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

A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

slimemoldtimemold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#31

Post by giantg2 »

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…

I know plenty of fat vegetarians/vegans. It seems they would not be exposed to those antibiotics.

I remember seeing a Ted Talk years ago where the speaker said that obese people have an issue with androgenesis. His theory was that it was causally linked, but I believe that was unconfirmed.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#32

Post by jeltz »

captainmuon wrote: post #24
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, xenohormone…

If it was water treatment wouldn't we expect to see more obese people in the cities which are further downriver and where there is more pollution in general? What we actually observe is that citydwellers have less issues with obesity. No, these might be minor factors but there are obviously factors which matter more than pollution and antibiotics.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#33

Post by giantg2 »

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…

"office workers in 1950"

What percentage of people filled that role then vs now and how does that compare to obesity rates? I assume both percentages were much lower in the 50s. Not to mention, many of the tasks that are automated today (or don't exist at all) were manual tasks back then. So they may not have been exercising explicitly, but it's likely their chores required manual activity that would qualify as low or medium intensity exercise... except maybe the richest ones that had servants of some sort do it for them.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#34

Post by bsk26 »

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…

Looking back at the the first article in the series, they use hunter gatherer groups as examples of people who aren’t obese without acknowledging this is almost certainly due to extreme calorie restriction. Overeating might not explain everything but starving will definitely make you skinny

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#35

Post by jmvoodoo »

ajuc wrote: post #29
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.

Fat red meat is cheaper than lean red meat.

Maybe for ground meat, but beef for example is priced higher according to it's fat content. For example prime is higher in fat and in price than choice, and wagyu is prized for it's high fat content. The fattiest red meat, A5 wagyu, is upwards of $100/lb.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#36

Post by irthomasthomas »

francasso wrote: post #23
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…

Thank you. As I said there is a clearly a genetic component. Why do some women get fat bottoms and thighs but stay lean up top. Is it because the top half is following the low fat diet and the bottom half is not?

I always reccomend people ignore the dogma that is doled out absent-mindedly by professionals who are literally not allowed to deviate from the non-scientific lipid hypothesis. Read books instead by chaps like Garry Taub, or watch videos like those in my comment. Just this week my friend has been getting insulin shots for his type 2 diabetes (which used to be called Adult Onset Diabetes because know one knew it could affect kids until the 90s). He showed me an article about it which had a handy meal guid for diabetics. They suggest starting your day with wholemeal toast, cereal or fruit. If you think this is good advice for a diabetic then you should see what happens to your blood sugar level after eating those. It goes up a lot. And why would it not? You are eating stuff that is 50% sugar.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#37

Post by Knufen »

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…

>This is nonsense - there is no way to predict weight gain based on calorie intake - variance between people is too huge on this metric - individual BMR alone varies between 1000 kcal/day up to 2500 kcal/day.

Please site your sources. A variance of basal metabolic rate (BMR) of 2500 kcal/day sounds too extreme to be true, but I am open to learning something new. At least according to (https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...) the variance in BMR is only around 300-400 kcal/day which makes your number unbelievable high.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#38

Post by hellbannedguy »

giantg2 wrote: post #33
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…

"office workers in 1950" What percentage of people filled that role then vs now and how does that compare to obesity rates? I assume both percentages were much lower in the 50s. Not to mention, many of the tasks that are automated today (or don't exist at all) were manual tasks back then. So they may not have been exercising explicitly, but it's likely their chores required manual activity that would qualify as low o…

And many were smokers.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#39

Post by galangalalgol »

simiones wrote: post #22
galangalalgol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

right, the final implication is that it could be any chemical that walked it way up the foodchain from roundup to PCBs.it could also be plasticizers or the diet of things we eat or get milk and eggs from. My point is it also could be something we don't get exposed to anymore that kept us from gaining weight in the past. Nicotine is what gave me that idea, but it doesn't really fit. Was never that ubiquitous, and it wouldn't explain obesity rates in children well.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#40

Post by ginko »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #38
giantg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"office workers in 1950" What percentage of people filled that role then vs now and how does that compare to obesity rates? I assume both percentages were much lower in the 50s. Not to mention, many of the tasks that are automated today (or don't exist at all) were manual tasks back then. So they may not have been exercising explicitly, but it's likely their chores required manual activity that would qualify as low o…

And many were smokers.

Ooh, that's an interesting correlation. The number of smokers dropped a lot since the 80s, essentially right when the obesity epidemic started:

https://ourworldindata.org/smoking#the-rise-and-fall-of-smok...

Nicotine is known to suppress hunger

Post reply on HN