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

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#41

Post by gadders »

maddyboo wrote: post #7
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.

> I also think % body fat would be a better measure of obesity than BMI. The author mentioned why they list BMI rather than body fat percentage in part 1: > (Most experts consider measures like body fat percentage to be better measures of adiposity than BMI, and we agree. Unfortunately, nearly every source reports BMI, and most don’t report body fat percentage. Here, we use BMI so that we can compare different source…

That's fair, I guess. He can only work with the data he has been given. All the sources need to change.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#42

Post by giantg2 »

ginko wrote: post #40
hellbannedguy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's also possible that nicotine triggers epigenetic changes that affect the metabolisms of future generations.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#43

Post by lmilcin »

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…

General availability of food as a driver of obesity is a false premise IMO.

It does not explain a lot of countries where food had been available for well over half a century in any quantity you wanted and yet people don't have problem with obesity.

Saying these countries are somehow "special" because of their cuisine or tradition seems like admitting that something else rather than availability of food is an important influence.

Also one other interesting point is that not all countries see increasing obesity. For example, Canada has not seen significant increase in overweight and obesity since at least early 90s while US seen its rates double during that time.

I don't think anybody will say that food is scarce in Canada.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#44

Post by three14 »

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 (…

I'm curious if there's good data on what constitutes a "sedentary lifestyle" over time. In the early 1900s, I suspect people with desk jobs had a lot of small activity over the course of the day that we can now avoid. I take an elevator, drive for errands, and look up just about anything without leaving my desk. I don't even have to cross the room to turn on the modern equivalent of the radio. I don't have to get anything from a filing cabinet except for perhaps a few times a year. Is that the same as "sedentary" of old?

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#45

Post by gadders »

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.

Up to a point. Producers have to meet a standard for supermarkets (at least in the UK). They get financially penalised if animals are too fat when slaughtered.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#46

Post by simiones »

Knufen wrote: post #37
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…

>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/d…

Note that I meant that BMR can vary between 1100 kcal/day to 2500 kcal/day (so a variance of 1400 kcal/day between individuals), not that it can vary by 2500 kcal/day.

Here are two studies that support slightly smaller numbers than I claimed, but still significantly larger than 300-400.

[0] studied the factors affecting BMR in 150 Scottish adults. It found a variance between ~1100 kcal/day to ~2100 kcal/day between its subjects (for the record, 60% of the variance was attributable to lean body mass).

[1] is a meta-study that looked at RMR (expressed as kcal/kg*h) for adults at various ages. The largest variance from Figure 1 is, assuming all subjects weighed 100kg, the highest RMR would be ~2500 kcal/day, while the lowest would be 1600 kcal/day. Given the varying weights, the actual variance recorded could be bigger or smaller.

In addition to this, even people with the same BMR/RMR eating the same food will not gain the same weight - they may differ in the amount of exercise, or in their calorie calorie consumption while exercising.

[0] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/5/941/4607670 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535334/

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#47

Post by simiones »

three14 wrote: post #44
simiones wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

I'm curious if there's good data on what constitutes a "sedentary lifestyle" over time. In the early 1900s, I suspect people with desk jobs had a lot of small activity over the course of the day that we can now avoid. I take an elevator, drive for errands, and look up just about anything without leaving my desk. I don't even have to cross the room to turn on the modern equivalent of the radio. I don't have to get any…

That's an interesting observation and you may well be right that people in the past were more active in this way.

On the other hand, the contribution small levels of exercise (such as getting up from your desk and walking at a normal pace, even climbing a few flights of stairs a couple of times per day) to calorie consumption is likely to be almost nothing - a few dozens of kcal over the course of a day at best. I know that there have been studies for example of the additional kcal consumption from a standing desk compared to a normal desk, and the result is almost non-existent, less than 10 kcal over the course of a workday.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#48

Post by simiones »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #27
simiones wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 W…

> The industrial revolution freed us from the burden of physical labor, and provided plentiful food.

Sure, but that happened well before WWII, while the obesity epidemic started sometime around 1970-1980 and is growing rapidly. The vast majority of the US population in 1950-60 had all the food that they could possibly want, and yet > 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 don't know enough US geography to be able to sustain this point one way or another. I will just mention that the CDC data is not the only piece of data the article uses to show this correlation between altitude and BMI, but leave it at that.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#49

Post by three14 »

simiones wrote: post #47
three14 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if there's good data on what constitutes a "sedentary lifestyle" over time. In the early 1900s, I suspect people with desk jobs had a lot of small activity over the course of the day that we can now avoid. I take an elevator, drive for errands, and look up just about anything without leaving my desk. I don't even have to cross the room to turn on the modern equivalent of the radio. I don't have to get any…

That's an interesting observation and you may well be right that people in the past were more active in this way. On the other hand, the contribution small levels of exercise (such as getting up from your desk and walking at a normal pace, even climbing a few flights of stairs a couple of times per day) to calorie consumption is likely to be almost nothing - a few dozens of kcal over the course of a day at best. I kn…

The question is whether the small-scale activity has an impact on hunger, though. Very anecdotally, when I'm active, I have an easier time feeling full.

Re: A Chemical Hunger – Part V: Livestock Antibiotics

#50

Post by i_am_proteus »

simiones wrote: post #48
i_am_proteus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 W…

> The industrial revolution freed us from the burden of physical labor, and provided plentiful food. Sure, but that happened well before WWII, while the obesity epidemic started sometime around 1970-1980 and is growing rapidly. The vast majority of the US population in 1950-60 had all the food that they could possibly want, and yet > One would expect Louisiana (Mississippi delta) to be substantially worse than Kentuc…

>Sure, but that happened well before WWII, while the obesity epidemic started sometime around 1970-1980

This is not correct. Mass-scale industrialization of US farms didn't start happening until the 1930s. Remember that it was the internal-combustion engine (not the steam engine) that permitted the use of tractors and other machinery to supplant human and animal labor.

Now consider that it takes time for humans to become obese. The children raised during the beginning of the massive agricultural surplus were precisely the ones who were fueling the start of the epidemic in the 1970s.

Post reply on HN