surprise if there weren’t.
They’re also getting strangely more common in porn, maybe because their society is getting so old.
They’re also getting strangely more common in porn, maybe because their society is getting so old.
Shame should be a powerful motivator. It doesn’t seem to work too well in the west though.
shame is just as unhealthy as obesity. the west recognizes that, somehow.
I suppose I should have clarified that I don’t advocate for shaming others.
But personal shame and shame avoidance has been the single greatest tool for my own success.
But personal shame and shame avoidance has been the single greatest tool for my own success.
if you've come through that unharmed you're a miracle.
shame is a fantastic motivator and holy cow is it one of the most caustic things ever to the recipient's psyche.
shame is a fantastic motivator and holy cow is it one of the most caustic things ever to the recipient's psyche.
The most important thing in the world is leverage.
And shame can make for some pretty powerful leverage.
I’m a hyper critical individual especially when it comes to myself. If I didn’t work to avoid shame, it’s very likely I’d be a lot more miserable and a lot less successful.
And shame can make for some pretty powerful leverage.
I’m a hyper critical individual especially when it comes to myself. If I didn’t work to avoid shame, it’s very likely I’d be a lot more miserable and a lot less successful.
> If I didn’t work to avoid shame, it’s very likely I’d be a lot more miserable and a lot less successful.
Ok, I am not going to say that is incorrect or anything; you know you far better than any internet strangers.
I would say that having a motivation which is based on avoiding negative outcome rather than being drawn towards positive outcome is by definition an unhealthy motivation, and that's my point about shame. It does work, it brings success, it brings money, and so on, and deep down, every last person motivated primarily by aversion to negative outcome is going to be very unhappy in their core. Those people know that just a small number of honest mistakes will bring failure and those feelings of shame, even if the source of the shame is completely internal and the mistakes that got them there trivial.
These people are not happy. Not really; they are only going in the correct direction because the bad direction is artificially acutely punitive, far more than it would be on its own.
Western culture does not recognize this very well at all; we are a results-driven society. In public, we openly scorn parents shovel shame onto their children, and the parents learn (via shame from the public) that they should simply do this privately, rather than openly. Shame begets shame.
Fear of failure should never be a stronger motivator than the desire to succeed.
Ok, I am not going to say that is incorrect or anything; you know you far better than any internet strangers.
I would say that having a motivation which is based on avoiding negative outcome rather than being drawn towards positive outcome is by definition an unhealthy motivation, and that's my point about shame. It does work, it brings success, it brings money, and so on, and deep down, every last person motivated primarily by aversion to negative outcome is going to be very unhappy in their core. Those people know that just a small number of honest mistakes will bring failure and those feelings of shame, even if the source of the shame is completely internal and the mistakes that got them there trivial.
These people are not happy. Not really; they are only going in the correct direction because the bad direction is artificially acutely punitive, far more than it would be on its own.
Western culture does not recognize this very well at all; we are a results-driven society. In public, we openly scorn parents shovel shame onto their children, and the parents learn (via shame from the public) that they should simply do this privately, rather than openly. Shame begets shame.
Fear of failure should never be a stronger motivator than the desire to succeed.
What's the difference between wanting to be fit, and not wanting to be fat? Wanting to be rich, or not wanting to be poor? Yet you're calling one healthy, and the other one producing unhappiness.
the motivation is either good or bad, and that matters a lot.
this isn't a door which can be pushed from one side or pulled from the other to achieve the same result. motivation and the reasons you are doing something matter. a lot.
imagine you are a slave working a field so you can eat, vs a farmer working a field so you can eat. do you really believe there is no difference? the difference is effectively infinite.
this isn't a door which can be pushed from one side or pulled from the other to achieve the same result. motivation and the reasons you are doing something matter. a lot.
imagine you are a slave working a field so you can eat, vs a farmer working a field so you can eat. do you really believe there is no difference? the difference is effectively infinite.
If your countrymen allow you to make it to a "600lbs life" without abject comment, then they have done you a disservice; certainly you're bound to feel more shame and discomfort dealing with being in that state.
Everyone on my mother’s side of the family are obese. Extremely obese. They all told me that it would happen to me due to genetics. They never mentioned their sedentary lifestyles or the packs of cigarettes or the 2 liters of soda they consumed each day.
I was so ashamed of them growing up that I was motivated to never allow myself to become that way.
I was so ashamed of them growing up that I was motivated to never allow myself to become that way.
that's not shame, that is positive reinforcement via negative example.
shame is something put upon you, and not a decision you make on your own.
breaking the cycle you were in is no small feat; please do not misunderstand. what you did was difficult. I would not say that you were shamed into doing it, by what you've said.
shame is something put upon you, and not a decision you make on your own.
breaking the cycle you were in is no small feat; please do not misunderstand. what you did was difficult. I would not say that you were shamed into doing it, by what you've said.
It does except we don’t shame people completely as a society, we have a lot of niches and self assuring peer groups that negates the shame coming from some segment of the population.
we eat a lot of noodles and rice though. speaking as a fat asian i feel like that factors a lot into it (that i'm actively working on now)
Asians consume a lot of alcohol including Japanese, Koreans, Chinese and Indians.
diet (not dieting, but their diet)
Dieting too, esp the women seem to have a huge amount of pressure to be skinny.
So something else I wonder. Over the last 50-90 years we've selectively bred our entire food chain to prioritize rapid growth, then pack it full of growth hormones to accelerate this.
My dad decided to raise chickens back in the 80's. The broiler hens grew so fast that they broke their legs, and this was when fed on our kitchen waste (i.e. no growth hormones).
I do wonder how much of this spills over into human obesity; if everything you eat comes from a plant or animal which is hyperoptimizing for unhealthy growth rates, what does that do to the human body?
And if you are looking for a biological mechanism, it might be related to epigenetics. Not saying it is so, but am saying that a biological link is not a-priori impossible.
My dad decided to raise chickens back in the 80's. The broiler hens grew so fast that they broke their legs, and this was when fed on our kitchen waste (i.e. no growth hormones).
I do wonder how much of this spills over into human obesity; if everything you eat comes from a plant or animal which is hyperoptimizing for unhealthy growth rates, what does that do to the human body?
And if you are looking for a biological mechanism, it might be related to epigenetics. Not saying it is so, but am saying that a biological link is not a-priori impossible.
Epigenetics is to do with how genes are activated and DNA is folded around his histones. I would be very surprised if DNA could survive digestion and influence human genetic expression/epigenetics. There may be other mechanisms I guess (and things like abnormal protein folding like prion diseases can influence other nearby proteins) but I think I’m grasping at straws.
Hormones are sometimes ingested and they have an impact.
That is certainly true, I was addressing the epigenetic side of things.
In his thread he was referencing fast growing chickens fed scraps only
Amylase Trypsin Inhibitors might be playing a role as well. We have selected for this to be higher in crops since it leads to greater pest resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807301/
> And if you are looking for a biological mechanism, it might be related to epigenetics
Very unlikely as afaik everything non parasitic gets broken down by our saliva and stomach acids.
Very unlikely as afaik everything non parasitic gets broken down by our saliva and stomach acids.
That's not my understanding, at least in animals. Those who ate younger plants and/or animals lived longer.
Sorry can't find a citation right now.
Sorry can't find a citation right now.
I had put some thought on this and my hunch was that consuming younger plants and/or animals means fewer "forever chemicals" getting accumulated in the body.
However, that doesn't disprove the hypothesis that DNA can survive the digestive tract. If this [1] is to be believed, it very much does so. The question is, can epigenetic information / ie folds, survive?
[1] https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/does-d...
However, that doesn't disprove the hypothesis that DNA can survive the digestive tract. If this [1] is to be believed, it very much does so. The question is, can epigenetic information / ie folds, survive?
[1] https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/does-d...
[deleted]
Utter nonsense. Even if growth hormone made it into finished meat, and then if enough was bioavailable to have an effect on humans, growth hormone causes the development of muscle (meat) as well as fat. So you'd expect to see people being more muscular (and taller, with stronger bones).
For what it's worth, growth hormones are prohibited in poultry in the US.
https://extension.msstate.edu/publications/publications/chic...
https://extension.msstate.edu/publications/publications/chic...
This is truly shocking.
"...tributyltin or TBT, a chemical used in wood preservatives, among other things. In experiments exposing mice to low and supposedly safe levels of TBT, Blumberg and his colleagues found significantly increased fat accumulation in the next three generations."
"...tributyltin or TBT, a chemical used in wood preservatives, among other things. In experiments exposing mice to low and supposedly safe levels of TBT, Blumberg and his colleagues found significantly increased fat accumulation in the next three generations."
Where is that quote from? I could not see it in the (interesting) linked article.
It's this paragraph in the article on the Washington Post:
"Importantly, recent research demonstrates that obesogens act to harm individuals in ways that traditional tests of chemical toxicity can’t detect. In particular, consequences of chemical exposure may not appear during the lifetime of an exposed organism but can be passed down through so-called epigenetic mechanisms to offspring even several generations away. A typical example is tributyltin or TBT, a chemical used in wood preservatives, among other things. In experiments exposing mice to low and supposedly safe levels of TBT, Blumberg and his colleagues found significantly increased fat accumulation in the next three generations."
"Importantly, recent research demonstrates that obesogens act to harm individuals in ways that traditional tests of chemical toxicity can’t detect. In particular, consequences of chemical exposure may not appear during the lifetime of an exposed organism but can be passed down through so-called epigenetic mechanisms to offspring even several generations away. A typical example is tributyltin or TBT, a chemical used in wood preservatives, among other things. In experiments exposing mice to low and supposedly safe levels of TBT, Blumberg and his colleagues found significantly increased fat accumulation in the next three generations."
I've been wondering about this too.
I'm not well versed in the domain to say one thing or another so I will wait to form a concrete opinion before I hear from an expert in the field. I am very curious though like you, if there's a relation between the two.
I'm not well versed in the domain to say one thing or another so I will wait to form a concrete opinion before I hear from an expert in the field. I am very curious though like you, if there's a relation between the two.
I've recently started taking 'liraglutide', which is an appetite suppressant.
I haven't been taking it that long, but so far it's amazing -- I eat a balanced meal with an approriate amount of calories in it, and then I am full, and don't want to eat any more. Sometimes I snack and eat a biscuit, but then I don't feel any need to eat a second biscuit.
I'm not saying this is a long-term solution for me, or people in general, but what it has shown me is some people (me included) have managed to mess up their digestive systems badly enough it is incredibly hard to eat healthily -- I previously lost 8 stone (50 kg), but I was hungry every minute of every day, no matter what I tried. Once I had a bad patch I ended up putting all the weight back on.
I haven't been taking it that long, but so far it's amazing -- I eat a balanced meal with an approriate amount of calories in it, and then I am full, and don't want to eat any more. Sometimes I snack and eat a biscuit, but then I don't feel any need to eat a second biscuit.
I'm not saying this is a long-term solution for me, or people in general, but what it has shown me is some people (me included) have managed to mess up their digestive systems badly enough it is incredibly hard to eat healthily -- I previously lost 8 stone (50 kg), but I was hungry every minute of every day, no matter what I tried. Once I had a bad patch I ended up putting all the weight back on.
'an appetite suppressant' is really underselling liraglutide. It also corrects insulin resistance,
which accounts for some degree of it's effectiveness as a weight loss aid beyond it's effects on slowing the GI tract.
GLP-1 agonists are truly an amazing class of drugs. It's absolutely absurd that they're generally not covered by insurance for non-diabetics, even when they yield such obvious benefits for obese people.
GLP-1 agonists are truly an amazing class of drugs. It's absolutely absurd that they're generally not covered by insurance for non-diabetics, even when they yield such obvious benefits for obese people.
Within the UK they remain restricted too.
However, more and more at target populations i.e. obesity + diabetes/obesity related secondary condition or even at risk for diabetes i.e. ethnicity based.
Are being offered these treatments.
It really will be a new age for obese patients.
The first and exercise tactic is a lost battle, ideally we'd be bringing up a generation that can manage their weight but we've failed at that. This is a really good option.
Metformin is similarly excellent drug even in absence of diabetes.
However, more and more at target populations i.e. obesity + diabetes/obesity related secondary condition or even at risk for diabetes i.e. ethnicity based.
Are being offered these treatments.
It really will be a new age for obese patients.
The first and exercise tactic is a lost battle, ideally we'd be bringing up a generation that can manage their weight but we've failed at that. This is a really good option.
Metformin is similarly excellent drug even in absence of diabetes.
As a non-diabetic (though demonstrably insulin resistant and leptin resistant), I've found metformin's gastro side effects and impact on blood glucose levels to be annoyingly unpredictable. Metformin also causes a noticeable drop in testosterone that can be especially counterproductive for men if weight loss/maintenance is a goal and one already has relatively low baseline testosterone levels.
Definitely heard that the gastro side effects are unacceptable to many and can even impact social life.
I'd heard a bit about the testosterone, i.e. that you don't get the testosterone rise associated with successful management for diabetes. And perhaps Metformin short circuits that. Also that it might correlate with the life expectancy improvement and it does make sense since Metformin is also used for PCOS with wide ranging benefits not limited to insulin resistance but actually reducing androgenic effects of the condition.
Do you think you'll continue with Metformin? I've genuinely was close to starting on it some years back (despite having no (pre) diabetes.).
I'd heard a bit about the testosterone, i.e. that you don't get the testosterone rise associated with successful management for diabetes. And perhaps Metformin short circuits that. Also that it might correlate with the life expectancy improvement and it does make sense since Metformin is also used for PCOS with wide ranging benefits not limited to insulin resistance but actually reducing androgenic effects of the condition.
Do you think you'll continue with Metformin? I've genuinely was close to starting on it some years back (despite having no (pre) diabetes.).
Metformin never really yielded noticeable benefits for me (neither in terms of fat loss nor any bloodwork metrics) above and beyond other lifestyle changes I had already made, so I discontinued it after a trial period of about 4 months.
The MD I was working with argued that I could have seen a impact on weight loss if taking a more extreme approach to dieting (basically an extremely high protein, moderate fat, moderate carb diet with 300-400 calories of intake every ~4 hours from sunrise to sunset) in conjunction with the metformin, but that approach didn't really fit my lifestyle at the time. If done correctly, this ostensibly maximizes the gluconeogenesis inhibition effect of metformin in conjunction with minimizing fatty acid synthesis by keeping blood levels at a consistent glucose deficit (thus encouraging lipolysis). I was also unconvinced that this isn't a just-so story, and thus I preferred to take a traditional 'keto' diet route (which has a lot more evidence backing it).
The MD I was working with argued that I could have seen a impact on weight loss if taking a more extreme approach to dieting (basically an extremely high protein, moderate fat, moderate carb diet with 300-400 calories of intake every ~4 hours from sunrise to sunset) in conjunction with the metformin, but that approach didn't really fit my lifestyle at the time. If done correctly, this ostensibly maximizes the gluconeogenesis inhibition effect of metformin in conjunction with minimizing fatty acid synthesis by keeping blood levels at a consistent glucose deficit (thus encouraging lipolysis). I was also unconvinced that this isn't a just-so story, and thus I preferred to take a traditional 'keto' diet route (which has a lot more evidence backing it).
>It also corrects insulin resistance
Is liraglutide doing that directly, or is it mediated by people eating less sugar?
Is liraglutide doing that directly, or is it mediated by people eating less sugar?
Directly. It stimulates insulin release from the pacreas.
Eesh… that doesn’t seem great. How does this not cause further habituation?
Human and animal studies demonstrate that it doesn't seem to worsen insulin resistance if treatment is ceased, but probably doesn't significantly improve it either.
Weird. That's quite intriguing.
The MUFAs in olive oil and a-linolenic acid (like from flax seed) are natural GLP-1 agonists:
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
Edited to add: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/fo/d0fo0...
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
Edited to add: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/fo/d0fo0...
I’m not overweight and I tried liraglutide for other reasons and it had the same effect on me.
Obviously it’s the whole “is your blue my blue?” conundrum, but at least some of us that aren’t overweight could also eat all day too. Dieting for anyone is hard. It seems like once you go below what your body is used to you’re going for be super hungry.
Obviously it’s the whole “is your blue my blue?” conundrum, but at least some of us that aren’t overweight could also eat all day too. Dieting for anyone is hard. It seems like once you go below what your body is used to you’re going for be super hungry.
Interesting. Does that help with all forms of caloric intake? Alcoholic / sugar beverages included?
In general, yes, but beverage intake results can vary a lot based on behavioral factors. If one frequently drinks sugary beverages or even alcohol to attempt to sate a hunger drive (e. g., due to leptin resistance), it could dramatically reduce intake of those things. But if intake of those beverages are driven by other factors such as poor judgement in beverage selection for hydration or alcoholism, it's not likely going to result in much of a change.
As far as medical solutions go, something like naltrexone is probably a better fit for discouraging unhealthy food/beverage selection, especially (but not necessarily) when paired with bupropion. The combo dramatically blunts the positive neurochemical effects of eating artificially sweet/salty/fat foods + drinking alcohol (and nearly eliminates the perceptible benefits of alcohol as well - it's a very surreal experience).
As far as medical solutions go, something like naltrexone is probably a better fit for discouraging unhealthy food/beverage selection, especially (but not necessarily) when paired with bupropion. The combo dramatically blunts the positive neurochemical effects of eating artificially sweet/salty/fat foods + drinking alcohol (and nearly eliminates the perceptible benefits of alcohol as well - it's a very surreal experience).
Was it hard to get it? Is it expensive?
https://m.goodrx.com/victoza
$1000 for 3 pens.
$1000 for 3 pens.
A very long series of essays about this: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
The authors take the view that obesogens account for 100% or nearly 100% of the rise in obesity, which is definitely a controversial view. However, they do an awesome job giving an overview of the arguments for obesogens.
The authors take the view that obesogens account for 100% or nearly 100% of the rise in obesity, which is definitely a controversial view. However, they do an awesome job giving an overview of the arguments for obesogens.
A pretty thorough critique of SMTM's lithium hypothesis.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba...
I find this to be a pretty lame analysis.
> People in the 1800s did have diets that were very different from ours. But by conventional wisdom, their diets were worse, not better. They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard. This seems closely related to observations like the French Paradox — the French eat a lot of fatty cheese and butter, so why aren’t they fatter and sicker?
Lard doesn’t make you fat. If anything it fills you up so you eat less and gain less weight. A lot more of the prior generations were also laborers which this acknowledges but really underplays.
The section on why hunter gatherers aren’t obese is answered by the fact that they are hunting and gathering.
> People in the 1800s did have diets that were very different from ours. But by conventional wisdom, their diets were worse, not better. They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard. This seems closely related to observations like the French Paradox — the French eat a lot of fatty cheese and butter, so why aren’t they fatter and sicker?
Lard doesn’t make you fat. If anything it fills you up so you eat less and gain less weight. A lot more of the prior generations were also laborers which this acknowledges but really underplays.
The section on why hunter gatherers aren’t obese is answered by the fact that they are hunting and gathering.
I think saying that physical activity accounts for the differences in weight isn't supported by the evidence. I mean, surely if eating pure honey for half your calories but exercising a bunch led to good health outcomes and lower weight, we'd see people losing weight by exercising without dieting. We don't see that.
Similarly, look at their article on obesity in different professions - it does not align with who does the most physical labor. Rather, certain professions with high levels of exposure to endocrine disruptions are the most obese on average.
Similarly, look at their article on obesity in different professions - it does not align with who does the most physical labor. Rather, certain professions with high levels of exposure to endocrine disruptions are the most obese on average.
There's an interesting book supporting this idea:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/603894/burn-by-herm...
Basically measurements of calorie intake and burn rate indicate, that physical activity doesn't appreciably speed up metabolism.
You still should exercise to avoid chronic diseases, but you can't outrun a bad diet.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/603894/burn-by-herm...
Basically measurements of calorie intake and burn rate indicate, that physical activity doesn't appreciably speed up metabolism.
You still should exercise to avoid chronic diseases, but you can't outrun a bad diet.
You can outrun a bad diet IMHO. There's a point in which physical activity outrun the body's willingness to adjust basal metabolism.
However, it is not really practical for most people to use exercises to burn calories. Rather diets are more important and more effective.
However, it is not really practical for most people to use exercises to burn calories. Rather diets are more important and more effective.
Doing a tough 1 hour exercise is not the same as being on your feet all day. You may be able to offset doing nothing all day with a burst of effort. You may not. People who are moving constantly are very rarely fat.
I cannot find their article on professions. I’d be very skeptical. In general being poor in America means a terrible diet is likely so that’s a huge part of the equation. It seems very unlikely that exposure to endocrine disrupters varies enough to explain the differences. People in poverty will have a huge variance in exposure but the obesity rates are high across the board.
Especially if you see something like… idk, factory workers being called high exposure having high obesity but lower obesity than something like a dmv clerk that’s totally sedentary but at worst median level exposure.
Some groups will get HUGELY more exposure to some chemicals. I’m not convinced at all they represent the fattest groups. Which is a strong counterpoint if one is trying to claim this is the strongest effect.
I cannot find their article on professions. I’d be very skeptical. In general being poor in America means a terrible diet is likely so that’s a huge part of the equation. It seems very unlikely that exposure to endocrine disrupters varies enough to explain the differences. People in poverty will have a huge variance in exposure but the obesity rates are high across the board.
Especially if you see something like… idk, factory workers being called high exposure having high obesity but lower obesity than something like a dmv clerk that’s totally sedentary but at worst median level exposure.
Some groups will get HUGELY more exposure to some chemicals. I’m not convinced at all they represent the fattest groups. Which is a strong counterpoint if one is trying to claim this is the strongest effect.
Why then, for example, are cleaning services workers, mechanics, and health workers all more obese than average? Those are jobs where you are much more active than an office worker. Those are all cases where someone gets exposed to chemicals (cleaning chemicals, lithium grease, and PFAS-based medical fabrics). In fact, healthcare support workers are more obese than healthcare technicians, even though technicians are more sedentary. Support workers are the ones changing PFAS-based curtains, garments, etc.
The number one most obese job is a truck driver. Your hypothesis is that chemicals cause obesity. You cite cleaning services workers as receiving substantially more chemicals due to their work than the average person. Why then, are truckers more obese? If this is the primary factor causing obesity, and these people are receiving substantially more exposure than everyone else, why aren't they substantially the fattest group?
Also fwiw, the idea that healthcare support workers are supposed to represent the largest exposure to PFAS because they're handling garments is ridiculous. I doubt healthcare support workers are even in the top 10% of actual exposure levels.
Also fwiw, the idea that healthcare support workers are supposed to represent the largest exposure to PFAS because they're handling garments is ridiculous. I doubt healthcare support workers are even in the top 10% of actual exposure levels.
Volatile organic compounds from upholstery and plastics in the dashboard may explain it. Spending a lot of time in trucks is like living in a mobile plastic house.
It seems insane to me that someone would think the reason truckers, who spend all day every day sitting down and eating on the go foods, are fat because their dashboards have plastic in them.
Changes literally nothing. I have no doubt that most truckers would still be fat if they had a tank of the freshest, purest air piped directly into their lungs 24/7.
it's easier to explain it by more stress, less money, less ability to care for their health or eat healthily, etc etc.
It seems like you're projecting modern abundance backwards onto a period of relative scarcity. Hunter-gatherers could not possibly have satisfied half of their calories with honey.
A google search indicates that: a) a pound of honey (~1500 calories) would account for a little over half of a man's daily required calories (Google says 2500, but presumably an active hunter-gatherer required more), and b) the average (wild) beehive creates ~50 pounds of honey per year.
For a single man to satisfy half of his caloric intake with honey, he'd have to consume ~7.3 beehives per year. A tribe of 100 would consume the production of ~700 wild beehives each year!
A google search indicates that: a) a pound of honey (~1500 calories) would account for a little over half of a man's daily required calories (Google says 2500, but presumably an active hunter-gatherer required more), and b) the average (wild) beehive creates ~50 pounds of honey per year.
For a single man to satisfy half of his caloric intake with honey, he'd have to consume ~7.3 beehives per year. A tribe of 100 would consume the production of ~700 wild beehives each year!
The series of articles I posted talks about a tribe where this is the case. Very fit people who get a ton of calories from honey.
> They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard. This seems closely related to observations like the French Paradox — the French eat a lot of fatty cheese and butter, so why aren’t they fatter and sicker?
Because the issue is - in fact - the sugar, not the fat (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-...).
Because the issue is - in fact - the sugar, not the fat (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-...).
The section on why hunter gatherers aren’t obese is answered by the fact that they are hunting and gathering.
This is obvious to anyone who used to be more active, and gained weight after they started sitting at a desk all day for work.
This is obvious to anyone who used to be more active, and gained weight after they started sitting at a desk all day for work.
This refutes your claims
https://fireinabottle.net/torpor-sloth-and-gluttony-part-1-a...
This article is pathetic.
It compares in excessive detail some old and frankly hard to follow tables to the present day guideline of 2,500 calories and makes NO EFFORT to validate whether or not that's realistic.
It also tries to use pictures from baseball game showing thin people in the front row as evidence of... something. This is still what you see today. Rich people are significantly thinner on average in america. And even in obese heavy areas, you don't see a lot of obese people walking around. Because... they're not walking.
Here's an article citing an american average of 3,600 calories consumed per day, up a whopping 24% since 1961.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-calorie-intake-last...
Here's another article citing CDC data suggesting a 22% rise in caloric consumption leading into the year 2000.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/calorie.htm
It compares in excessive detail some old and frankly hard to follow tables to the present day guideline of 2,500 calories and makes NO EFFORT to validate whether or not that's realistic.
It also tries to use pictures from baseball game showing thin people in the front row as evidence of... something. This is still what you see today. Rich people are significantly thinner on average in america. And even in obese heavy areas, you don't see a lot of obese people walking around. Because... they're not walking.
Here's an article citing an american average of 3,600 calories consumed per day, up a whopping 24% since 1961.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-calorie-intake-last...
Here's another article citing CDC data suggesting a 22% rise in caloric consumption leading into the year 2000.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/calorie.htm
Those diets also didn't have added sugars and salts to everything. It's serious work requiring reading all the nutrition labels to get groceries sans questionable additives in the US.
Thanks to corn subsidies, we have high fructose corn syrup in many foods you wouldn't expect to find it. Milk by-products are the same way. My wife recently developed lactose intolerance, so we've been finding milk products in tons of things you wouldn't have expected it. Instant ramen? The flavor mix includes milk solids. Cheap hot dogs? More milk solids. Flavored chips, even when not cheese flavored? They have lactose too. Many brands of chicken nuggets or fish sticks? Milk is everywhere! We subsidize some of these industries to the point of over production which leads to companies finding "clever" ways of utilizing that excess often to the detriment of the population at large.
Have you tried A2 or Raw milk? I’m sensitive and those changed things. I like A2 since I can get it at Target, and I have no problems with Raw milk. Consuming those before say cheese or ice cream or pizza helps massively.
French fries often have dairy in the coating. It's everywhere.
The rise of transnational food companies helped make this an almost ubiquitous global development in developed nations, the growth of obesity in our neighbor to the south Mexico over the last 40 years or so is a pretty good example.
I found the Yuka app makes this much easier. Just scan the UPC and it’ll show you a x/100 score. I use it for nearly everything.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yuka-food-cosmetic-scanner/id1...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yuka-food-cosmetic-scanner/id1...
Thank you! I’ve installed it and will try it out soon. Looks good.
[deleted]
It's calories in/calories out for the majority - sure there's edge cases where you an discuss more "efficient" bodies, etc, but I daresay our diets are way more caloric than they used to be.
And a lot of that is portion size and "added eating" between meals. I'd love to work out just how many calories the various soda companies ship a year.
And a lot of that is portion size and "added eating" between meals. I'd love to work out just how many calories the various soda companies ship a year.
Calories in / calories out is not an interesting question. If you present a healthy person with 4000 calories of cake, they don't eat it. They may have some cake, but not all of it. Oftentimes, they simply can't eat it all without feeling sick and stopping. Healthy people constantly pass on adding extra calories to their diet, and it's not through willpower. Healthy people have different hormonal balances, different gut bacteria, different brain structures, etc. They simply cannot eat the same quantity of unhealthy food that an obese person can, and they do not have the constant level of background hunger cravings that obese people do. Changing a healthy person into an unhealthy one takes a while, but several months of being sedentary and eating low quality food generally seems to put someone on track for obesity and metabolic syndrome.
Conversely, an obese person, or particularly a formerly obese person that has recently dieted, has pretty extreme cravings and withdrawal symptoms, even if they're eating a complete and healthy diet. Something is going wrong with the complicated dance of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, and various others. Something is driving obese people to eat enormous amounts of food and still feel hungry. Poor sleep, chemical exposure, change in nutrient content of easily available foods, are all potential culprits. Something far more interesting is going on than "they're eating more calories".
Conversely, an obese person, or particularly a formerly obese person that has recently dieted, has pretty extreme cravings and withdrawal symptoms, even if they're eating a complete and healthy diet. Something is going wrong with the complicated dance of insulin, ghrelin, leptin, and various others. Something is driving obese people to eat enormous amounts of food and still feel hungry. Poor sleep, chemical exposure, change in nutrient content of easily available foods, are all potential culprits. Something far more interesting is going on than "they're eating more calories".
Eh. I think people drastically underestimate the variance on calories absorbed (the effective amount in) and the calories used for general homeostasis and metabolism (the effective amount out) excluding exercise.
It does indeed have a large effect, the science is clear. Everything from gut bacteria to how often you eat meals can affect the % of caloric intake that gets converted into fat.
But the key thing is why are they more caloric. Is it that we are hungrier, is it that foods changed? These are questions that are testable if we start doing policy experiments.
what i find interesting is that most people don't realize that the majority of your calories out is actually breathed and peed out. it doesn't, eh, turn into heat or something silly like that, which is common wisdom.
> Nearly 1,000 obesogens with such effects have already been identified in studies with animals or humans. They include Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics, and the phthalates, plasticizing agents used in paints, medicine and cosmetics. Others include parabens used as preservatives in food and paper products, and chemicals called organotins used as fungicides. Other obesogens include pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, which a recent study found to be present in the urine of most Americans.
It feels like modern, Western, society is like living in a big Petri dish. It’s one big experiment in which we’re swimming in chemicals that we later find out interact with us and each other in negative ways. We should have reigned in these kinds of “innovations” decades ago. Americans are now urinating carcinogenic pesticides, rainwater even in most remote regions in the would is undrinkable [0], and we’ve had strong evidence for a while that some of the constituent components of commonly used plastics disrupt biological processes in humans and other animals.
In 50-100 years people will be looking back in horror at the kinds of self-inflicted suffering we’ve produced. And for what? Money? Convenience?
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40859859/rainwater...
It feels like modern, Western, society is like living in a big Petri dish. It’s one big experiment in which we’re swimming in chemicals that we later find out interact with us and each other in negative ways. We should have reigned in these kinds of “innovations” decades ago. Americans are now urinating carcinogenic pesticides, rainwater even in most remote regions in the would is undrinkable [0], and we’ve had strong evidence for a while that some of the constituent components of commonly used plastics disrupt biological processes in humans and other animals.
In 50-100 years people will be looking back in horror at the kinds of self-inflicted suffering we’ve produced. And for what? Money? Convenience?
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40859859/rainwater...
Lack of regulation.
For what: the profit of capitalists.
I don't think you need "capitalists", since socialists would be using the same toxins by fiat from a central committee. "For profit" is likely ok too.
This is absurd. The authors should look at what some people (or perhaps they themselves, and that's the issue) have in their trolley (cart?) next time they're shopping (storing? ;)).
Obesity is, for at least the most part, plainly not caused by too many/wrong pesticides on fruit and vegetables. It is caused by (far) too many things that are not fruits and vegetables.
Obesity is, for at least the most part, plainly not caused by too many/wrong pesticides on fruit and vegetables. It is caused by (far) too many things that are not fruits and vegetables.
Agreed.
And it’s not like everyone is obese.
There’s a large proportion of people who eat healthily, avoid processed food, keep their portion sizes regular and refrain from too much alcohol.
Unsurprisingly these people are in good shape despite probably being in close proximity to the plastics/chemicals described in the article.
And it’s not like everyone is obese.
There’s a large proportion of people who eat healthily, avoid processed food, keep their portion sizes regular and refrain from too much alcohol.
Unsurprisingly these people are in good shape despite probably being in close proximity to the plastics/chemicals described in the article.
I'm always really skeptical of claims about obesity for more than one person. Obesity is defined in terms of BMI, which is severely limited as a metric for health. An individual with more muscle mass and higher bone density is healthier than the alternative, but their BMI will be higher. Not all body mass is bad.
This tends to confirm my own anecdata, which is that I'm not surrounded by overfat people after all. I do see morbid cases from time to time and in certain population centers. A mostly healthy population with a small number of extremely overfat cases is going to appear to have bad BMI stats on the whole.
This tends to confirm my own anecdata, which is that I'm not surrounded by overfat people after all. I do see morbid cases from time to time and in certain population centers. A mostly healthy population with a small number of extremely overfat cases is going to appear to have bad BMI stats on the whole.
This is an utterly naive assessment:
To answer the question of "why are people obese" with "not eating enough fruits and vegetables" completely ignores that all the research that demonstrates that it's simply not true.
Why do obese people rapidly gain weight after losing it, even with diets that wouldn't cause normal weight people to gain any weight? Why do obese people seem to be simply more hungry than normal weight people.
There are myriad questions that your thesis doesn't and can't answer. It would also be trivial to prove this thesis true, yet obesity still tends to confound scientists, especially with childhood obesity, which did not even exist three generations ago.
To answer the question of "why are people obese" with "not eating enough fruits and vegetables" completely ignores that all the research that demonstrates that it's simply not true.
Why do obese people rapidly gain weight after losing it, even with diets that wouldn't cause normal weight people to gain any weight? Why do obese people seem to be simply more hungry than normal weight people.
There are myriad questions that your thesis doesn't and can't answer. It would also be trivial to prove this thesis true, yet obesity still tends to confound scientists, especially with childhood obesity, which did not even exist three generations ago.
Why is '"not eating enough fruits and vegetables"' quoted? I didn't say that. I said 'too many things which are not fruits and vegetables'.
Alternatively: too many plastic-packaged things; the plastic is not what's wrong with them.
Alternatively: too many plastic-packaged things; the plastic is not what's wrong with them.
Yes, plastic MIGHT be making us obese. But, we definitely know high caloric intake and sedentary lifestyle makes us obese. I don't understand why obesity is such a mystery. People are creatures of path of the least resistance. Developed countries have highly dense caloric food and people are inactive most of the day due to cars and office jobs.
"Developed countries" don't have 40% of high school students clinically obese. Only the US does.
Yes, it's bad in the US, but obesity is rising worldwide. Obesity, in general, correlates with GDP per capital.
Then why are poorer people more obese?
Edit: still talking about the USA here.
Edit: still talking about the USA here.
Poorer people are more obese is only true in richer countries or in countries where the poor doesn’t have to starve. As for why poor people are more obese in well-off countries. Again, it’s the path of least resistance. Poor people are generally less educated and less likely to think long term. It's easier to eat junk food than to put in the time and effort to make a well balance meal.
Btw, I'm not blaming the poor, being poor is hard. I grew up under the poverty line. Overcoming poverty is a huge task and more should be done.
Btw, I'm not blaming the poor, being poor is hard. I grew up under the poverty line. Overcoming poverty is a huge task and more should be done.
Availability of cheap crap is much higher in more developed/high GDP countries I suppose.
In extremis, if you only eat what you can grow, rear, and trade for, then you're not eating breakfast ~cereal~ sugar, ready meals, crisps, etc.
It's a bit tangential, but this is similar to how such a lifestyle isn't even cheaper - it's not the only shopping those people can afford - most of my meals probably cost less, because I take an interest in cooking and eating (i.e. I'm buying vegetables not ready meals) but that doesn't mean there's always (or even that often really, especially amortised over all uses) an out-of-reach expensive ingredient.
In extremis, if you only eat what you can grow, rear, and trade for, then you're not eating breakfast ~cereal~ sugar, ready meals, crisps, etc.
It's a bit tangential, but this is similar to how such a lifestyle isn't even cheaper - it's not the only shopping those people can afford - most of my meals probably cost less, because I take an interest in cooking and eating (i.e. I'm buying vegetables not ready meals) but that doesn't mean there's always (or even that often really, especially amortised over all uses) an out-of-reach expensive ingredient.
Go to the dollar store and look at the food there. Everything has sugar in it.(It's also not a great deal due to portion size, but if you don't have much money it's an easy way to get variety). The cheaper the food, the more likely there are cheap sugars meant to made it more palatable
Or look at restaurant/fast food-- the healthier options are the 'premium' options. But if you've got a few buck and want to feed a whole family, a bunch of burgers is still reasonably priced for someone low income
Or look at restaurant/fast food-- the healthier options are the 'premium' options. But if you've got a few buck and want to feed a whole family, a bunch of burgers is still reasonably priced for someone low income
[deleted]
I haven't been able to find a source claiming higher than 16% for US high school students, fwiw. I wouldn't bat an eye if europe caught up soon.
I think you're right, but the the article says: "In the US, roughly 40% of today’s high school students were overweight by the time they started high school." Not sure what the source is.
Overweight is a tier below obesity. That's believable.
[deleted]
And for me I don’t understand why people think obesity is such a simple problem?
Every single other thing in our body is complex and has chains and chains of reactions and impacts. Why is obesity the single one where the answer is “obvious”?
Anyway I agree that we should change how we design our cities, etc to deal with our sedentary lifestyle.
Every single other thing in our body is complex and has chains and chains of reactions and impacts. Why is obesity the single one where the answer is “obvious”?
Anyway I agree that we should change how we design our cities, etc to deal with our sedentary lifestyle.
Eat less? No, too complex. Instead: change how we design our cities.
I mean, yes. We have to do the redesign for a multitude of reasons. Including the impacts our current cities have for scalability of various services and growth. Also how it’s fucking our response to climate change.
Maybe? It's easier to believe that 100 years of massively increasing calorie density and engineering chemical perfection in terms of hitting the body's pleasure markers might have had a larger effect.
That and our move to sedentary, thinking jobs. Or prolonging the day with evening entertainment, so eating later. And services that make the worst food arrive on your doorstep in 30 minutes.
There are so many things above "plastics" we should blame first. But I'm sure blaming someone else is far more appetising than looking at our own lack of self control.
That and our move to sedentary, thinking jobs. Or prolonging the day with evening entertainment, so eating later. And services that make the worst food arrive on your doorstep in 30 minutes.
There are so many things above "plastics" we should blame first. But I'm sure blaming someone else is far more appetising than looking at our own lack of self control.
My guess is that obesogens are to blame, but that they're in food, not plastics. This is because people on weirdo diets (vegans, carnivore, ultra low fat) all lose weight and keep it off, even when they are using the same amount of plastic as everyone else. The common denominator is that they stopped eating industrially manufactured food.
I am no expert in the area, just wondering what the hell is going on.
I am no expert in the area, just wondering what the hell is going on.
Blaming plastic seems incredibly strange to me, given that plastics are practically universally present in American life but obesity itself is not universal.
Did anyone say plastic is the only factor?
They're claiming its the primary factor even though it's not obviously higher among the obese populations.
Who said plastic is the primary factor? The Washington Post's expert said determining what fraction of obesity is related to chemical exposure is difficult. The 1st comment said plastic wasn't a factor.
Many people. All over this story and any time something similar comes up
Reply to them then.
Some kind of plastic might be a risk factor, even if not everyone who is exposed to it becomes obese. Cigarettes were once practically universally present in American life, but that did not make lung cancer universal.
But blaming "plastic" is ridiculously general; it's not very far from blaming "matter", "energy", or "technology". To take one example, there's a fairly plausible causal link between halogenated flame retardants in polyurethane foam for furniture and feline hyperthyroidism. Polyurethane is a plastic (WP: "Polyurethane is a commodity plastic."), or, better, a large family of plastics, but even if the link turns out to be real and strong, it would not be very accurate to say "Plastic causes feline hyperthyroidism."
As for "incredibly strange", since most people have no idea what is causing the obesity pandemic despite many researchers looking, anyone who does figure it out will unavoidably have an incredibly strange idea. There's nothing wrong with an idea being incredibly strange; in this case it's a necessary precondition to being correct!
Still, as I said, I suspect it's not a plastic, but one or more food additives. There have been promising preliminary results from fecal transplants for obesity treatment that suggest that the intestinal microbiome is a significant factor (see de Groot, Frissen, de Clerq, and Nieuwdorp 2017). So my attention is particularly drawn to things that affect the intestinal microbiome. Unfortunately, everything you eat affects it.
Some of my own incredibly strange ideas, which probably are not correct, are:
· Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: these are commonly used as a white food coloring (E171), and there's some evidence they migrate to the pancreas and stay there, where conceivably they cause damage in ways that larger titanium dioxide particles do not.
· Propionate salts: these are commonly used as fungicides, for example, in bread and on peaches. Many bacteria produce them as a fungicide, including human gut commensals, but it wouldn't be surprising if adding them in effective quantities changed the ecological equilibrium in the intestinal microbiome. These are GRAS (E280, E281, E282, E283) and an experiment apparently showed behavioral difference in children fed calcium propionate (Dengate and Rubin 2002). (Many propionate esters are also used as artificial flavorings, but in much smaller quantities, and I don't think those flavorings are effective fungicides.)
· Xanthan gum (E415), a slime produced by the broccoli black rot bacterium, commonly used as an emulsifier or thickener in salad dressings, egg substitutes, and oil-well drilling mud. Representing a significant source of energy that most gut commensal bacteria cannot digest, it has been shown to produce changes in the human intestinal microbiome.
· Widely used artificial sweeteners of various kinds (E950, E951, E954, E955); there have been studies suggesting that, although these do not provide a significant number of calories, they may still provoke significant changes in the human intestinal microbiome. This might also be true of things like steviol (E960) or cyclamate (E952) but those clearly aren't in wide enough use to cause the obesity pandemic by themselves.
· High-fructose corn syrup has been suggested by many people, but in my view it is an unlikely candidate, because sucrase turns sucrose into high-fructose corn syrup in the human small intestine.
· Livestock is commonly dosed with significant amounts of hormones and antibiotics in order to promote rapid weight gain, because meat is sold by weight. Some of these hormones and antibiotics are present in the resulting meat. It wouldn't be very surprising if, under some circumstances, they also produced weight gain in the humans who eat it. (But, as I said above, people on fad carnivore diets tend to lose weight.)
But most likely it'll be something nobody has even suspected previously.
But blaming "plastic" is ridiculously general; it's not very far from blaming "matter", "energy", or "technology". To take one example, there's a fairly plausible causal link between halogenated flame retardants in polyurethane foam for furniture and feline hyperthyroidism. Polyurethane is a plastic (WP: "Polyurethane is a commodity plastic."), or, better, a large family of plastics, but even if the link turns out to be real and strong, it would not be very accurate to say "Plastic causes feline hyperthyroidism."
As for "incredibly strange", since most people have no idea what is causing the obesity pandemic despite many researchers looking, anyone who does figure it out will unavoidably have an incredibly strange idea. There's nothing wrong with an idea being incredibly strange; in this case it's a necessary precondition to being correct!
Still, as I said, I suspect it's not a plastic, but one or more food additives. There have been promising preliminary results from fecal transplants for obesity treatment that suggest that the intestinal microbiome is a significant factor (see de Groot, Frissen, de Clerq, and Nieuwdorp 2017). So my attention is particularly drawn to things that affect the intestinal microbiome. Unfortunately, everything you eat affects it.
Some of my own incredibly strange ideas, which probably are not correct, are:
· Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: these are commonly used as a white food coloring (E171), and there's some evidence they migrate to the pancreas and stay there, where conceivably they cause damage in ways that larger titanium dioxide particles do not.
· Propionate salts: these are commonly used as fungicides, for example, in bread and on peaches. Many bacteria produce them as a fungicide, including human gut commensals, but it wouldn't be surprising if adding them in effective quantities changed the ecological equilibrium in the intestinal microbiome. These are GRAS (E280, E281, E282, E283) and an experiment apparently showed behavioral difference in children fed calcium propionate (Dengate and Rubin 2002). (Many propionate esters are also used as artificial flavorings, but in much smaller quantities, and I don't think those flavorings are effective fungicides.)
· Xanthan gum (E415), a slime produced by the broccoli black rot bacterium, commonly used as an emulsifier or thickener in salad dressings, egg substitutes, and oil-well drilling mud. Representing a significant source of energy that most gut commensal bacteria cannot digest, it has been shown to produce changes in the human intestinal microbiome.
· Widely used artificial sweeteners of various kinds (E950, E951, E954, E955); there have been studies suggesting that, although these do not provide a significant number of calories, they may still provoke significant changes in the human intestinal microbiome. This might also be true of things like steviol (E960) or cyclamate (E952) but those clearly aren't in wide enough use to cause the obesity pandemic by themselves.
· High-fructose corn syrup has been suggested by many people, but in my view it is an unlikely candidate, because sucrase turns sucrose into high-fructose corn syrup in the human small intestine.
· Livestock is commonly dosed with significant amounts of hormones and antibiotics in order to promote rapid weight gain, because meat is sold by weight. Some of these hormones and antibiotics are present in the resulting meat. It wouldn't be very surprising if, under some circumstances, they also produced weight gain in the humans who eat it. (But, as I said above, people on fad carnivore diets tend to lose weight.)
But most likely it'll be something nobody has even suspected previously.
"Weirdo" diets? Why make such an insulating simplistic judgment when discussing diets?
You're reading a value judgment into my wording that isn't there, probably because you need to be more of a weirdo.
Calories certainly aren't the only factor. If you feed animals the same exact diet and they have similar exercise habits and their excrement has the same caloric value, why does one get obese while the other doesn't? Genetics, epigenetics and gut biome likely all contribute to the problem. https://nautil.us/what-if-obesity-is-nobodys-fault-234639/
I have a fri3nd that has an over active thyroid and she's very fit. she had a six pack when she was younger. she didn't really work out. so makes me think hormones are a big part of it too.
Plastics and many other things happen to mess with hormones.
This has got to be the most idiotic, speculative comment section of the year.
Literally not a single coherent explanation of how plastics might actually cause obesity, and a bunch of people going on about sugar and hormones.
Literally not a single coherent explanation of how plastics might actually cause obesity, and a bunch of people going on about sugar and hormones.
> Literally not a single coherent explanation of how plastics might actually cause obesity
I don't think the onus for that is on the commentariat here. Rather it's on the Washington Post article to bridge these studies of mouse adipose tissue to human health outcomes. It doesn't do that very well, so you're going to see some decrying of potential alarmism and alternative explanations.
I don't think the onus for that is on the commentariat here. Rather it's on the Washington Post article to bridge these studies of mouse adipose tissue to human health outcomes. It doesn't do that very well, so you're going to see some decrying of potential alarmism and alternative explanations.
Diet is an HN magnet for bike-shedding and anecdotes.
Overlooked throughout this discussion, afaict, is an explanation as to why animals are also getting fatter.
> The problem of obesity isn't confined to just humans. A new study finds increased rates of obesity in mammals ranging from feral rats and mice to domestic pets and laboratory primates.
https://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html
> The problem of obesity isn't confined to just humans. A new study finds increased rates of obesity in mammals ranging from feral rats and mice to domestic pets and laboratory primates.
https://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html
I’d expect pets are getting fatter because we can afford more, better pet food and treats. I mean, it’s crazy how large the selection is. Feral rats, same thing - we have a lot more food waste than we used to.
As far as laboratory animals under strict food controls, that’s a bit harder to explain, but maybe it’s a breeding/genetics thing? I dunno, some kind of sinister hidden chemical/obesegen/hormone disruptor just strikes me as a bit far-fetched.
As far as laboratory animals under strict food controls, that’s a bit harder to explain, but maybe it’s a breeding/genetics thing? I dunno, some kind of sinister hidden chemical/obesegen/hormone disruptor just strikes me as a bit far-fetched.
This is certainly an interesting one if true
My pet theory on obesity is how varied and delicious food is these days. Literally my grandparents ate homemade porridge, cheese sandwiches, Potatoes/Carrots/Cabbage/BeefOrPork nearly every day of their lives. No wonder they didn't over eat. New generation has a huge number of yummy dishes to choose from.
This isn't just your pet theory, it has a name and significant support - The Cafeteria Diet https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309818/#:~:text=The%20Cafe....
I am very skeptical the effect would be meaningful relative to diet/exercise.
We have never been more seditary, and sugar has never been more a part of our diet.
When my mother moved in and we started going on daily walks, she lost a pound a week for one year. When she injured her foot and stopped, with no diet change throughout the entire time, she gained it all back in a couple months.
I would be surprised if people gained weight with no diet change and introduced mostly standing or walking throughout the day into their life.
We have never been more seditary, and sugar has never been more a part of our diet.
When my mother moved in and we started going on daily walks, she lost a pound a week for one year. When she injured her foot and stopped, with no diet change throughout the entire time, she gained it all back in a couple months.
I would be surprised if people gained weight with no diet change and introduced mostly standing or walking throughout the day into their life.
The problem with “calories in - calories out = weight gained” is that even though it is of course true (thermodynamics), it explains nothing. If I asked you “Why do children grow bigger?”, and you said “because they eat more calories than they expend”, again you would be correct but have told me nothing. And if a child wasn’t growing like they should, you wouldn’t say “just keep feeding them more”, you would look for possible disruptions of their hormonal system.
The reality is that the body is a finely tuned bio mechanical system with feedback loops that are capable of regulating your resting metabolic rate in order to target weight gain, loss, or stasis. The question is why are so many people’s regulation loops so out of whack?
The reality is that the body is a finely tuned bio mechanical system with feedback loops that are capable of regulating your resting metabolic rate in order to target weight gain, loss, or stasis. The question is why are so many people’s regulation loops so out of whack?
They are eating too much, and their regulation of hunger impulses is out of whack.
There are essentially zero studies which show subjects on a controlled diet under observation having more than a +/-5% different in metabolic efficiency. The burden of proof is, frankly, on those who are looking for anything except for overconsumption as the cause.
There are essentially zero studies which show subjects on a controlled diet under observation having more than a +/-5% different in metabolic efficiency. The burden of proof is, frankly, on those who are looking for anything except for overconsumption as the cause.
Everyone overeats and calories have never been cheaper. There is nothing that surprising going on.
The human body was meant for fasting longer than our culture does and in experiencing occasional hunger.
The human body was meant for fasting longer than our culture does and in experiencing occasional hunger.
I doubt that obesity is caused by "hundreds" of chemical pollutants... I suspect it to be more like a handful that cause the most effect.
Since obesity causes millions of deaths annually, solving this warrants a covid-scale response. It should therefore be easy enough to direct a few billion dollars of funding into hundreds of avenues of research to find which those handful of pollutants are, what the main sources of them are, how to remove them, and how the effects of damage already done might be reversed.
I imagine that with a covid-scale response, we could guarantee that nothing new would contain any of the offending chemicals within a year, and perhaps within 5 years we could have replaced every piece of tupperware/insulation foam/whatever already manufactured goods contain it.
Since obesity causes millions of deaths annually, solving this warrants a covid-scale response. It should therefore be easy enough to direct a few billion dollars of funding into hundreds of avenues of research to find which those handful of pollutants are, what the main sources of them are, how to remove them, and how the effects of damage already done might be reversed.
I imagine that with a covid-scale response, we could guarantee that nothing new would contain any of the offending chemicals within a year, and perhaps within 5 years we could have replaced every piece of tupperware/insulation foam/whatever already manufactured goods contain it.
I'm very skeptical. I think there are some things that may make us "feel hungrier" but there's nothing changing our metabolism.
If we are to believe this, it would mean that "plastic" is making our bodies so much more efficient that there's extra energy that's being stored as fat.
I like to keep my weight exactly at 155# (as a 5'10 59 year old man).
Once a year, I "bulk" and go up to 160 while doing more strenuous weight training. The math always works exactly -- for every 3000 extra k/cal I eat, I go up a pound. When it's time to "cut" back to 155#, for every 3000 k/cal deficit I drop a pound.
15 years ago, I got fat. I stopped paying attention to what I was eating. Got my weight up to 205#. I lost it by strictly counting calories. The math worked perfectly. I went to 1200 k/cal and lost 2 pounds a week. Exactly. Every week.
Eating no more calories than your body needs works for everyone. You cannot create matter out of thin air, no matter what fat people will tell you.
The Obese and Overweight cost society greatly. The fact that they're consuming more than they need, use more fuel to move around, and get sick and require more medical care costs us trillions. It's time they stopped pointing their fingers at "plastics" and started obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
If we are to believe this, it would mean that "plastic" is making our bodies so much more efficient that there's extra energy that's being stored as fat.
I like to keep my weight exactly at 155# (as a 5'10 59 year old man).
Once a year, I "bulk" and go up to 160 while doing more strenuous weight training. The math always works exactly -- for every 3000 extra k/cal I eat, I go up a pound. When it's time to "cut" back to 155#, for every 3000 k/cal deficit I drop a pound.
15 years ago, I got fat. I stopped paying attention to what I was eating. Got my weight up to 205#. I lost it by strictly counting calories. The math worked perfectly. I went to 1200 k/cal and lost 2 pounds a week. Exactly. Every week.
Eating no more calories than your body needs works for everyone. You cannot create matter out of thin air, no matter what fat people will tell you.
The Obese and Overweight cost society greatly. The fact that they're consuming more than they need, use more fuel to move around, and get sick and require more medical care costs us trillions. It's time they stopped pointing their fingers at "plastics" and started obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
> but there's nothing changing our metabolism.
Why would you be so confident when we know for a fact that hormone imbalances can absolutely impact our metabolism. Including signaling to your body to produce and store more fat than it normally would. Cortisol the hormone produced in stress responses is shown to do exactly that. Using yourself as an anecdote isn't useful in anyway.
Why would you be so confident when we know for a fact that hormone imbalances can absolutely impact our metabolism. Including signaling to your body to produce and store more fat than it normally would. Cortisol the hormone produced in stress responses is shown to do exactly that. Using yourself as an anecdote isn't useful in anyway.
Matter isn't created out of thin air.
That was never the claim. Nice attempt at a straw man though. You seem to be under the impression that body fat only accumulates in scenarios with excess calories. That's explicitly wrong. What some of these metabolic disorders do is prioritize the accumulation of fat from calories over sustaining other parts of the body. There are multiple ways that your body converts calories into energy, and they can be thrown off by hormones. Some metabolic conditions, like Cushings, overstimulates the production of body fat starving the muscles of energy so they atrophy.
To put it in clearer terms, you could take two people of identical sex, height and weight and feed them the exact same diet with the exact same exercise routine and still have one pack on more body fat due to hormonal issues impacting how they metabolize food. Telling the person who's gaining fat to just eat less isn't helpful or healthy. They need to address the condition causing the additional body fat accumulation and it's not excess calories.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that this is the case with microplastics. I don't think we have the research to determine that yet. I'm merely disputing the inane "just eat less bro" nonsense that tends to crop up in these threads.
To put it in clearer terms, you could take two people of identical sex, height and weight and feed them the exact same diet with the exact same exercise routine and still have one pack on more body fat due to hormonal issues impacting how they metabolize food. Telling the person who's gaining fat to just eat less isn't helpful or healthy. They need to address the condition causing the additional body fat accumulation and it's not excess calories.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that this is the case with microplastics. I don't think we have the research to determine that yet. I'm merely disputing the inane "just eat less bro" nonsense that tends to crop up in these threads.
> I'm very skeptical. I think there are some things that may make us "feel hungrier" but there's nothing changing our metabolism.
> If we are to believe this, it would mean that "plastic" is making our bodies so much more efficient that there's extra energy that's being stored as fat.
I think it's likely the opposite, e.g. there's something (not necessarily plastic) throwing off hormones, so the body ends up storing more of the calories as fat than it would if it was healthy. It's not at all clear (to me, at least) that a healthy human body would continue to store fat indefinitely, regardless of how many calories were being consumed.
> If we are to believe this, it would mean that "plastic" is making our bodies so much more efficient that there's extra energy that's being stored as fat.
I think it's likely the opposite, e.g. there's something (not necessarily plastic) throwing off hormones, so the body ends up storing more of the calories as fat than it would if it was healthy. It's not at all clear (to me, at least) that a healthy human body would continue to store fat indefinitely, regardless of how many calories were being consumed.
This assumes 100% of energy is absorbed from food which isn't true as far as I know.
Not too far off - the body is pretty darn efficient.
What is your source on this?
It’s pretty common knowledge. Unless you have diarrhea or something, your body will use up just about everything that you eat.
https://cathe.com/do-you-absorb-all-of-the-calories-you-eat/
A textbook I saw said in terms of _mechanical_ efficiency, we get about 25% at converting calories to mechanical work, which beats an internal combustion engine!
https://cathe.com/do-you-absorb-all-of-the-calories-you-eat/
A textbook I saw said in terms of _mechanical_ efficiency, we get about 25% at converting calories to mechanical work, which beats an internal combustion engine!
Isn't your own linked thing contradicting you?
"The Bottom Line The calculated number of calories in a food or meal assumes you’re able to digest and absorb all of the macronutrients, which is seldom the case. You likely take in fewer calories when you eat whole foods, foods high in fiber and resistant starch, and foods that are uncooked and haven’t been exposed to heat. Now you have another reason to add more whole, unprocessed foods to your diet."
"The Bottom Line The calculated number of calories in a food or meal assumes you’re able to digest and absorb all of the macronutrients, which is seldom the case. You likely take in fewer calories when you eat whole foods, foods high in fiber and resistant starch, and foods that are uncooked and haven’t been exposed to heat. Now you have another reason to add more whole, unprocessed foods to your diet."
Maybe now we can finally get the FDA to ban glyphosate (Round-Up) like they do in the EU. It is currently impossible to purchase oat cereal in the U.S. that doesn't have some level of glyphosate in it. Cheerios is loaded with it.
So something sold as "heart healthy" is loaded with obesogens and will contribute to obesity.
So something sold as "heart healthy" is loaded with obesogens and will contribute to obesity.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for whoever figures this out. I am glad scientists are finally taking it seriously. Statistically, something is most definitely out of whack.
I don't know the last time I could trust an article or even scientific paper about weight / diets / food effects.
You'd think the vast amounts of scientific papers would be conclusive, but they're constantly contradicting each other or people uncover ulterior motives, like having shares in a questionable weight loss company.
In some of these cases, the source material uses inappropriate sample sizes or has other similar problems, or references other studies that had problems like this.
I bet if you type "X is the reason for obesity," you will find information for any noun.
Here's a partial list of topics off the top of my head from the best of my ability that I believe have been blasted as the definitive one-and-only "root cause" of obesity: [Sugar, Aspartame, Plastic, Butter, Margarine, Carbs, Milk, Bread, Fruit, Nuts, Phones, The Internet, TV, Video Games, Your job in general, Canned Products, Gluten, Pollution, Global Warming, Cars, Cheese, Alcohol, No Exercise, Cardio-only exercise, Blue Light (from electronics in general)]
You'd think the vast amounts of scientific papers would be conclusive, but they're constantly contradicting each other or people uncover ulterior motives, like having shares in a questionable weight loss company.
In some of these cases, the source material uses inappropriate sample sizes or has other similar problems, or references other studies that had problems like this.
I bet if you type "X is the reason for obesity," you will find information for any noun.
Here's a partial list of topics off the top of my head from the best of my ability that I believe have been blasted as the definitive one-and-only "root cause" of obesity: [Sugar, Aspartame, Plastic, Butter, Margarine, Carbs, Milk, Bread, Fruit, Nuts, Phones, The Internet, TV, Video Games, Your job in general, Canned Products, Gluten, Pollution, Global Warming, Cars, Cheese, Alcohol, No Exercise, Cardio-only exercise, Blue Light (from electronics in general)]
Our food chain has a lot to do with obesity. There are many studies on this stuff.
We eat 5 times as much meat on average as people did 100 years go. Animal based products are a major source of fat. People used to eat more fruits and vegetables. The fat type has shifted with more fat (which has higher calorie per gram amounts than carbs or protein) and fat moving from polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats (which causes lots of medical problems).
In there is the growth hormone. Kids "mature" physically at younger ages now than they used to. Kids to stop stop dairy or a lot of mean may physically mature at the older slower pace.
Eating less fruits, vegetables, and whole grains means less fiber. Most people (in the US anyway) are deficient in fiber. Fiber traps certain fats and cholesterols so they aren't absorbed. So, we absorb more fats.
Then there are processed foods.
So much about our diets have changed in the last 100 years. A lot is known and we even know how to eat to be really healthy. It's just not widely known by the general public.
We eat 5 times as much meat on average as people did 100 years go. Animal based products are a major source of fat. People used to eat more fruits and vegetables. The fat type has shifted with more fat (which has higher calorie per gram amounts than carbs or protein) and fat moving from polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats (which causes lots of medical problems).
In there is the growth hormone. Kids "mature" physically at younger ages now than they used to. Kids to stop stop dairy or a lot of mean may physically mature at the older slower pace.
Eating less fruits, vegetables, and whole grains means less fiber. Most people (in the US anyway) are deficient in fiber. Fiber traps certain fats and cholesterols so they aren't absorbed. So, we absorb more fats.
Then there are processed foods.
So much about our diets have changed in the last 100 years. A lot is known and we even know how to eat to be really healthy. It's just not widely known by the general public.
Your comment completely ignores the content of the article you are commenting upon.
You concentrate on the "normal" nutrition stuff like fat, fiber and carbohydrates, without even asking why do people eat more than 100 years ago.
The article talks about the fact that food now contains a lot of totally unnatural chemical substances that our ancestors never encountered and that such substances may throw off our sense of satiety and disrupt other mechanisms directly related to obesity.
That is a serious problem. An apple or a piece of meat laced with various chemicals isn't the same as 100 years ago. It seems you choose to ignore this difference.
You concentrate on the "normal" nutrition stuff like fat, fiber and carbohydrates, without even asking why do people eat more than 100 years ago.
The article talks about the fact that food now contains a lot of totally unnatural chemical substances that our ancestors never encountered and that such substances may throw off our sense of satiety and disrupt other mechanisms directly related to obesity.
That is a serious problem. An apple or a piece of meat laced with various chemicals isn't the same as 100 years ago. It seems you choose to ignore this difference.
We eat unnatural amounts of polyunsaturated oils today. You have it completely backward.
The amount of vegetable based fats consumed 100 years ago was significantly less. It wasn't until chemical extraction was introduced that we could consume as much vegetable based fat as we do today.
Saturated fat is actually more stable and by far healthier.
The amount of vegetable based fats consumed 100 years ago was significantly less. It wasn't until chemical extraction was introduced that we could consume as much vegetable based fat as we do today.
Saturated fat is actually more stable and by far healthier.
What you say is correct, but incomplete.
The unnaturally high consumption of PUFA is not for all kinds of PUFA, but mainly for linoleic acid and related fatty acids (a.k.a. omega-6 acids).
The consumption of the other main kind of PUFA, omega-3 acids, is frequently lower than before, as those are abundant mainly in some animal organs (which are more seldom consumed now) and in fish.
In small quantities linoleic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, but in large quantities it must be converted into other fatty acids, because it is not a normal component of human fat, and that can be a burden for the liver.
The unnaturally high consumption of PUFA is not for all kinds of PUFA, but mainly for linoleic acid and related fatty acids (a.k.a. omega-6 acids).
The consumption of the other main kind of PUFA, omega-3 acids, is frequently lower than before, as those are abundant mainly in some animal organs (which are more seldom consumed now) and in fish.
In small quantities linoleic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, but in large quantities it must be converted into other fatty acids, because it is not a normal component of human fat, and that can be a burden for the liver.
Saturated fat is the primary cause of high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes. How is that healthier?
I'm afraid you are the one who has it completely backwards: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/different-f...
Checkout this book:
https://thebigfatsurprise.com/
Looks like the NHS is behind the times.
In the US they've removed statements like the one you linked to. It's becoming scientific consensus that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease.
https://thebigfatsurprise.com/
Looks like the NHS is behind the times.
In the US they've removed statements like the one you linked to. It's becoming scientific consensus that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease.
I'd rather trust the expertise of doctors who've actually studied this stuff than a moron journalist, thanks.
You're sure fun to chat with.
Your idea of fun is to post ignorant crap on medical issues?
Your type were boring when I was 20 and even more boring now. I teach people and create things for fun. Grow up.
Your type were boring when I was 20 and even more boring now. I teach people and create things for fun. Grow up.
> We eat 5 times as much meat on average as people did 100 years go.
And yet there are a growing number looking shredded and boasting of their health on carnivore diets.
And yet there are a growing number looking shredded and boasting of their health on carnivore diets.
"Thus, rigorously collected national data provide no support for higher energy consumption as a driver of the obesity epidemic since 2000. Strikingly, these data do not even support increasing energy consumption as a consequence of the obesity epidemic, i.e., that as people gain weight, they need to eat more. Rather, the data suggest that Americans have been eating relatively less, for their larger body sizes, over the last 2 decades."
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/6/1445/6572830?fbc...
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/6/1445/6572830?fbc...
Well it might be.
What might make us lose our obesity is regular exercise, building a reasonable amount of muscle mass, eating less food and better food, consuming less alchohol, spending less time sedentary in front of a computer screen, etc.
What might make us lose our obesity is regular exercise, building a reasonable amount of muscle mass, eating less food and better food, consuming less alchohol, spending less time sedentary in front of a computer screen, etc.
I thought this article was going to cite plastic as being the container of choice for most of the ultra processed junk that supermarkets are selling and we shouldn't be eating.
is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? or is a caloric deficit + weight loss just a thermodynamics problem
Appetite and metabolism is much more complicated than a thermodynamics problem.
A calorie deficit implies knowledge of metabolic rate which can be highly variable. While calories in can be trivially counted, calories out needs to be calculated and cannot assume a significant level of accuracy.
Regardless, the problem with solving the obesity epidemic isn’t that people can’t lose weight, but is keeping weight off after reaching a goal weight.
A calorie deficit implies knowledge of metabolic rate which can be highly variable. While calories in can be trivially counted, calories out needs to be calculated and cannot assume a significant level of accuracy.
Regardless, the problem with solving the obesity epidemic isn’t that people can’t lose weight, but is keeping weight off after reaching a goal weight.
I believe it's thermodynamically possible to be in a caloric deficit while gaining fat. The body won't gain mass, because it will be losing lean tissue, and that has a lot more mass per calorie stored than fat, due to protein being less energy dense to begin with, but mainly due to lean tissue having a lot of water mass.
Say that a body is in a caloric balance, and at the same time in a strange state in which it is storing N calories as fat, while releasing N calories from breakdown of lean tissue: a lean-to-fat conversion is going on, so to speak. That body will be losing mass, because a calorie of lean tissue represents much more mass than a calorie of fat storage.
If that same body then starts to release N + M calories from lean tissue, it will still be losing mass, while gaining fat.
The only question of how physiologically likely are these thermodynamically valid situations. We do know that people who experiment with "yo-yo dieting" can end up with worsened body compositions, but probably not due to gaining fat while dieting but rather (1) losing lean tissue while dieting, while losing some fat and (2) rebound weight gain while not dieting possibly exacerbated by a lowered metabolism due to less lean tissue.
Still, consider this thought experiment. A dieting person wears a backpack which is considered part of their body. Every day, a hundred grams of lard is added to the backpack, and this lard is counted as part of their caloric intake. The person diets and exercises in such a way that there is a caloric deficit. That person will be undeniably gaining fat in that backpack. It's thermodynamically possible for the body to be promoting fat storage in some area, regardless of what else is happening.
Say that a body is in a caloric balance, and at the same time in a strange state in which it is storing N calories as fat, while releasing N calories from breakdown of lean tissue: a lean-to-fat conversion is going on, so to speak. That body will be losing mass, because a calorie of lean tissue represents much more mass than a calorie of fat storage.
If that same body then starts to release N + M calories from lean tissue, it will still be losing mass, while gaining fat.
The only question of how physiologically likely are these thermodynamically valid situations. We do know that people who experiment with "yo-yo dieting" can end up with worsened body compositions, but probably not due to gaining fat while dieting but rather (1) losing lean tissue while dieting, while losing some fat and (2) rebound weight gain while not dieting possibly exacerbated by a lowered metabolism due to less lean tissue.
Still, consider this thought experiment. A dieting person wears a backpack which is considered part of their body. Every day, a hundred grams of lard is added to the backpack, and this lard is counted as part of their caloric intake. The person diets and exercises in such a way that there is a caloric deficit. That person will be undeniably gaining fat in that backpack. It's thermodynamically possible for the body to be promoting fat storage in some area, regardless of what else is happening.
Strictly, no, but it is possible to have the expectation that your body would be burning 1700 calories a day by simply existing (using any online calculator will give you a rough idea of what your "Basal Metabolic Rate", or BMR, should be.
But if you have metabolic damage, you may have a lower metabolic rate than expected, meaning that the same 1200 calories a day that should cause you to lose a lb a week is actually just under maintenance calories.
Anecdotal, but this happened to me. I lost 100 lbs through diet and just got stuck. Couldn't lose any more to save my life. I ate 300-500 calories under my expected calorie expenditure every day.
Then, I got my metabolism tested and found that my BMR was at 300 calories a day under what it should have been, which meant that I was eating maintenance or overeating by 200 calories a day (and I was already feeling starving at that point!)
To cut another 300-500 calories out of my diet would have been untenable. I'm still trying to figure out what I can do.
Exercise more? Check. Do blood work and make sure everything is in order? Check. Vary my diet or try different diets? Check.
I think the only thing left is to try chemicals. Nothing else seems to either raise by base metabolism or decrease my intake needs.
But if you have metabolic damage, you may have a lower metabolic rate than expected, meaning that the same 1200 calories a day that should cause you to lose a lb a week is actually just under maintenance calories.
Anecdotal, but this happened to me. I lost 100 lbs through diet and just got stuck. Couldn't lose any more to save my life. I ate 300-500 calories under my expected calorie expenditure every day.
Then, I got my metabolism tested and found that my BMR was at 300 calories a day under what it should have been, which meant that I was eating maintenance or overeating by 200 calories a day (and I was already feeling starving at that point!)
To cut another 300-500 calories out of my diet would have been untenable. I'm still trying to figure out what I can do.
Exercise more? Check. Do blood work and make sure everything is in order? Check. Vary my diet or try different diets? Check.
I think the only thing left is to try chemicals. Nothing else seems to either raise by base metabolism or decrease my intake needs.
What does your exercise routine look like? If you’re going overboard on cardio you might have some better luck hitting the weights, _adding_ back in some calories in the form of extra protein and doing a bit of body recomp. It’s tough, mentally to increase calories after losing that much weight, and tougher still to see the scale increase after working for such a long time to drop weight.
The nice thing about increasing strength and muscle mass is that it’s going to burn calories for you 24/7, not just while you’re doing the activity.
The nice thing about increasing strength and muscle mass is that it’s going to burn calories for you 24/7, not just while you’re doing the activity.
I'm on the same line of thinking as you.
I've been hitting the gym, doing mostly heavy lifting 2-3x a week and easing off on my calorie restriction. The weight is going back on fairly quickly but I'm also seeing good gains and progression in my strength & lifts.
For instance, when I started, one arm curl was at about 35 lbs, now 3 months later I'm curling 55, bench was 120, now it's 160 (but I'm not pushing hard on gaining bench) and squat machine has gone from 175 to 280.
I've been hitting the gym, doing mostly heavy lifting 2-3x a week and easing off on my calorie restriction. The weight is going back on fairly quickly but I'm also seeing good gains and progression in my strength & lifts.
For instance, when I started, one arm curl was at about 35 lbs, now 3 months later I'm curling 55, bench was 120, now it's 160 (but I'm not pushing hard on gaining bench) and squat machine has gone from 175 to 280.
Sometimes it's a little more complicated than just calories in vs calories out. See Cushing syndrome. We are aware of hormone imbalances which promote excess fat build up, often at the expense of muscle mass. It's possible plastics could be effecting hormones in a similar way.
> is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true?
No, that would defy the laws of thermodynamics. However, it is possible to consume more calories than you burn and lose weight, because there are complexities around how your body decides to store fat, signals to burn fat, etc.
Even if it was simply a thermodynamics problem (which I don't think it is), there are also issues with appetite. Sure, you can count calories for the rest of your life, but doing that is not only difficult to measure correctly, but very difficult to maintain if you still feel hungry all the time.
I think one of the reasons a ketogenic diet works for a lot of people is that after a period of adaptation, you stop getting hungry every 4 hours.
No, that would defy the laws of thermodynamics. However, it is possible to consume more calories than you burn and lose weight, because there are complexities around how your body decides to store fat, signals to burn fat, etc.
Even if it was simply a thermodynamics problem (which I don't think it is), there are also issues with appetite. Sure, you can count calories for the rest of your life, but doing that is not only difficult to measure correctly, but very difficult to maintain if you still feel hungry all the time.
I think one of the reasons a ketogenic diet works for a lot of people is that after a period of adaptation, you stop getting hungry every 4 hours.
I suspect it's a modifier at the edges; if X calories you gain Y weight per day, this can make that Y+(some percentage).
All these "we found the cause of obesity" dance around the problem.
All these "we found the cause of obesity" dance around the problem.
Hunger is incredibly hard to study because it is made up of many physiological sensations and psychological responses to those sensations, and none of those are readily comparable between individuals.
So we don't really study hunger very much - there are some really good studies out there, but not very many.
And we don't talk about managing hunger, we talk about managing calories and managing weight.
So we don't really study hunger very much - there are some really good studies out there, but not very many.
And we don't talk about managing hunger, we talk about managing calories and managing weight.
There is an old saying "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself"
I take that to heart. Including what I put in my body. I have little to no faith in modern food. And so I grow my own. I know where it came from and what went into it. And yes, I have had my soil tested.
Rely on modern food at your own peril. You are what you eat, as they say.
I take that to heart. Including what I put in my body. I have little to no faith in modern food. And so I grow my own. I know where it came from and what went into it. And yes, I have had my soil tested.
Rely on modern food at your own peril. You are what you eat, as they say.
I have no doubt that many of these plethora of chemicals that are in our every day environment are endocrine disruptors or worse, most of us would be surprised just how significantly we have changed the chemistry of our environments over the last century. But I'm not convinced that they're the cause for obesity. Contributors, sure. The cause? Your body has to make fat out of something, with or without an endocrine disruptor. I've never met a fat person that doesn't drink soda every day.
It's sugar and seed oil. That's what it comes down to. Most of what we eat is not food really, but the last mile in a marketing campaign, it barely even qualifies as a product. That combined with the rise in sedentary work and recreation is all you need to explain it.
It's sugar and seed oil. That's what it comes down to. Most of what we eat is not food really, but the last mile in a marketing campaign, it barely even qualifies as a product. That combined with the rise in sedentary work and recreation is all you need to explain it.
$5 says it's the food and not the plastic that the food comes in.
If we assume everyone agreed tomorrow that the cause is 100% plastics, what can we actually do about this? What would our lives look like if we were to address this?
Probably not "ban all plastics." That's not practical.
But we could do more research into what compounds specifically are harmful, and then find substitutes for them.
But we could do more research into what compounds specifically are harmful, and then find substitutes for them.
I don't know why they're still grasping at straws. We know why we're fat, the science has already been concluded, and a dozen papers get published every year continuing to hammer nails in a coffin we already buried: diets low in salt and/or low in saturated fat and/or high in oxidized unsaturated fats and/or high in carbohydrates and otherwise devoid of nutrition case weight gain, and the Standard American Diet prides itself on being all four.
Washington Post doesn't publish stories about those papers.
Washington Post doesn't publish stories about those papers.
"A significant rise in obesity incidence has even been noted in laboratory rodents and primates – animals raised under strictly controlled conditions of caloric intake and exercise. The only possible factors driving weight gain for these animals, researchers believe, would be subtle chemical changes in the nature of the foods they eat, or in the materials used to build their pens."
Except science says look at the stress levels of such prison-like conditions. Lab animals usually have insufficient physical activity and insufficient "play" to keep the animals at sufficiently natural cortisol levels for that animal, and a lot of the science being generated from these animals is marred by lack of care when handling the animals.
The vast majority of papers, no matter if they support a position I hold or not, are simply garbage. It is a continued waste of public and private resources to not consider maintaining the natural state of the animals and expect the science resulting from it to have any meaningful impact.
The vast majority of papers, no matter if they support a position I hold or not, are simply garbage. It is a continued waste of public and private resources to not consider maintaining the natural state of the animals and expect the science resulting from it to have any meaningful impact.
Yes, pretty much. The problem is some cherry picked studies from the 70s that are just plain misinformation. Atkins did a huge disservice to humanity.
maybe the bmi is also wrong. if your index is labelng half or more of ppl as diseased, maybe the index is broken. except for jockeys, meth addicts, and runners, most men are going to be aleast borerline overweight by 30. i dont know any thin people. maybe we need to make drugs legal..that will fix it. perhaps there is a good biological reason people weigh more, why fight nature.
BMI was not created to be a marker for health, it was created by a mathematician to calculate government food allocations. It blows my mind that we still use it.
It's just calories in and calories out.
Why do they report these huge obesity rates but whenever I go out in public almost no one is overweight?
Because the obese people are not walking around outside much. They're also generally poorer and likely far outside your social circle.
Rural America skews it.
Where do you live?
I was pretty sure it was the over eating but I'll happily blame plastic...
I do a lot of high school senior photography. It's hard to talk about this without sounding crude as a guy but something that I've noticed that contrasts with when I graduated high school (2006) is just how many girls have huge breasts. I think there were 2 girls in my grade that were skinny and had what would be called "large" breasts. Most other skinny girls had the standard A or B cups.
Now a very large portion have what must be D cups. I've tried to look up studies but I couldn't find any that controlled for weight.
This was also the first year I had not one, but two, morbidly obese girls. One was so large I ran out of poses pretty much right away as she couldn't clasp her hands together behind her back, couldn't do the same near her waist in front, and she couldn't even sit down on the ground - only kneel. She told me she wanted to be a lawyer. I find it incredibly sad that you could be that large already at that age. I can only imagine how difficult it would make life.
Now a very large portion have what must be D cups. I've tried to look up studies but I couldn't find any that controlled for weight.
This was also the first year I had not one, but two, morbidly obese girls. One was so large I ran out of poses pretty much right away as she couldn't clasp her hands together behind her back, couldn't do the same near her waist in front, and she couldn't even sit down on the ground - only kneel. She told me she wanted to be a lawyer. I find it incredibly sad that you could be that large already at that age. I can only imagine how difficult it would make life.
So the funny thing is I was hearing the same thing ( that the average cup size had increase to C) back when I graduated high school in the late 90s.
I think non anectodally, this trend is something that has been going on for a long time. If I remember correctly we blamed microplastics in the water minicking estrogen, and starting puberty earlier.
What is the truth is probably unknown.
I think non anectodally, this trend is something that has been going on for a long time. If I remember correctly we blamed microplastics in the water minicking estrogen, and starting puberty earlier.
What is the truth is probably unknown.
> just how many girls have huge breasts.
One reason I've heard to explain this is a rise in the consumption of certain kinds of hormonal birth control.
One reason I've heard to explain this is a rise in the consumption of certain kinds of hormonal birth control.
> I find it incredibly sad that you could be that large already at that age. I can only imagine how difficult it would make life.
As someone about this size, but has also been relatively "fit" at this size (I used to be able to go on casual 10+ mile hikes on weekends, pre-pandemic), it's also our health system failing us. I've never had a doctor give me a better answer than "diet and exercise" to change things. I got to a level of fitness where I could go on 10 mile hikes, which is a hell of a lot more fit than a lot than many Americans, yet they'd still give me doom and gloom and uninterested answers. It's exhausting.
America does not treat obesity well, and I feel like there's not good enough research going into it. I love to see reporting like—and hope there's more to come, in hopes that it changes both clinical mindsets and also how we think about obesity. It's more than what you eat.
As someone about this size, but has also been relatively "fit" at this size (I used to be able to go on casual 10+ mile hikes on weekends, pre-pandemic), it's also our health system failing us. I've never had a doctor give me a better answer than "diet and exercise" to change things. I got to a level of fitness where I could go on 10 mile hikes, which is a hell of a lot more fit than a lot than many Americans, yet they'd still give me doom and gloom and uninterested answers. It's exhausting.
America does not treat obesity well, and I feel like there's not good enough research going into it. I love to see reporting like—and hope there's more to come, in hopes that it changes both clinical mindsets and also how we think about obesity. It's more than what you eat.
> I've never had a doctor give me a better answer than "diet and exercise" to change things. I got to a level of fitness where I could go on 10 mile hikes
I don’t mean this to be rude, but it sounds like you paid attention to just one half of the doctor’s advice?
I don’t mean this to be rude, but it sounds like you paid attention to just one half of the doctor’s advice?
Not so—significant dieting, zero soda or desserts, etc. But that's not as comparatively interesting for the argument as "can go on 10 mile hikes any weekend, yet made no progress". My point is directly intended to respond not just with anecdata, but that we have more work to do in research, diagnosis, and treatment of it.
I don’t mean this to be rude, but it sounds like you jumped to a quick conclusion based on preexisting simple expectations about obesity?
I don’t mean this to be rude, but it sounds like you jumped to a quick conclusion based on preexisting simple expectations about obesity?
> I don’t mean this to be rude, but it sounds like you jumped to a quick conclusion based on preexisting simple expectations about obesity?
I think this is unwarranted sarcasm, given that I could only comment on the information you provided in your post.
I think this is unwarranted sarcasm, given that I could only comment on the information you provided in your post.
I accept that feedback at face value.
I too had the same thought. You might hike 10 miles on the weekend but depending on your weight that's maybe 3000 calories at the most? It's pretty easy to eat that back over a week.
For the record, just in case it helps you, most weekdays I walk pretty close to 10 miles using a standing desk and walking treadmill. If you can incorporate it into your work day I'd recommend it.
For the record, just in case it helps you, most weekdays I walk pretty close to 10 miles using a standing desk and walking treadmill. If you can incorporate it into your work day I'd recommend it.
1) I have a suspicion that girls are getting birth control pills at much earlier ages than they used to. Putting a girl on bith control pills in the middle of puberty is going to have an effect somewhere and weight gain is one of the documented effects of birth control.
2) Girls getting fatter likely triggers other changes as well. Given that the female body works very hard to shut down reproduction when fat is scarce, it may very well supercharge reproductive changes when fat is plentiful.
3) I think you heavily underestimate the number of girls who get breast implants. For a while, it seemed like every 16-year-old girl was getting them. You could notice a significant contrast when shifting between areas with different socioeconomics--blue-collar areas mysteriously had lots of girls with much smaller breasts than white-collar ones.
2) Girls getting fatter likely triggers other changes as well. Given that the female body works very hard to shut down reproduction when fat is scarce, it may very well supercharge reproductive changes when fat is plentiful.
3) I think you heavily underestimate the number of girls who get breast implants. For a while, it seemed like every 16-year-old girl was getting them. You could notice a significant contrast when shifting between areas with different socioeconomics--blue-collar areas mysteriously had lots of girls with much smaller breasts than white-collar ones.
> 3) I think you heavily underestimate the number of girls who get breast implants. For a while, it seemed like every 16-year-old girl was getting them. You could notice a significant contrast when shifting between areas with different socioeconomics--blue-collar areas mysteriously had lots of girls with much smaller breasts than white-collar ones.
Citation definitely needed for this. Cosmetic surgery in the US is not covered by insurance and requires parental consent for patients under 18. While I do see more young women (and men) with "body modifications" like tattoos under 18, I strongly doubt we have a significant number of parents who are taking their teenage daughters in to get breast implants before they've even finished high school.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Citation definitely needed for this. Cosmetic surgery in the US is not covered by insurance and requires parental consent for patients under 18. While I do see more young women (and men) with "body modifications" like tattoos under 18, I strongly doubt we have a significant number of parents who are taking their teenage daughters in to get breast implants before they've even finished high school.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For number 3, I live in a rural part of Minnesota. It's rare to see breast implants even on adult women. I would notice pretty quickly if one of my clients had them as their breasts wouldn't "sit right" in some poses, particularly anything where they're on their back.
For your other points, I'm talking about stick-skinny 17 year olds with very large breasts. Hormonal birth control could be part/all of the reason but it's not from weight gain anywhere other than their bust.
For your other points, I'm talking about stick-skinny 17 year olds with very large breasts. Hormonal birth control could be part/all of the reason but it's not from weight gain anywhere other than their bust.
Well that plus the cheeseburger
Just saying "cheeseburgers" or "calories in, calories out" fails to explain why people eat more calories now than they did before. There is a vague, and I think very unhelpful, sense in society today that this is some sort of mass moral failing. In reality there are a few factors that could, alone or in combination, explain this change in average behavior. The most convincing to me: chemicals could be messing with our endocrine systems and making us hungrier or food scientists could be designing more appealing food that just overloads our desires to eat.
I lived in SE Asia for a while. Obesity is almost non-existent, though rapidly increasing for children.
I tried to figure out why. Was it lifestyle? More manual labor? No, even office workers weren't obese. Running was viewed as some weird western habit. Few people went to the gym. Most just went for walks for exercise.
Was it diet? Maybe. But plenty of local foods weren't exactly healthy. Mostly processed carbs. Lots of salt. Plenty of deep fried foods.
Then after eating like a local for a while I realized it. Portion size. I'd say the average meal is maybe half the portion size you'd get in the US. I'd go out to eat at a restaurant and think "I'm not that hungry", then order something anyways. But it was never a lot of food. Very common for people to have a soup dish for lunch - maybe a few strips of meat, an egg, a handful of noodles and ton of vegetables. Add it all up and it's not many calories.
It looked to me like people weren't obese because they ate less. But that was the societal norm. Sure people would gorge themselves at special events like weddings or fancy dinners out. But most of the time they were eating meals of maybe 400-500 calories each.
I tried to figure out why. Was it lifestyle? More manual labor? No, even office workers weren't obese. Running was viewed as some weird western habit. Few people went to the gym. Most just went for walks for exercise.
Was it diet? Maybe. But plenty of local foods weren't exactly healthy. Mostly processed carbs. Lots of salt. Plenty of deep fried foods.
Then after eating like a local for a while I realized it. Portion size. I'd say the average meal is maybe half the portion size you'd get in the US. I'd go out to eat at a restaurant and think "I'm not that hungry", then order something anyways. But it was never a lot of food. Very common for people to have a soup dish for lunch - maybe a few strips of meat, an egg, a handful of noodles and ton of vegetables. Add it all up and it's not many calories.
It looked to me like people weren't obese because they ate less. But that was the societal norm. Sure people would gorge themselves at special events like weddings or fancy dinners out. But most of the time they were eating meals of maybe 400-500 calories each.
Or they have less exposure to obesogens and therefore don't want to eat as much, leading restaurants to offer smaller portion sizes. There's a correlation, but not necessarily a causation.
Which obesogens do you imagine a place like SE is NOT exposed to? The pollution is far worse, and the food supply is even less regulated.
I'd expect far more exposure, rather than less.
I'd expect far more exposure, rather than less.
This is almost certainly the sum and totality of it. Edge cases? Sure. But it's pretty obvious that portion size has something to do with it, when a standard "American breakfast" rocks in at near a thousand calories (before adding juice and sides).
As an anecdotal experience, I have stopped eating any kind of commercial bread many years ago, despite the fact that I like bread.
The reason was that I could not become satiated when eating commercial bread, before eating huge quantities, which filled me up. It is much easier for me to not start eating something than to stop after beginning to eat, so I gave up completely on eating bread.
Nevertheless, I have started this year to make at home a bread every day when I wake up, which I eat at breakfast. Unlike commercial bread, this home-made bread satiates me completely without eating too much of it, and until late in the evening, when I usually have my 2nd daily meal.
This was unexpected and I am wondering about the cause. One possible reason is because this home-made bread is more protein-rich than commercial bread, because before baking I wash the dough for a few minutes, to remove a part of the starch.
There is also the possibility that it might matter that this is pure bread, made of flour and water without anything else added, unlike the commercial bread, which includes a huge list of additives. I believe that the additives may also have an influence because, as far as I remember, with the bread eaten when I was a child I did not have the same problem of lack of satiety like with the modern commercial bread.
The reason was that I could not become satiated when eating commercial bread, before eating huge quantities, which filled me up. It is much easier for me to not start eating something than to stop after beginning to eat, so I gave up completely on eating bread.
Nevertheless, I have started this year to make at home a bread every day when I wake up, which I eat at breakfast. Unlike commercial bread, this home-made bread satiates me completely without eating too much of it, and until late in the evening, when I usually have my 2nd daily meal.
This was unexpected and I am wondering about the cause. One possible reason is because this home-made bread is more protein-rich than commercial bread, because before baking I wash the dough for a few minutes, to remove a part of the starch.
There is also the possibility that it might matter that this is pure bread, made of flour and water without anything else added, unlike the commercial bread, which includes a huge list of additives. I believe that the additives may also have an influence because, as far as I remember, with the bread eaten when I was a child I did not have the same problem of lack of satiety like with the modern commercial bread.
It could also be that home made bread is chewier and so it takes longer to eat, or that it's a psychological effect from having made it yourself.
I do not think that there is any psychological reason, because I was very surprised by this, as it was contrary to my expectations.
However you are right that it is chewier than commercial bread and I have also thought that this may be an additional explanation. I believe that the longer chewing time contributes to the satiation effect, but it cannot explain all of it, as I remain satiated for many hours, and I do not believe that the extra chewing can have a lasting effect.
In any case the fact that most modern food requires much less chewing than traditional food is indeed a likely contributory factor to the tendency of eating more at a meal than it was common for the previous generations.
However you are right that it is chewier than commercial bread and I have also thought that this may be an additional explanation. I believe that the longer chewing time contributes to the satiation effect, but it cannot explain all of it, as I remain satiated for many hours, and I do not believe that the extra chewing can have a lasting effect.
In any case the fact that most modern food requires much less chewing than traditional food is indeed a likely contributory factor to the tendency of eating more at a meal than it was common for the previous generations.
Spend 2 days and write down everything you eat or drink in a spreadsheet with calorie count (including oil and condiments). Use a digital scale if possible for more accurate measurement. The answer will be glaringly obvious.
Most people don’t do this and spend their lives wondering why they can’t control their weight.
Some quick culprits: sodas and juices (huge amount of calories), excess oil in food cooking (oil has a ton of calories), side dishes and snacks (chips, French fries, crackers, etc.).
On the satiety level, if you eat out a lot or processed foods, most have little fiber and aren’t that satiating (e.g. you can eat a whole bag of chips or thing of crackers and want more). Either more fiber or protein.
Really the main solution is to limit eating out if you live in America. I eat out once a day maximum. Otherwise you’ll most likely hit a caloric surplus.
Most people don’t do this and spend their lives wondering why they can’t control their weight.
Some quick culprits: sodas and juices (huge amount of calories), excess oil in food cooking (oil has a ton of calories), side dishes and snacks (chips, French fries, crackers, etc.).
On the satiety level, if you eat out a lot or processed foods, most have little fiber and aren’t that satiating (e.g. you can eat a whole bag of chips or thing of crackers and want more). Either more fiber or protein.
Really the main solution is to limit eating out if you live in America. I eat out once a day maximum. Otherwise you’ll most likely hit a caloric surplus.
> Most people don’t do this and spend their lives wondering why they can’t control their weight.
My experience with obese and morbidly obese individuals in the northeast US suggests to me that the problem is more related to mental health & addiction than a lack of information & education.
My experience with obese and morbidly obese individuals in the northeast US suggests to me that the problem is more related to mental health & addiction than a lack of information & education.
Right, you'll see how many calories you eat. But you won't see why you eat that many calories. Plenty of people try very hard to count and limit calories, but stories of successful weight loss are still the minority of cases. Most people can't lose more than 10 or 15 pounds without starting to get really hungry. Similarly, most people can't intentionally gain more than 10 or 15 pounds without starting to feel that they are unable to eat more.
You can say the main solution is not eating out, or anything else, but the fact that losing weight is hard demonstrates the fact that no solution is easy.
You can say the main solution is not eating out, or anything else, but the fact that losing weight is hard demonstrates the fact that no solution is easy.
The immense marketing around "healthy" vs "unhealthy" food has also contributed to it. Most people consider a glass of orange juice to be "healthy" and a can of Coca Cola to be "unhealthy" but a can of coke has 140 calories and the exact same size of orange juice is 150 - but most people drink a glass of orange juice which is often 16-20 ounces, getting you up near 300 calories.
Sure the orange juice is probably "healthier" per calorie, whatever that means, but you're still drinking a lot of calories.
Sure the orange juice is probably "healthier" per calorie, whatever that means, but you're still drinking a lot of calories.
In the UK average calorie intake has been dropping, but thats negatively correlated to kids being fat.
I would suggest that the big change is the amount of activity that an average kid does. which seems to be conducive to the calories in/vs out. the cause of this is complex. But a lot of it relates to stranger danger. Parents don't let their kids out after school unattended (for various reasons) which means they are inside not burning off as many calories.
The other thing to remember is that food is now cheap. Its perfectly possible to be in the bottom 20% of the UK income bracket and still have enough cash to eat more calories than you need. (This is a good thing. People starving in the UK is unforgivable.)
I would suggest that the big change is the amount of activity that an average kid does. which seems to be conducive to the calories in/vs out. the cause of this is complex. But a lot of it relates to stranger danger. Parents don't let their kids out after school unattended (for various reasons) which means they are inside not burning off as many calories.
The other thing to remember is that food is now cheap. Its perfectly possible to be in the bottom 20% of the UK income bracket and still have enough cash to eat more calories than you need. (This is a good thing. People starving in the UK is unforgivable.)
Also, it's not the activity that matters much as simply being further away from food while doing it. The amount of calories you burn running through a forest playing Robin Hood is minuscule; but since you're thousands of feet (miles even) from your fridge, you can't just continue to eat all the time.
Not just "stranger danger", but fewer people (in the US, and AIUI increasingly other parts of the developed world) live in a place where you can do anything without driving. As a result, not only are children barred from operating independently of their parents' time, but everyone is more sedentary, by nature of replacing active travel with automotive travel at every opportunity.
I suspect something we're eating more of now (seed oils, chemicals in processed foods, something else?) is causing us to store more fat that we otherwise would have. i.e. we seem to store all excess calories as fat, but maybe that's not actually what a healthy human body would do.
And some of these metastidies indicate our measure of calorie may be off. Lab rats fed controlled diets with measured activity have gotten fatter over the decades. Somehow those rats are extracting more energy from their food or becoming more efficient at producing the measured amount of activity.
The whole lab animals got fatter on controlled diets thing is based on a single study. It’s not a statistically significant trend for rats. It is for mice. I don’t have any particular gripes with the methodology but I am not totally convinced it’s well controlled
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/#!po=35...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/#!po=35...
> fails to explain why people eat more calories now than they did before
Wouldn't this also intuitively be related to the fact that a calorie today is much, much "cheaper" (in terms of labor required to acquire the calorie for both the producer and the consumer) than a calorie was even 100 years ago due to advancements in agriculture and distribution?
Wouldn't this also intuitively be related to the fact that a calorie today is much, much "cheaper" (in terms of labor required to acquire the calorie for both the producer and the consumer) than a calorie was even 100 years ago due to advancements in agriculture and distribution?
To an extent, but we're 10x richer than we were in 1900; we do not eat 10x as many calories. And it's poor people who eat more calories now, not rich people.
> it's poor people who eat more calories now, not rich people
That's my point; if you look at a map of obesity rates in the US overlaid with a map of poverty, there's a very strong correlation.
The cheap access to calories today makes it easier to overconsume. In the past, the high cost of calories meant that only the wealthy could really ever become obese (outside of genetic factors).
That's my point; if you look at a map of obesity rates in the US overlaid with a map of poverty, there's a very strong correlation.
The cheap access to calories today makes it easier to overconsume. In the past, the high cost of calories meant that only the wealthy could really ever become obese (outside of genetic factors).
The snide comment would be that obesity and unbearable debt are indicators of lack of control, and that poor people will have this more (because lack of control leads to being poor).
But even if absolutely true, how do you solve for that? Laws limiting what you can purchase/eat would simply be a non-starter.
But even if absolutely true, how do you solve for that? Laws limiting what you can purchase/eat would simply be a non-starter.
I mean, if we were confident one particular food source contributes more to obesity than others, we have a solution that we know would work: tax it (and ideally dedicate revenues to some kind of universal food tax credit). People would consume less of it at the margin and then be less obese.
It would rankle some people, but so do taxes on alcohol and nicotine. My big concern is that I'm skeptical whether we can really identify those "bad" foods and that even if we could whether we could ensure the government would whitelist/blacklist the correct foods.
As far as lack of control goes, I'd be curious if fatter/poorer people would do worse on some kind of adult marshmallow test. Maybe see if you can get them to sit perfectly still for 20 minutes in exchange for a monetary reward. I don't have a strong sense that they'd do worse than skinnier/richer people.
It would rankle some people, but so do taxes on alcohol and nicotine. My big concern is that I'm skeptical whether we can really identify those "bad" foods and that even if we could whether we could ensure the government would whitelist/blacklist the correct foods.
As far as lack of control goes, I'd be curious if fatter/poorer people would do worse on some kind of adult marshmallow test. Maybe see if you can get them to sit perfectly still for 20 minutes in exchange for a monetary reward. I don't have a strong sense that they'd do worse than skinnier/richer people.
That's the solution everyone wants "identify bad food and tax/ban it" - but when apple juice has as much or more calories than soda, what do you do? A per-calorie tax might work if you rebated it correctly, but the mechanics of that would be insane. Perhaps it could be tied to basic income - we will tax calories at ten cents per calorie, and give each person 2000 calories (200$) a day ...
That's interesting. A large side of fries at Macdonald's would be $50 (though I suppose everything else would also jump a lot in price). Definitely creates a strong incentive to consume less.
Implementation wise, it probably would be best to begin at something like half a cent per calorie and then ratchet it up until we hit some target number (or until we discover it doesn't actually influence behavior). Then at the end of the year people get a $4000 dollar tax credit.
Implementation wise, it probably would be best to begin at something like half a cent per calorie and then ratchet it up until we hit some target number (or until we discover it doesn't actually influence behavior). Then at the end of the year people get a $4000 dollar tax credit.
There have been many studies looking at this phenomenon.
One hypothesis is that this is due to "food deserts" where the lack of access to fresh foods leads to over-reliance on processed foods for caloric needs.
It is no coincidence that there is also a strong correlation between food deserts (at a national and local level) with lower income. The solution probably isn't banning specific foods, but to solve the access problem and address socio-economic factors. Better health and nutrition education may also be key.
One hypothesis is that this is due to "food deserts" where the lack of access to fresh foods leads to over-reliance on processed foods for caloric needs.
It is no coincidence that there is also a strong correlation between food deserts (at a national and local level) with lower income. The solution probably isn't banning specific foods, but to solve the access problem and address socio-economic factors. Better health and nutrition education may also be key.
The food desert thing should be testable, no? Like identify one of the worst ones, and subsidize a normal grocery store for however many years necessary, and see what it has done?
Possibly, but intuition is often wrong. We need actual research to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
> Just saying "cheeseburgers" or "calories in, calories out" fails to explain why people eat more calories now than they did before.
Junk foods at high-availability, low cost, offering low-to-zero satiety per-calorie, and habit-forming addictive potential. The answer is pretty much in your sentence. Add to the fact, eating well on a budget requires you to prepare food at home. Lots of pressures funnel people to obesity. In the before-times (if you want to set your clock well before the obesity epidemic), two-income households weren't a thing for the most part and manufactured junk foods were a novelty on the market. People kept more active even at leisure, with tv being the novel and singular screen-based entertainment device that not everyone could afford at outset.
Junk foods at high-availability, low cost, offering low-to-zero satiety per-calorie, and habit-forming addictive potential. The answer is pretty much in your sentence. Add to the fact, eating well on a budget requires you to prepare food at home. Lots of pressures funnel people to obesity. In the before-times (if you want to set your clock well before the obesity epidemic), two-income households weren't a thing for the most part and manufactured junk foods were a novelty on the market. People kept more active even at leisure, with tv being the novel and singular screen-based entertainment device that not everyone could afford at outset.
Sure, I think that's a very plausible explanation. It also points to specific, testable policy changes. For example, a government could build a low cost (subsidized), healthy competitor to fast food. Alternatively, a government could implement a comprehensive "sin tax" scheme on "low quality" calories coupled with expanded food stamps (to ensure the poorest people can afford healthy alternatives). Governments could even go into food desserts and open health-focused grocery stores. We could see if low cost/low quality calories are the issue via a legislative experiment.
I've often thought that government-run "soup kitchens" providing basic nutritional food in small portions should be everywhere - no requirements to eat there, if Bill Gates and Buffet want to have lunch at the free soup kitchen who cares.
I like the Japanese school-lunch system. Kids develop a familiarity with real food, which stays with them into adulthood (and reduces the likelihood of obesity ever occurring), and parents don't have to worry about it.
It's also much easier to eat a very high amount of calories in relatively little volume, compared to any other time in history. It's very easy to eat thousands of calories in what would be a healthy volume of vegetables. Pack more calories and people will eat more calories before they actually feel full.
Would it change your perception if you look at overeating as a symptom rather than a cause?
A common enough symptom for untreated diabetes is eccessive thirst. Why should some ailments not cause lack of satiety or edcessive hunger.
Or even metabolic issues. Complex ones.
Imagine that the basis for the obesity pandemic may in fact lie in other, lack of proper digestive bacteria and yeast for example. I feel that pointing at obesity as just lazyness is just not constructive. I am not obese and have never suffered from it so this is not from a point of self defense. Just a thought.
Imagine that the basis for the obesity pandemic may in fact lie in other, lack of proper digestive bacteria and yeast for example. I feel that pointing at obesity as just lazyness is just not constructive. I am not obese and have never suffered from it so this is not from a point of self defense. Just a thought.
Regardless of the causes of the caloric intake, managing said intake is still the responsibility of said individual. Unless the chemicals involved block the ability to take dietary decisions, of course, but that's a different discussion.
From my point of view as an obese individual: It is the cheeseburgers. And the lack of excersize. And the long days working at a screen with few breaks.
Change is hard and bad habits are not easy to get rid of. Especially when you've spent a few decades getting used to them when you were young and unwise.
From my point of view as an obese individual: It is the cheeseburgers. And the lack of excersize. And the long days working at a screen with few breaks.
Change is hard and bad habits are not easy to get rid of. Especially when you've spent a few decades getting used to them when you were young and unwise.
> Change is hard and bad habits are not easy to get rid of
Which is exactly why no expert in treating addiction suggests using willpower to "cold turkey" as a treatment.
Which is exactly why no expert in treating addiction suggests using willpower to "cold turkey" as a treatment.
I don't think anyone suggested going cold turkey on food.
Your reply is delightfully pedantic.
Can heroin addiction be treated with heroin intake management?
Going cold turkey on food would be unhealthy, so some kind of management is required.
I didn't grow fat because I have a slow metabolism (and I do), or because I'm addicted to a specific unhealthy type of food; I'm fat because I made a major switch in lifestyles (hard labour to desk job) without any changes to my diet, and because I kept prioritizing other things than my health for decades. After a while it became obvious that change is needed, but boy is it difficult to lose weight once you've had it for 20 years!
The solution is managing my diet. Sure, some variables may change (such as chemicals affecting my body), but I still need to keep consuming less calories than I burn in order to do something about the issue.
I didn't grow fat because I have a slow metabolism (and I do), or because I'm addicted to a specific unhealthy type of food; I'm fat because I made a major switch in lifestyles (hard labour to desk job) without any changes to my diet, and because I kept prioritizing other things than my health for decades. After a while it became obvious that change is needed, but boy is it difficult to lose weight once you've had it for 20 years!
The solution is managing my diet. Sure, some variables may change (such as chemicals affecting my body), but I still need to keep consuming less calories than I burn in order to do something about the issue.
This nuance you're adding is not optional or dismissable. It's essential complexity to solving the problem.
Calorie in calorie out is not false. It's just not useful. Like saying to go to the moon you need to go up.
Calorie in is appetite. Calorie out is metabolism. The specifics of how these are affected, and the solutions to fixing them, are a lot more fruitful than reaffirming the second law of thermodynamics.
Calorie in calorie out is not false. It's just not useful. Like saying to go to the moon you need to go up.
Calorie in is appetite. Calorie out is metabolism. The specifics of how these are affected, and the solutions to fixing them, are a lot more fruitful than reaffirming the second law of thermodynamics.
A cheeseburger is a terrible metonym for unhealthy food.
The large fries and enormous glass of corn syrup aren't welded to the burger, which has a perfectly fine nutritional profile for an entree.
The large fries and enormous glass of corn syrup aren't welded to the burger, which has a perfectly fine nutritional profile for an entree.
People ate fast food and drove everywhere in 80s/90s what changed that it's worse now?
The paper talks about epigenetics and these chemicals, but isn't it possible the diet and lack of physical activity affected future generations as well? If not via epigenetics, perhaps via gut flora being passed down and spread?
They talk about lab animals with controlled diets and activity becoming fatter on average over the decades, and point to chemicals as the only possible culprit. I find that quite possible or even probable, but isn't it also possible the gut flora is evolving to be more efficient at processing modern food?
They talk about lab animals with controlled diets and activity becoming fatter on average over the decades, and point to chemicals as the only possible culprit. I find that quite possible or even probable, but isn't it also possible the gut flora is evolving to be more efficient at processing modern food?
Fast food portions being larger, poorer eating habits passed on from generation to generation, the internet, the smartphone, presumably more stress and anxiety.
Are fast food portions actually larger? I remember getting super sized combos when I was a kid (maybe even in HS, I forget when they got rid of them) but they're gone now, and on the rare occasion I get fast food the portions seem reasonable.
I moved from New Zealand to the United States and one of my early culture shocks was the large portion sizes. I’d order food to go and it would easily be two meals.
I wondered if it was some sort of expectation that when you ordered food at a restaurant that there was always excess you could take home in a ‘doggy bag’ which seems to be fairly common in the US but not typical in my experience in NZ or Australia.
I’ve definitely become accustomed to it and I can now eat that full American sized serving :(
Funnily enough, most of the time the cheeseburgers are smaller here in the US than NZ!
I wondered if it was some sort of expectation that when you ordered food at a restaurant that there was always excess you could take home in a ‘doggy bag’ which seems to be fairly common in the US but not typical in my experience in NZ or Australia.
I’ve definitely become accustomed to it and I can now eat that full American sized serving :(
Funnily enough, most of the time the cheeseburgers are smaller here in the US than NZ!
> Are fast food portions actually larger?
Oh my god, yes.
"Free refills" also didn't become standard until some time in the 90s. In the 80s, a refill cost money and often the cups were smaller to begin with. You'd buy a pitcher (just like with beer) if you wanted a lot at a bit of a discount. You can see this on an ad on a pizza hut in the skater movie Gleaming the Cube, near the end of the film. Now the idea of buying a pitcher of soda makes no sense because everywhere has free refills, but almost none did in the 80s. In the early 90s some places did but it was often just during certain hours (lunch, say) as a draw. It spread from there until it became normal, fast-food joints started letting you fill (and re-fill) your own cup, et c.
Oh my god, yes.
"Free refills" also didn't become standard until some time in the 90s. In the 80s, a refill cost money and often the cups were smaller to begin with. You'd buy a pitcher (just like with beer) if you wanted a lot at a bit of a discount. You can see this on an ad on a pizza hut in the skater movie Gleaming the Cube, near the end of the film. Now the idea of buying a pitcher of soda makes no sense because everywhere has free refills, but almost none did in the 80s. In the early 90s some places did but it was often just during certain hours (lunch, say) as a draw. It spread from there until it became normal, fast-food joints started letting you fill (and re-fill) your own cup, et c.
Drink sizes are WAY bigger. I remember small fries used to come in a little white paper sleeve. In the US, I haven’t seen those in years.
That said, this 2011 study from Cambridge University says portion sizes have not grown significantly.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n...
That said, this 2011 study from Cambridge University says portion sizes have not grown significantly.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n...
The "cost to supersize" seems to me (but I have no proof, maybe I have more money now) to have gone down relative to the meal cost, so it's more and more of a "no brainer" upgrade.
Maybe if they were required to price it backwards, where the meal costs $x and you can get a ten percent discount if you order small, that would "trick" people into eating less.
Maybe if they were required to price it backwards, where the meal costs $x and you can get a ten percent discount if you order small, that would "trick" people into eating less.
I received one of those paper sleeves the last time I went through a drive through maybe 4 or 5 weeks ago, but that's not to say the sleeve itself didn't get larger.
Paper or paperboard? Was it white or red?
What a low effort comment - as if burgers and cheese and big ole pieces of meat didn't exist before plastics? HN's comments are supposed to make the conversation more interesting and more engaging.
which part of a cheese burger is bad for you?
The burger itself is probably the healthiest part of it.
It’s the bun (full of corn syrup and carbs), a massive amount of sodium, the condiments (also corn syrup), a side of fries (mostly carbs), a soda (even more corn syrup). By the time you’ve finished a decently sized burger you’ve eaten enough sugar, sodium and carbs for the entire day.
It’s the bun (full of corn syrup and carbs), a massive amount of sodium, the condiments (also corn syrup), a side of fries (mostly carbs), a soda (even more corn syrup). By the time you’ve finished a decently sized burger you’ve eaten enough sugar, sodium and carbs for the entire day.
A Big Mac and large fries at McDonalds comes to 1040 calories and 102 g of carbs (9 g of which are added sugars). That's 39% of the calories coming from carbs, which is generally considered to be a moderate level of carbs in the medical literature.
Get a double Quarter Pounder with cheese instead and its 1230 calories and 101 g of carbs (10 g of which are added sugars). That's 33% of calories from carbs, which is also in the moderate carb range.
As far as the burger itself goes, a doubler Quarter Pounder with cheese is 740 calories and 41 g of carb (10 g of which is added sugars). That's 22% of calories from carbs and would count as a low carb item in much of the medical literature.
Americans tend to go overboard. They hear that cutting back on carbs has been shown to have some benefits, and they think this means they have to cut back from the 50-60% calories from carbs diets they are on to 5-10%. That is very hard since it eliminates most breads, pastas, rice, potatoes, and deserts. It is costly and/or time consuming to maintain such a diet. Most who try will fail for those reasons.
In fact much of the benefits from reducing carbs will come with a more modest reduction to around 40%, which can be achieved without having to largely give up the aforementioned foods. It is much easier to stick with it when you can still eat at most restaurants, including most fast food places.
Get a double Quarter Pounder with cheese instead and its 1230 calories and 101 g of carbs (10 g of which are added sugars). That's 33% of calories from carbs, which is also in the moderate carb range.
As far as the burger itself goes, a doubler Quarter Pounder with cheese is 740 calories and 41 g of carb (10 g of which is added sugars). That's 22% of calories from carbs and would count as a low carb item in much of the medical literature.
Americans tend to go overboard. They hear that cutting back on carbs has been shown to have some benefits, and they think this means they have to cut back from the 50-60% calories from carbs diets they are on to 5-10%. That is very hard since it eliminates most breads, pastas, rice, potatoes, and deserts. It is costly and/or time consuming to maintain such a diet. Most who try will fail for those reasons.
In fact much of the benefits from reducing carbs will come with a more modest reduction to around 40%, which can be achieved without having to largely give up the aforementioned foods. It is much easier to stick with it when you can still eat at most restaurants, including most fast food places.
The bun probably causes inflammation/leaky gut for a lot more people than area aware it does. Modern wheat is a weird organism.
What’s weird about it?
Is emmer or kamut much better? What about red fife, a strain of wheat from ~170 years ago?
Is emmer or kamut much better? What about red fife, a strain of wheat from ~170 years ago?
It's not necessarily the wheat itself, though residual glyphosate and other herbicides are a concern, it's more the industrial processing of it. Industrial baking is very different to traditional baking, and the proteins may be exposed to the immune system in very different ways as a result, i.e. different epitopes.
The hybrid varieties bred in the late 50's have about 50x the amount of gluten as previous strains of wheat did.
Fascinating. I was curious because I eat the three I mentioned kind of like rice (along with barley and oats).
I’m behind on this science. A 50x increase in gluten sounds crazy, but I don’t know how much gluten is known to be bad. For example, I sometimes eat things with wheat gluten powder as a primary ingredient. It doesn’t seem to cause harm, but maybe I’m missing something.
I certainly don’t think of it as a health food (nothing so heavily processed is), but is it actually harmful?
I’m behind on this science. A 50x increase in gluten sounds crazy, but I don’t know how much gluten is known to be bad. For example, I sometimes eat things with wheat gluten powder as a primary ingredient. It doesn’t seem to cause harm, but maybe I’m missing something.
I certainly don’t think of it as a health food (nothing so heavily processed is), but is it actually harmful?
The science on gluten is ongoing and controversial, but the position I believe will ultimately be vindicated is that some people seem to derive no ill effects while many others develop a mild allergy to it, which can fly under the radar and lead to all sorts of chronic inflammation issues if the person keeps eating it. As a result, there's no 'standard safe dosage' of gluten, some people become violently ill if they encounter a trace, others (myself included) find a lot of seemingly unconnected annoyances clear up if they avoid it for a few weeks. Excess weight gain seems to be one of those, though in my case the major symptom was actually an excessively fast metabolism.
[deleted]
Sugar is in everything (like plastic, I suppose). Look at the ingredients of what you buy and you'll be surprised where it turns up. Peanut butter, mayonnaise, beef jerky, even bog standard bread. It seems like sugar is the elephant in the room that the mainstream doesn't want to talk about.