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

21–30 of 32 posts

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

#21

Post by matwood »

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…

What do you think you have shown? Did you make sure to maintain the same caloric intake when you gave up carbs? You lost 30lbs so how do you know that your lower cholesterol was due to no carbs and not simply weight loss?

Most people on low-carb diets end up eating less calories, thus weight loss occurs (pretty basic, but it doesn't sell pop science books very well). I agree that no-carb is a viable strategy to cutting calories in a not have to calorie count way [1], but I'm willing to bet if you simply cut your calories and kept the same macro (P/C/F) percentages as before your diet you would have lost the same amount of weight.

[1] Going no-carb cuts out LOTS of the typical snack food that people eat and don't realize all the extra calories they are picking up.

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

#22

Post by billjings »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #17
billjings wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Every search for truth must have some aim. In the case of the apple, saying "everything falls down" doesn't get at what newton was really interested in, which was the laws of motion in general. In this case, it is silly to stop at the second law of thermodynamics when you're really interested in homeostasis in the human body.

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

#23

Post by mike_organon »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #2

Hm, this also negates what I thought was Gary Taubes's most interesting point -- why is it that obese people eventually maintain their weight rather than keep gaining. But if the maintenance need increases with body weight, there is no need to postulate any interesting regulation mechanism: just eating a constant amount of food would do it.

No, in the graph, the green line is pulling the red line up - this is exactly what Taubes says is wrong because the delta is so small. The blue line is a red herring because that's no longer the maintenance weight.

Taubes is saying that kind of precision in calorie counting is absurd, so can't be the explanation for other people that have constant weight over decades. How could a person on the blue line have eaten with such a small margin of error?

It's incredibly difficult to eat a constant amount. People generally eat to satiety, and that changes with weight. The hypothesis Taubes puts forward in the book is that increased weight causes one to eat more, not the other way around (which is conventional wisdom). So the question is, what caused the weight gain (fat storage)? Taubes argues in the book, it's carbs and insulin, not dietary fat.

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

#24

Post by yummyfajitas »

nkurz wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning.

If you want to call the simple version of a theory into question, present the simple version of the theory. Don't obscure 90% of it. Taubes doesn't present the version I described because the version I described is pretty hard to question. Has Taubes shown us that we need to question the theory that 7.5 extra strips of bacon each day will make you fat?

Also, no one believes that traditional calorie counting is perfect. It's a good first approximation, but there are corrections to be made. You've identified one - you can't absorb 7200 calories in a single day. But then again, I never heard anyone in the nutritional mainstream claim that Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat. They just make claims like, for example, 7.5 strips of bacon/day might make you fat, and 7.0 strips of bacon will keep you fat but not make you fatter. (Substitute cookies for bacon if you want.) There are others, many of which are already well known. Pick up any sports medicine book to learn all about them.

As for "designing a solution to obesity", we already have the solution for the vast majority of people: eat less and exercise more. Taubes is trying to sell books by misleading people about the theory underlying that solution (i.e., ignoring 90% of it). It's hard to see how that is helping us get to a better solution than what we have now.

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.

You seem to be confusing mainstream nutrition science with people hawking their own wares. Modern medical science, in the form of an about.com calculator, says that you burn about 2 calories by walking 100 feet.

http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc1.htm

It might not be exactly right - maybe it's 1.5, maybe it's 2.5. But it's a good first approximation, and so is calorie counting.

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

#25

Post by yummyfajitas »

billjings wrote: post #22
yummyfajitas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Every search for truth must have some aim. In the case of the apple, saying "everything falls down" doesn't get at what newton was really interested in, which was the laws of motion in general. In this case, it is silly to stop at the second law of thermodynamics when you're really interested in homeostasis in the human body.

...saying "everything falls down" doesn't get at what newton was really interested in,...

I know it's tangential, but this is precisely what Newton was interested in. The entire point of Newtonian gravity is that everything (including the moon and other celestial bodies) falls down in exactly the same way.

(Before this, you had one set of rules for celestial bodies, another for apples.)

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

#26

Post by nkurz »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #24
nkurz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning. If you want to call the simple version of a theory into question, present the simple version of the theory. Don't obscure 90% of it. Taubes doesn't present the version I described because the version I described is pretty hard to question. Has Taubes shown us that we need to question the theory that 7.5 extra strips of…

But then again, I never heard anyone in the nutritional mainstream claim that Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat.

Well, it is the opening sentence of the Jonah Lehrer piece which Taubes is critiquing:

"Thanksgiving has always been a day of delicious gluttony. According to the American Council on Exercise, the average adult consumes nearly 4,500 calories at the Thanksgiving table, which is about twice the recommended daily intake."

This, following immediately after the title "The Real Culprit in Overeating" could cause the impression that Lehrer (one of the best science journalists out there) is claiming that Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat.

You seem to be confusing mainstream nutrition science with people hawking their own wares.

I don't think so, although I will request a certain artistic license. I was thinking primarily of the signs up in my local Kaiser health facility encouraging people to take the stairs (rather than the elevator) in the parking garage. Mind you, I do take the stairs, and think it's a good thing. But like Taubes (who looks quite fit and trim in his publicity photos), I'm not sure this is an adequate solution to a national health crisis. Or at the least, I'm concerned that this solution is not currently working that well.

Overall, I think you're selling Taubes a bit short. If he's a hack flogging his books for sake of nothing but sales, he's at least got a better basis than most. Time will tell, of course, but I'm betting that in the end he wins the calorie counting argument, and the idea of counting all calories as equal regardless of source won't last.

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

#27

Post by yummyfajitas »

nkurz wrote: post #26
yummyfajitas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning. If you want to call the simple version of a theory into question, present the simple version of the theory. Don't obscure 90% of it. Taubes doesn't present the version I described because the version I described is pretty hard to question. Has Taubes shown us that we need to question the theory that 7.5 extra strips of…

But then again, I never heard anyone in the nutritional mainstream claim that Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat. Well, it is the opening sentence of the Jonah Lehrer piece which Taubes is critiquing: "Thanksgiving has always been a day of delicious gluttony. According to the American Council on Exercise, the average adult consumes nearly 4,500 calories at the Thanksgiving table, which is about twice t…

From Lehrer's article: "Why do we overeat? This isn't just a problem on Thanksgiving, of course: More than a third of Americans are obese, which means that we eat way too much every day."

Regardless, Taubes wasn't pointing out that calorie counting fails on a once a year gorging incident, he was discussing a daily increase in intake. Calorie counting works pretty well for such things.

Time will tell, of course, but I'm betting that in the end he wins the calorie counting argument, and the idea of counting all calories as equal regardless of source won't last.

If that's all he is arguing, then he is doing nothing but pushing mainstream nutrition science. But if that were what he is doing, why mislead people about what calorie counting actually claims? Why not show the actual claims of calorie counting, and then show how they can be 10-20% off in some cases?

By the way, every single sports medicine textbook already does this.

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

#28

Post by msluyter »

matwood wrote: post #21
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…

What do you think you have shown? Did you make sure to maintain the same caloric intake when you gave up carbs? You lost 30lbs so how do you know that your lower cholesterol was due to no carbs and not simply weight loss? Most people on low-carb diets end up eating less calories, thus weight loss occurs (pretty basic, but it doesn't sell pop science books very well). I agree that no-carb is a viable strategy to cutti…

I didn't go into a lot of detail in my original comment, but basically before going low carb a) I was doing a low fat, almost vegetarian diet, b) I was always hungry, c) I was losing weight, but very slowly. When I went low carb, a) I stopped counting calories entirely, b) I stopped feeling hungry (in fact, I rarely feel like snacking), c) I lost weight effortlessly (without even exercising!), and d) there were lots of other side benefits, such as elimination of the post lunch sleepies.

So, no, it wasn't a scientifically controlled experiment, and perhaps you could theoretically achieve the same results via a standard calorie restricted diet. (I'm not willing to regain 30 pounds to rerun the experiment... ;)) All I can conclude that in my case, low carb works and is much easier to maintain than a low fat (high carb) diet. And it's really easy to try.

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

#29

Post by msluyter »

kscaldef wrote: post #20
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'r…

The 30 pounds is over a total period of 1 year, actually. In the first couple of months I lost around 3-4 lbs/month, without exercising.

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

#30

Post by billjings »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #25
billjings wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Every search for truth must have some aim. In the case of the apple, saying "everything falls down" doesn't get at what newton was really interested in, which was the laws of motion in general. In this case, it is silly to stop at the second law of thermodynamics when you're really interested in homeostasis in the human body.

...saying "everything falls down" doesn't get at what newton was really interested in,... I know it's tangential, but this is precisely what Newton was interested in. The entire point of Newtonian gravity is that everything (including the moon and other celestial bodies) falls down in exactly the same way. (Before this, you had one set of rules for celestial bodies, another for apples.)

My apologies for not being precise enough. "Everything falls down" fails as an explanation for Newton's purposes because "down" and "falls" as we use those terms on earth don't apply to stars. As a description of a phenomena, though, it points right at what Newton was interested in, as you say.

Something similar would apply here to the statement, "People are getting fat because they are overeating." As an explanation, it falls short for someone who wants to know why they overeat, but their neighbor does not.

Post reply on HN