Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

crazybear.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#11

Post by matwood »

I don't know why Taubes gets so much play on HN. His science is bad and his studies are cherry picked [1] for whatever narrative he wants to sell. For a large group of people who usually are critical thinkers I'm surprised at what passes for real nutrition science on HN.

IMHO, if you want to read good diet information from someone who not only knows what he is talking about, but also uses it in practice every day look up Alan Aragon [2]. I particularly like him because he is a research fanatic and understands the difference between high and low quality studies.

BTW, I am in no way affiliated with him at all, but have read his stuff for years.

[1] http://weightology.net/?p=265 -great read with LOTS of links to studies that Taubes conveniently (purposely?) ignored

[2] http://www.alanaragonblog.com/

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#12

Post by billjings »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #4
jerf wrote: post #3

That doesn't counter his point at all. The difference between "obesity" and "maintaining weight" is still implausibly thin; what Gary was talking about in the first place was the delta in the top two lines, not the net total. He mentions that more obese people eventually do reach an energy balance, which obviously happens because they income and outflow eventually balance, which is a sign that he understands that. (S…

(your simulation lacks the stability that people reach and simulates the clearly false scenario in which people become fatter without bound) True. All I did was graph the exact scenario Taubes himself described. If it is unrealistic, take it up with him. The only difference is that I didn't "forget" to mention the 7 strips of bacon the obese person consumes in excess of the thin person.

Ahh, if only I were at a real keyboard. I'll just say that 1) you make a fantastic point in the discussion, 2)there is evidence that even when the fat person fails to eat that additional bacon, metabolism and activity levels drop to compensate, and 3) you have failed to refute Taubes' primary point, which is that "we get fat because we eat more calories than we expend" does not satisfactorily explain why we maintain a calorie surplus in the first place.

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#13

Post by msluyter »

What I find odd about the level of debate on this topic is that Taubes' thesis is easily tested empirically. Give up grains & carbs for a couple of months and see what happens. If, like me, you lose 30 pounds and lower your cholesterol significantly, then all the better. But if not, at least you'll be arguing from something other than "this violates the conventional wisdom." (Remember when the conventional wisdom promoted margarine and said eggs were bad?)

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#14

Post by nkurz »

jls11 wrote: post #9
nkurz wrote: post #6

This is a brilliant graph, but I don't think you are reading Taubes' article correctly. He is not offering "straightforward calculations", rather he is setting up a "straw man" ("Aunt Sally") which he feels represents the "almost incomprehensibly naïve and wrong-headed" conventional wisdom. Like you, Taubes does not believe that 20 calories a day is a good way to represent the difference between an obese and non-obes…

I've heard this one before. "Taubes's argument is more complex than that. You need to spend more hours studying those pages, and read books x, y, and z." It's the same argument they give in college English classes for deconstructionism and all that other nonsense. Taubes is a journalist. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. If he's doing his job shouldn't we all be able to understan…

Taubes is a journalist.

Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most.

The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience.

Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. Are contrafactuals truly so rare as to be unrecognizable?

Ignoring the fact that his science is wrong.

Sure, it might be, but the commentary so far has not been about "his science" but about his portrayal of conventional wisdom, which he also agrees is wrong. It's like pointing out that a mathematician is obviously a fool for saying "Let us assume momentarily that the square root of two is a rational number" as the preamble to a proof.

It feels like a scene from Idiocracy. It's not that Taubes is wrong, it's that you are misreading his argument. I'm not arguing that "it's complex" --- although I'll happily stand up to defend deconstructionism --- rather I'm trying to tell you that you are in agreement with Taubes that the conventional wisdom is rubbish.

Now, if you want to point out the flaws in his actual argument and say that there is no difference between calories from carbs and from proteins, please do! But insisting that he's wrong because it really takes more than 20 calories sounds an awful lot like chanting "Brawndo's got electrolytes".

It's a new year. I want to regain my faith in the world. Please stop making me cry.

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#15

Post by yummyfajitas »

neild wrote: post #10
yummyfajitas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(your simulation lacks the stability that people reach and simulates the clearly false scenario in which people become fatter without bound) True. All I did was graph the exact scenario Taubes himself described. If it is unrealistic, take it up with him. The only difference is that I didn't "forget" to mention the 7 strips of bacon the obese person consumes in excess of the thin person.

What you appear to be aggressively declining to understand, despite two prior commenters clearly explaining it--including the one that you're responding to here--is that Taubes does not argue that 20 extra calories a day makes a person fat. He argues the precise opposite, in fact, at great length and in some detail.

What you appear to be aggressively declining to understand is that I'm arguing that Taube's straw man is misleading. I'm not claiming his main thesis is wrong, I couldn't even figure out from the blog post what that thesis is.

He used a misleading straw man: "Look, modern medical science says only 20 cals a day makes you obese! I'll repeat 20 cals/day many times, and tell you it's just a couple of gulps of beer. I'll never mention the other 100-350 cals/day (depending on year) once in 3000 words. Only 20 cals/day must be wrong, go read my book to learn the truth! Now for a made up dialogue between myself and a personified straw man!"

Yes, technically he made no untrue claims. He just deliberately failed to mention that the straw man has a good point: 7.5 sticks of bacon/day will make you fat while 7.0 sticks of bacon will only keep you fat once you are already fat.

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#16

Post by yummyfajitas »

nkurz wrote: post #14
jls11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this one before. "Taubes's argument is more complex than that. You need to spend more hours studying those pages, and read books x, y, and z." It's the same argument they give in college English classes for deconstructionism and all that other nonsense. Taubes is a journalist. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. If he's doing his job shouldn't we all be able to understan…

Taubes is a journalist. Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio a…

This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument.

The problem is that his reducto ad absurdum isn't that absurd. It only sounds that way because he spends 3000 words ignoring 90-95% of the actual argument (specifically, 171 calories out of 191 in year 10).

The full argument: 7.5 strips of bacon/day will make you fat (technically fewer strips in earlier years, but you get the picture). 7 strips will maintain your current level of obesity, the extra 0.5 strips will allow you to gain an extra 2 lbs.

The argument as present by Taubes: only 0.5 strips of bacon in excess of maintenance is enough to explain the difference between an obese person? That's ridiculous!

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#17

Post by yummyfajitas »

billjings wrote: post #12
yummyfajitas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(your simulation lacks the stability that people reach and simulates the clearly false scenario in which people become fatter without bound) True. All I did was graph the exact scenario Taubes himself described. If it is unrealistic, take it up with him. The only difference is that I didn't "forget" to mention the 7 strips of bacon the obese person consumes in excess of the thin person.

Ahh, if only I were at a real keyboard. I'll just say that 1) you make a fantastic point in the discussion, 2)there is evidence that even when the fat person fails to eat that additional bacon, metabolism and activity levels drop to compensate, and 3) you have failed to refute Taubes' primary point, which is that "we get fat because we eat more calories than we expend" does not satisfactorily explain why we maintain…

Taubes' primary point, which is that "we get fat because we eat more calories than we expend" does not satisfactorily explain why we maintain a calorie surplus in the first place.

Is that really his point? That's true, but tautological.

Similarly, the theory that "the apple I dropped falls because of gravity" also doesn't explain why I dropped the apple. All it explains is how (and not why) the apple falls.

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#18

Post by nkurz »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16
nkurz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taubes is a journalist. Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio a…

This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. The problem is that his reducto ad absurdum isn't that absurd. It only sounds that way because he spends 3000 words ignoring 90-95% of the actual argument (specifically, 171 calories out of 191 in year 10). The full argument: 7.5 s…

Both of these are fair questions: is Taubes accurately portraying the conventional wisdom, and what difference in diet corresponds to what final weight maintained?

Yes, Taubes is presenting a very weak version of the argument. But I think he does this for good reason: it's the camel's nose in the tent, it's the NRA's (legitimate?) fear about reasonable gun control laws. Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning. And I don't think that his portrayal of conventional wisdom is that far off: we have entire industries based on shaving off a few calories from our desserts, and many people seem to believe that if the fat slobs would just park at the far end of the parking lot and walk another 100 feet they wouldn't be fat.

He doesn't present the version you offer because he doesn't believe it. You're presuming that its possible to eat an additional half a slice of bacon a day and have no other effects other than maintaining a stable weight of 2 lbs greater after a year. You're also presuming that this effect would be achieved by eating an additional sugar cube. Traditional calorie counting would also imply that you'd be in the same place if instead of the bacon or sugar cube every morning that you ate an entire 7200 calories pecan pie once a year at Thanksgiving.

Taubes says this is also wrong: bacon and sugar are metabolized differently, and will have different effects on your body. Both will also have side effects on appetite and energy level. How sure are you that they are the same? How sure are you that timing doesn't make a difference? How would you design a solution to obesity that is more effective than merely encouraging people to eat a little bit less and to exercise a little bit more?

I think these are good questions, and still open to discussion. Likely there are better approaches than Taubes', but I think he's a bright guy on the right path. At the least, I think it's worth attacking his actual thesis rather than complaining that his straw man doesn't fight back as strongly as it should.

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#19

Post by lukevdp »

msluyter wrote: post #13

What I find odd about the level of debate on this topic is that Taubes' thesis is easily tested empirically. Give up grains & carbs for a couple of months and see what happens. If, like me, you lose 30 pounds and lower your cholesterol significantly, then all the better. But if not, at least you'll be arguing from something other than "this violates the conventional wisdom." (Remember when the conventional wisdom pro…

That doesn't show anything empirically.

You can lose the same weight on a twinkle diet.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profes...

Re: "Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room

#20

Post by kscaldef »

msluyter wrote: post #13

What I find odd about the level of debate on this topic is that Taubes' thesis is easily tested empirically. Give up grains & carbs for a couple of months and see what happens. If, like me, you lose 30 pounds and lower your cholesterol significantly, then all the better. But if not, at least you'll be arguing from something other than "this violates the conventional wisdom." (Remember when the conventional wisdom pro…

I think you need to look at outcomes over 5-10 years, not a couple of months. As far as I can tell, radical diets pretty much always work over the short term. I'd speculate this is some combination of: you're not actually replacing all the calories you removed, and your body needing some time to adjust to the right mix and quantities of enzymes to fully metabolize your new diet.

(Also, I'm fairly skeptical that you're really losing 10 pounds of fat, or anything other than water, per month.)

Post reply on HN