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

A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#11

Post by scott_s »

Almaviva wrote: post #8
streptomycin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interview in the New York Times is not an academic research paper. In this context, it's reasonable for the interviewer to take the mathematician's word for it rather than hammering away at a pedantic detail that may or may not be relevant.

This would be reasonable if people who ought to know better didn't commit this kind of elementary error constantly, particularly in nutrition. It is your attitude, that it's reasonable to publish a scientific article in a major publication without independent thought and fact checking, that I am challenging.

it's reasonable to publish a scientific article in a major publication without independent thought and fact checking

The person you are replying to did not say or imply that.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#12

Post by csmeder »

"What caused the obesity epidemic?"

  "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, 
  something that few want to hear: The epidemic was 
  caused by the overproduction of food in the United 
  States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously
  controversial idea. However, the model shows that 
  increase in food more than explains the increase 
  in weight."
This is analogous to saying: "What caused the increase in car accidents?"

  "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, 
  something that few want to hear: The car accident 
  epidemic was caused by the overproduction of cars 
  in the United States. ...This, of course, is a
  tremendously controversial idea. However, the model 
  shows that increase in cars more than explains the
  increase in car accidents."
By using the phrase "overproduction of food" he is using too broad of a statement that doesn't describe the problem in an addressable way.

It makes it sound like we could just cut food production across the board and prevent obesity.

.

I would argue the problem isn't the quantity, rather the quality. Quality in regards to:

- Nutrients vs Fat and sugars

- Number of meals a day and the time we eat those meals

- Sugary drinks vs Water

- Appropriate meal size

- Fast food vs home made meals

The solution for the 21st century is going to take more than cutting food production. Just as curbing injuries from car accidents will take a different approach than limiting US car production.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#15

Post by potatolicious »

opiumden wrote: post #5

It's nice to see that people are developing new models and ways of thinking about weight loss but I wonder how effective this research is going to be. The conclusion of the article is the same old "eat less and eat healthier" which is fantastic advice ... and advice that a great many people don't bother to follow. As a culture we're eating ourselves to death while worrying that low probability events like terrorist a…

> "which is fantastic advice ... and advice that a great many people don't bother to follow"

At least a large part of this is due to lack of education. For all the time we spend on math and science in public schools, we spend none of it on some basic principles like nutrition.

I was rather obese in high school, and the (Canadian) government foot the bill for nutrition courses and consultations with a dietitian (this is a big can 'o worms too: preventative programs like this are way easier in a single-payer system).

I now have the ability to judge what's good for me, and what isn't, as well as effective alternatives to existing choices. That knowledge has been instrumental in my weight loss.

The problem with that "fantastic advice" is that it's rarely coupled with real constructive suggestions. "Eat less and eat healthier, fatass" is unproductive when the person lacks the knowledge to make effective choices, and alternatives to break entrenched habits aren't presented. Sure, a Big Mac is universally unhealthy, but what do you replace it with? A grilled cheese sandwich isn't much better, nor are a lot of "healthier looking" alternatives (anything with mayo slathered in it is dietary suicide, regardless of how much greens you stick in it also). How do you curb hunger when in the process of downsizing your portions? Curling up in a corner isn't super effective. Blood sugar management throughout the day to get you through the rough patches? None of this is trivial knowledge.

Of course, the factor making all of this substantially worse is that the signal to noise ratio in dietary literature is horrific. For every real, researched book on effective diets, you have 3 more fad diets backed up by voodoo and pseudoscience.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#16

Post by alexandros »

csmeder wrote: post #12

"What caused the obesity epidemic?" "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This is analogous to saying: "What caused the increase in car accidents?" "And…

> I would argue the problem isn't the quantity, rather the quality

But you didn't, argue. You simply asserted. You threw out the article's theory by constructing a straw-man you didn't even bother tearing down, then proceeded to inform us of your views.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#17

Post by theorique »

mhartl wrote: post #13

You are an M.I.T.-trained mathematician and physicist. How did you come to work on obesity? ...I didn’t even know what a calorie was. I call bullshit.

Exaggeration for effect? It's perfectly plausible that a mathematician / physicist would have a weak layman's understanding of energy balance in nutrition.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#18

Post by Mz »

csmeder wrote: post #12

"What caused the obesity epidemic?" "And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight." This is analogous to saying: "What caused the increase in car accidents?" "And…

FWIW: A few years ago, someone verbally mentioned to me that some study found evidence of some sort linking type of bacteria in your gut to obesity. (No, I don't have a link.) This fits at least partially with my personal experience: In the quest to get myself well when doctors said it could not be done, I ended up slimming down tremendously in the last year or so. That was not a goal. I did not care about my weight and neither did my doctor since being underweight is far more typical of my condition and is far more immediately life threatening. My main goal was to kill infection and get my body working closer to normal, which included doing a lot of work on my gut health, both in terms of gut chenistry and gut flora.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#19

Post by saddino »

brd wrote: post #9

The Omnivore's Dilemma (Michael Pollan) goes into more detail on the history of the food boom in the 1970s and its link to obesity. Its a great read for anyone interested. Essentially we got hit with a one-two punch of food price paranoia and the high fructose corn syrup innovation.

I'd also recommend The End of Overeating (David Kessler) which posits that the obesity explosion is due to recent advances in food science re: foods engineered (precise ratios of fat, sugar and salt) to make you want to eat more ("conditioned hypereating").

If you want to lose weight, stop eating packaged food, cut out fast-food and cut back on restaurants/take-out.

Make your own food (like everyone did 40 years ago for most meals) and you'll find yourself controlling your portion intake by default.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#20

Post by lukifer »

Math alone is the wrong tool to solve a problem that is biochemical and behavioral in nature. On an individual level, the fix is straight-forward: eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. I have yet to encounter someone who has done this and not seen dramatic results.

It's a trickier problem on a broad sociological level, though. The sugar peddlers have an incentive to create and maintain the addiction, and yet they're also just giving people what they want, and at the end of the day, it's still a free country. We can't ever expect all people to abandon sugar any more than all people have abandoned smoking.

As much as I hate to agree with libertarian dogma, I think the USDA is a big part of the problem. They've been been promoting high-carb diets and "moderate" sugar consumption for decades, and it certainly smells like yet another government-industrial complex protecting existing profits.

Post reply on HN