A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics • Hacker News Board

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#21

Post by i_am_proteus » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 9:52 AM UTC

simiones wrote: post #16

i_am_proteus wrote: post #12

I had never heard of slime mold time mold dot com until today, so I read back through the author's theories and I'm not convinced there's anything here. His initial premise, that the cause of obesity is a mystery, doesn't seem to be that well-researched. Most importantly, he does not really poke holes in the basic premise that the cause is linked to increased availability of food in general coupled with more people l…

> He even mentions that average daily caloric intake has gone up c. 400 kcal since the turn of the 20th century. Which, for someone with a maintenance-level diet, would cause a 35-45 lb. annual weight gain. That's one data point, but they also show that caloric intake has been decreasing since 2010 and yet obesity is still increasing. They also mention that the 400 Cal figure is based on consumption in the 1960s-70s…

Industrialization dramatically increases agricultural output, primarily due to use of fossil-fired tractors, harvesters, and irrigation pumps, along with fertilizers (which are either produced via industrial process such as Haber-Bosch, or are mined with the aid of industrial machines). Industrialization also enables sedentary lifestyles since humans are now examining computer screens and sheets of paper, and riding in steel vehicles on paved roads and rails, rather than labouring.

I have examined the author's claims concerning altitude. He presents a coloured map of the United States and makes the claim

`Obesity is less common at high altitudes because of the watershed.`

Yet his coloured map shows California (Most of the population lives near sea level. Even inland Sacramento sits at 46 feet.) as substantially less obese than the Appalachian states. His hypothesis is interesting but the evidence appears lacking.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#22

Post by simiones » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 9:57 AM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #19

simiones wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but still people from these places tend to get fat at similar rates to locals when moving to other countries, after some time.

That does seem interesting. To be aure we should introduce antibiotics into their food supply... I know for myself, eating potatoes doesn't lead to weight gain like grain flours. My hypothesis is either fiber level or the presence of water in the potatoes as opposed to dry starches. I think a chemical source is also likely. It could also be a chemical we aren't getting anymore instead of one we are only now exposed t…

Note that the conclusion of this article is that antibiotics are not a satisfactory answer in the end.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#23

Post by francasso » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 9:57 AM UTC

irthomasthomas wrote: post #13

I think this author is not being very scientific. E.g. in part 2 he dismisses carbs as a cause of obesity, and he begins by citing a trial involving 16 people. "A study from 2003 examined low-fat diets in 16 overweight people. Naturally, this low-fat diet was high in carbohydrates. When patients started the low-fat diet and were told to eat as much as they wanted, they actually ate 291 calories less per day." I think…

I will relate my personal experience (take from it what you will).

Around 2017 I was ~100kg when I started a keto diet which excluded basically all carbs except for what is present in green vegetables, and ate more than 50% of calories from fat. Didn't control calories, just ate as much as I felt like but making sure I would still be in ketosis (used blood tests to check). I lost 5 to 6 kgs very quickly (mostly water weight) then the weight loss reduced drastically to .1 or .2 kg a week. On the other hand my BP was sky high (went even higher than before) and I got kidney stones (never happened before, and not an experience I would wish on anybody).

I quit the diet after a month and went back to eating normally. In January 2021 I was still 100kg, I started on a vegan whole foods, zero added fats/salt diet. I eat whole carbs, fruits and vegetables, but most of the calories come from carbs (yes pasta). Unlike the keto diet, after a couple of weeks the cravings stopped and it's easy to eat in a caloric deficit while feeling full because the food is way less calorie dense. I dropped 30kg in 6 months, for me the diet is easy to be on and my BP dropped to normal levels (120/80) without medications.

Again, this is just a personal experience, but my advice would be: 1) talk with a doctor/dietitian before changing your diet, especially if you have health issue, (2) don't assume because you see testimonials of things going flawless with one approach that the same will apply to you (3) keep things monitored

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#24

Post by captainmuon » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 9:59 AM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #20

How does his theory explain why the UK has the most overweight people in Europe but still relatively low antibiotics use? And, yes, Swedes and Norwegians (who are from countries which banned antibiotics use a long time ago) are lean for Europeans but internationally we are still pretty fat. I am all for banning casual antibiotics use in animals (which my country has done a long time ago) but I do not buy this theory…

Could different water treatment be an issue? Maybe the chemicals don't get filtered out as well in the UK as in other countries.

In the end, antibiotics surely are part of the obesity pandemic. We give them to animals to fatten them, after all. But I see not reason why it has to be monocausal. There are a lot of chemicals that look problematic (to an interested lay person like me), for example phthalates, xenohormones, or even artificial sweeteners and seed oils. It's going to take a lot of work to investigate them all.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#25

Post by simiones » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:03 AM UTC

i_am_proteus wrote: post #21

simiones wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He even mentions that average daily caloric intake has gone up c. 400 kcal since the turn of the 20th century. Which, for someone with a maintenance-level diet, would cause a 35-45 lb. annual weight gain. That's one data point, but they also show that caloric intake has been decreasing since 2010 and yet obesity is still increasing. They also mention that the 400 Cal figure is based on consumption in the 1960s-70s…

Industrialization dramatically increases agricultural output, primarily due to use of fossil-fired tractors, harvesters, and irrigation pumps, along with fertilizers (which are either produced via industrial process such as Haber-Bosch, or are mined with the aid of industrial machines). Industrialization also enables sedentary lifestyles since humans are now examining computer screens and sheets of paper, and riding…

People with sedentary lifestyles were common in the 1900s as well, well above the 1% of the population that suffered from obesity. People with sedentary lifestyles have also tended to have more access to food, again with no corresponding explosion in obesity.

Also, agricultural output is not directly related to human consumption, past some base. So again, there may be second order effects on known causes of obesity (food and exercise) but if those are already controlled for, we are only left with unknown factors.

Regarding altitude, they do mention in a future article that California seems to be an exception, but that may be explained by California's drinking water being in a separate watershed than surrounding states. I don't know enough geography to know if this is accurate or not.

Edit: here is the quote from III:

> It’s important to note that altitude itself doesn’t affect obesity directly. Instead, altitude is a proxy for how high an area is in the watershed, which is itself a proxy for how badly the local water supply is contaminated. This is why Mississippi is more obese than low-lying areas of California. In California the water supply hasn’t traveled nearly as far in its path to the ocean, and has traveled past fewer farms, highways, cities, and factories.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#26

Post by xupybd » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:13 AM UTC

benfrain wrote: post #9

xupybd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fat tastes better than lean meat. I think it would be desirable to make livestock fat. Historical records indicate people like fat animals for food. Biblical texts refer to flattened animals as desirable.

You mean ‘fattened’, not ‘flattened’, right? Unless those guys had a thing for steam roll-erred livestock :D

Haha yeah that was a typo.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#27

Post by i_am_proteus » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:30 AM UTC

simiones wrote: post #25

i_am_proteus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industrialization dramatically increases agricultural output, primarily due to use of fossil-fired tractors, harvesters, and irrigation pumps, along with fertilizers (which are either produced via industrial process such as Haber-Bosch, or are mined with the aid of industrial machines). Industrialization also enables sedentary lifestyles since humans are now examining computer screens and sheets of paper, and riding…

People with sedentary lifestyles were common in the 1900s as well, well above the 1% of the population that suffered from obesity. People with sedentary lifestyles have also tended to have more access to food, again with no corresponding explosion in obesity. Also, agricultural output is not directly related to human consumption, past some base. So again, there may be second order effects on known causes of obesity (…

>Also, agricultural output is not directly related to human consumption, past some base.

Precisely. Prior to the widespread industrialization of United States farms, there were occasional famines in the United States. 1/3 to 1/2 of the country lived on farms and were engaged in farming. The industrial revolution freed us from the burden of physical labor, and provided plentiful food.

If California an exception, are Washington and Oregon also exceptions? Why does obesity not increase as one travels down the Mississippi? One would expect Louisiana (Mississippi delta) to be substantially worse than Kentucky (more mountainous and well-upstream of Louisiana) and Michigan (situated on the Great Lakes). Michigan and Louisiana are similar, and Kentucky is much worse. I refer to the author's data source.[0]

[0]https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html#states

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#28

Post by yorwba » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:32 AM UTC

simiones wrote: post #16

i_am_proteus wrote: post #12

I had never heard of slime mold time mold dot com until today, so I read back through the author's theories and I'm not convinced there's anything here. His initial premise, that the cause of obesity is a mystery, doesn't seem to be that well-researched. Most importantly, he does not really poke holes in the basic premise that the cause is linked to increased availability of food in general coupled with more people l…

> He even mentions that average daily caloric intake has gone up c. 400 kcal since the turn of the 20th century. Which, for someone with a maintenance-level diet, would cause a 35-45 lb. annual weight gain. That's one data point, but they also show that caloric intake has been decreasing since 2010 and yet obesity is still increasing. They also mention that the 400 Cal figure is based on consumption in the 1960s-70s…

> people are exercising on average more today than in 2010 or 1990, and more than office workers in 1950, and still obesity is going up

SMTM's source [1] shows that "Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who met 2008 federal physical activity guidelines for aerobic activity through leisure-time aerobic activity" increased from slightly less than 45% in 1997 to slightly less than 55% in 2017. (I did not see a source for office workers in 1950.) But what really matters is the total physical activity. I'd be highly surprised if the increase in leisure-time exercise compensates for the decrease in jobs that require physical exertion for eight hours a day, every day.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/EarlyRelease... "Leisure-time physical activity" starts on page 43.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#29

Post by ajuc » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #4

gadders wrote: post #3

I thought anti-biotics in animals generate lean muscle mass? They would not get fed to them if they made animals fat. I guess you could argue that they work differently in humans. I could certainly see that for cows and their different digestion, but pigs being omnivores are more similar. I also think % body fat would be a better measure of obesity than BMI.

Fat tastes better than lean meat. I think it would be desirable to make livestock fat. Historical records indicate people like fat animals for food. Biblical texts refer to flattened animals as desirable.

Fat red meat is cheaper than lean red meat.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#30

Post by techbio » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 11:07 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #11

cesaref wrote: post #2

So livestock antibiotic use is correlated with obesity? I'm reminded of: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Antibiotics are used in livestock for the specific purpose of causing weight gain in the livestock. The question is to what extent this causes weight gain in humans.

Having more meat at less cost, among other foods, seems to be a plainly plausible cause for gaining weight.

Pollution, obesity, etc. are externalized costs of satiety.