Hey everyone,
Rob here. Recently came across an article What If Obesity Is Nobody’s Fault?
I thought it was interesting and sent it over to Matt and Ari Whitten to get their take, and it ended up being pretty insightful, and right up the alley of 180D readers. Below is the lightly edited transcript of our exchanges.
ROB:
Hey Ari,
Came across this article- ? What If Obesity Is Nobody’s Fault??
Basically, in some mice a gene can result in obesity despite seemingly identical calorie input and out, tracking intake, metabolic rate and excreted mouse poop.
Don’t know much more about the research, but thought you might be curious.
Matty- thought you might be too.
ARI:
It’s an interesting article, for sure. Thanks for sharing, Rob.
This article is jumping the gun on many things.
I would say that if they promote this conceptualization of obesity, they would just have to form some way of accounting for numerous bodies of research which are in direct conflict with it (for example, thousands of studies showing that the first law of thermodyamics does hold in human beings, the thousands of studies showing that food reward/palatability influence body fat gain, etc.) 
Not to mention, if we say that it’s genetic factors that influence obesity, the fact that obesity is a modern phenomenon that is increasing rapidly just in the last few generations would also have to be accounted for. (Naturally, if genetics are staying relatively constant in a population over a few generations, but obesity rates are skyrocketing, that sort of puts a big hole in theory that it’s a genetic issue).
It’s an interesting article, but I suspect that they will eventually find that this theory isn’t really that valid and doesn’t have much explanatory power.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for sharing! Interesting stuff :)
MATT:
Yeah, that’s a common line of thinking in obesity research. They know that simply eating less or exercising more than one naturally desires in order to lose weight or prevent obesity isn’t an acceptable modern solution to the problem. Attempts to intervene with calorie manipulation have no long-term effectiveness for the vast majority who attempt it. So there’s really no choice but to look at the metabolic/hormonal, and hereditary differences between those that effortlessly maintain weight homeostasis and those that do not. And try to make progress there in finding solutions.
The tricky part is that most obese people are in energy homeostasis 95% of the time, no different from lean people. They just have a tendency to gain weight under stress, over the holidays, etc. The rest of the time they often are indistinguishably different, metabolically and otherwise, from the effortlessly lean. And when there are differences, it’s often impossible to discern the chicken from the egg so-to-speak.
ROB:
Well what’s interesting to me is that the homeostasis/metabolism argument usually, in its nuanced iteration, recognizes that bigger bodies tend to require more energy to stay in energy balance than smaller bodies. So yes, a 200lb person and 100lb person may both be weight stable eating ad libitum, but the 200lb person is probably weight stable eating more calories.
Sometimes, in the case of metabolic adaptation, that’s not the case, and the 100lb person is weight stable eating the same number of calories as the 200lb person. But in those cases, I always presumed they were pooping more out, or their body temps were higher and thus they were using more energy, or they were fidgety throughout the day, or their muscles were less thrifty and the same amount of movement resulted in greater calorie use.
What this is suggesting is that even if you control those variables, some animals get fat on the same number of calories. So where do the calories that comprise the fat stores come from if it’s getting burned at the same rate and pooped out at the same rate? Assuming they’re actually controlling for all the variables and not missing something obvious, is there another element here that explains the apparent contradiction of thermodynamics? Because even the metabolism-aware of us, as far as I know, don’t discount that calories matter.
As Ari mentioned, there are thousands of studies showing that thermodynamics apply, and also that genetics can’t fully account for the rapid rise in recent times of obesity.
But it is interesting to me, and it does make me wonder whether it’s 1) tightly controlled, 2) reproducible and 3) going to lead to some more dramatic insight into thermodynamics.
MATT:
Right. Bigger people require more calories, which is often met with the foolish comment that “fat people have a higher metabolic rate than lean people.” On any meaningful basis (energy consumption per unit of lean tissue), they do not. It’s typically lower, although, like I said, lean and fat people alike are usually weight stable at any given time.
My guess is that the difference in metabolic rate and TEE was simply too slight to be noted in the research, or the differences happened intermittently. Like I’ve noted before, a 50-year old with 50 pounds of body fat has only accumulated 9.58 calories more than they’ve burned per day on average over that span. In a mouse that’s probably the equivalent of .1 calories per day, which is probably completely unmeasurable.
I found it interesting in MRC Greenwood’s research that mice fed ad libitum (lean strain vs. obese-prone strain) began gaining fat before their calorie intake increased vs. the lean controls. In other words, both strains of mice ate the same amount at first. Then one strain started gaining fat FOLLOWED by an increase in food intake when eating to appetite. Basically as if calories were lost to fat tissue and had to be made up with increased dietary consumption to deliver the same number of calories to the lean tissue as the lean mice were receiving.
ROB:
Yeah, that makes sense: some fat-favoring fuel partitioning initially, followed by the need to fuel that new mass with added energy while still maintaining the lean mass.
Good points too about the intermittent and/or nigh impossible to measure scale of the extra calorie accumulation.
ARI:
I agree with pretty much all of what Matt said.
In general, I think that likely the major issue with the article is that the author was engaging in black-and-white thinking (probably on purpose) in order to generate a sensational headline that was basically meant to suggest “Obesity is no one’s fault… it may very well be all genetic factors outside of your control… the food industry may have no role…your personal choices of lifestyle habits and dietary habits may have no role…! It’s not any differences in calories in or calories out. It may just be 100% pure genetics and other factors outside of our control that make some people become fat while doing all the same things as everyone else who is lean.”
Yet, even the scientists involved in this experiment said:?The first law of thermodynamics requires that energy be balanced, and I am not willing to throw that out the window.
Also, the thinking behind the article is a little misguided. For example, they said “How exactly obesity occurs without excess calorie intake or decreased output remains unclear.”
We have an enormous body of evidence linking obesity with increased calorie intake. (In contradiction to some people, like Taubes, who have suggested that obese people don’t eat more calories than lean people. We know that this is wrong. It is use of old flawed data based on self-reporting of calorie intakes. It has since been found that obese people systematically under-report their calorie intakes by 30-50% and that under metabolic ward conditions, they do indeed eat way more calories than lean people).
We have an enormous body of evidence showing that obesity is linked with lower energy expenditure. “Evidence suggests that low NEAT may occur in obesity but in a very specific fashion. Obese individuals appear to exhibit an innate tendency to be seated for 2.5 hours per day more than sedentary lean counterparts.” http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/26/4/729.full
Etc.–there’s plenty more…
So it’s fundamentally incorrect thinking to assume “lean and obese people are all doing the same things–there’s no differences in calories in, calories out–so maybe it’s just genetics.”
That’s just bad thinking.
Now, acknowledging that there is extensive evidence documenting that there are differences in calories in, calories out between lean and obese people, there are still a couple more important things to consider:
We still have to acknowledge that it’s not black-and-white–that obviously some people DO have stronger or weaker genetic susceptibility to obesity than others. Given the same environment and very similar behaviors (food intake, energy expenditure etc), people with a certain genotype may very well become obese while some stay lean. (And in animals, playing with a single gene can create obese rats). So there is clearly a genetic component intertwined with behavioral differences.
Even acknowledging that there is a huge body of evidence differences in calories in, calories out between lean and obese people, we could still enter into a chicken-and-egg argument over what came first–is it the person’s innate propensity for obesity driving those behaviors like increased calorie intake or decreased NEAT, or those behaviors driving the obesity?
It’s a legitimate question. Obviously I favor the latter camp.
Mostly because I have yet to see anyone in the former camp (those saying it’s a person’s innate susceptibility to obesity driving everything) account for the simple fact that the obesity epidemic is a fundamentally new thing–that obesity rates have skyrocketed in just the last 2-4 generations, despite basically no significant change in population genetics.
Or that the obesity epidemic has occurred in conjunction with massive changes in the reward/variety/palatability of the food supply, when we know from an enormous body of evidence (roughly 3,000 studies) showing that increasing food reward/palatability of the diet can reliably make lean animals fat, and that decreasing it makes fat animals lean–while allowing them to eat however much they want.
Due to those two things above, I favor a focus on the changes in diet and lifestyle factors being at cause
In general, I agree with Guyenet’s conclusions:
“Conclusion
Here are the main points to walk away with:
1. In a healthy environment, genes alone do not usually cause obesity and lifestyle-related diseases, and population variability in these characteristics is low (i.e., most people are lean and free of these diseases).
2. In an unhealthy environment, genetically susceptible people become obese and/or develop disease, while others remain lean and healthy because they are not genetically susceptible.
3. This results in an increase in population variability (e.g., more variability in body fatness between individuals).
4. Diet and lifestyle environment have a major impact on obesity risk. For a genetically susceptible person, maintaining a leaner state is usually possible but it requires stepping out of the typical fattening environment. Genes are not destiny.”
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-genetics-of-obesity-part-iii.html
ROB:
Thanks Ari,
Appreciate the thorough reply. The crux of it for me is what Matt was getting at: there probably are some obvious methodological issues at play explaining the apparent contradiction of thermodynamics.
Everything else aligns with the obesity model you, Stephen, Matt? and others have written about.
MATT:
My last tidbit is a quick word on “genetics,” which has always been a strong pet peeve of mine. I look at genetics and heredity as completely separate concepts.
You can inherit a slow metabolism from your mother eating lots of polyunsaturated fat. You can inherit a propensity to store fat if your mother dieted before or during pregnancy. Epigenetics shows that we can actually inherit things from actions and occurrences in our grandparents generation and maybe beyond. We can inherit hyperinflammatory responses to the environment from the high AA content of our parents’ diet. We can inherit excesses of stored heavy metals and estrogenic chemicals that affect metabolism, hormones, and fuel partitioning. This has all changed in the last few generations tremendously, it is just as hereditary as actual genetic changes and may actually be less mutable than genetic tendencies, but it is no way genetic.
There are a lot of interesting rabbit holes down the mitochondrial DNA path as well that don’t fit the commonly understood genetics beliefs.
And ultimately I think the differences between Ari’s beliefs and mine can be summarized by the following statement:
Eating clean prevents obesity and makes you lean. However, more than 90% of people that attempt to eat 
clean (or make any kind of significant dietary change on a long-term basis) fail and end up fatter than they would have been if they just kept eating a normal diet. For that reason, I still can’t condone dietary restriction. I feel like when I do I’m helping 10% of people get leaner and 90% of people embark on an unsustainable journey destined to failure. I still feel strongly that attempts to do unsustainable things with diet and exercise are the leading cause of going from overweight to obese.
ARI:
Matt,
I actually would not say that’s our fundamental difference. Because I agree with what you said 100%.
So I actually think the major difference is not that we disagree that restrictive/unsustainable diets are counterproductive, it’s that we seem to be defining what types of things are sustainable vs. unsustainable differently.
You said “more than 90% of people that attempt to eat clean (or make any kind of significant dietary change on a long-term basis) fail and end up fatter than they would have been if they just kept eating a normal diet.”
If it’s cool with you, can we be more specific about how we talk about this?
Is basically everyone who makes *ANY* type of change in diet destined for failure? Or is it specific types of changes in diet?
For example, is asking someone to add in an orange or banana to each meal–while continuing to eat all their meals as they normally do other than that–sustainable? Does it require such suffering that people just can’t keep it up?
Should that be lumped into “attempt at eating clean” in the same way that someone adopts a 100% raw vegan diet, or a zero-carb, 75% fat ketogenic diet?
I certainly don’t think so.
(Since I am not a fan of just addressing diet alone, perhaps it would be okay to also inject things like NEAT, exercise, or circadian rhythm habits into this?)
Is asking someone to buy an under desk cycle and set a timer to go off once an hour where they use their cycle for 30 seconds unsustainable? Perhaps for some it might be, but I think most people find this a perfectly sustainable and easy habit.
Is asking someone who to do a 30-second set of bodyweight squats once per day unsustainable? Perhaps for some, but I think most people are able to sustain it perfectly well.
Is asking someone to start a meditation routine where they meditate for 5 minutes each morning inherently unsustainable?
Certainly a significant portion of people will fall out of the habit within a couple months, but I think it’s a perfectly reasonable habit to ask someone to cultivate that requires very little effort.
Is installing f.lux on one’s computer so restrictive and does it require such monumental effort that it’s unsustainable? Does the act of wearing blue blocking sunglasses to watch TV at night induce so much suffering that we just cant expect someone to actually do it?
I think (I hope) we can agree that these are incredibly simple things that basically require zero effort and are perfectly sustainable for well over 99% of people. F.lux doesn’t even require anyone to do anything–the computer does it automatically.
Now, on the opposite pole, I would put the HCG diet–a 500 calorie a day diet, that also asks people to exercise each day. Maybe slightly above that would be a zero carb, calorie-restricted ketogenic diet while running 5 miles each day.
Both of these will have absolutely terrible chances of a person being able to sustain it and are pretty much destined for failure.
The point is that I think there is clearly a spectrum here:
-? On one end is totally extreme diet/lifestyle habits which may provide short-term results, but end up being unsustainable and counterproductive.
-? On the other end, continuing to do whatever one already does–eat the Standard American Diet, be sedentary, etc.
But I think there is a pretty massive territory in between these–of habits which are unquestionably beneficial for health and body composition–and which many people find perfectly easy and sustainable, and others may find terribly difficult.
I think people need to start with wherever they’re at and do baby steps towards more health-promoting 
habits–just very small tweaks to their routine that require (subjectively) very little effort. Cultivate the habit for 30-90 days (or however long it takes to develop automaticity) and then take another baby step.
But I certainly agree that trying to jump into any diet or lifestyle routine that requires tons of willpower and suffering, while initiating compensatory biological adaptations (decreased RMR, decreased NEAT, loss of muscle mass, hunger pangs, fatigue, etc) is a bad idea.
So I guess my question is: Can we be more specific about what changes exactly are unsustainable and counterproductive? Is asking anyone to do anything differently from whatever they already do inherently unsustainable, and are all types of changes in diet or lifestyle habits equally as unsustainable as every other kind of change? (I.e. it doesn’t matter whether someone adopts the HCG diet, or just uses a little less cream and sugar in their two cups of coffee…it doesn’t matter whether someone adopts a ketogenic diet or just adds an orange and a handful of blueberries into their diet–both are attempts at “eating clean” and therefore destined to fail and be counterproductive.)
MATT:
What I like about what you just wrote is that those are all examples of things that can be done that WON’T cause compensatory weight regain and feelings of defeat and desperation if you stop doing them once you’ve started. It’s exactly why huge efforts should be made to redirect people’s attention away from their diets and onto other things that can be just as effective as a dietary change with a much smaller risk of actually getting fatter from trying hard to do it right.
The type of changes you talked about making specifically also fall right in line with Stephen Guise’s concept of “mini habits,” which I imagine to be much more effective than the big, sweeping changes people often try to make to their habits–especially this time of year. A mini habit might be, for example, to read one page every day. The idea is that sitting down to read a page every single day often leads to reading a lot more than one page, and, over time, leads to reading a lot more even though the one page target is ridiculously small.
Too bad you weren’t a contributing author to Derek Doepker’s new book Ari. Many of the things you just said would have been a perfect fit.
ARI:
“It’s exactly why huge efforts should be made to redirect people’s attention away from their diets and onto other things that can be just as effective as a dietary change with a much smaller risk of actually getting fatter from trying hard to do it right.”
MOST DEFINITELY!
And yeah, I am a huge proponent of mini-habits, andI actually wrote a section about this in my upcoming? book addressing this sustainability component.
A very interesting discussion, gentlemen, and the nature/nurture debate reminds me of an experiment done at Yale maybe 50 years ago: (Of course, psych experiments typically are deceptive re: what they are actually testing.) So people were recruited to show up at the testing center at 2PM, which was soon after everyone had finished lunch. They came into the reception lounge at 2PM and were told that the testing center was not quite ready for them yet, but they could have a seat and make themselves comfortable while they waited. They were also invited to help themselves to sandwiches which were out on a platter on the coffee table. That was, of course, the real test: The obese people helped themselves to a sandwich or two, while the lean people did not.
So there is an example of the tendency to overeat (whether genetic, epigenetic, or psychologically imprinted: who knows how much of which?), interacting with an unhealthy environment, i.e., the presence of food presented at a non-meal hour.
Of course we all know it’s hard to go anywhere nowadays without being invited to eat something: Our modern culture is certainly characterized by an overabundance of food, advertising for food, etc.
Now, keeping in mind what Ari just said about “why huge efforts should be made to redirect people’s attention away from their diets”, it’s clear to me that discussing people’s diets is a way to keep people’s minds on food, and that can be part of the problem. (It actually does make insulin flow, without even eating anything.)
…getting hungry now…
Thanks Joel, for the kind words.
I agree with you completely.
– Ari
Should be noted, Joel, that that quotedirecting people away from diet–was actually Matt’s statement. I simply quoted him and agreed with him. :)
It should be noted, Joel, that the quote about directing people away from diet was actually Matt’s statement. I simply quoted him and agreed with him. :)
But why did they eat the sandwiches should be the real focus? Was the fact that they were overweight the cause of them eating after lunch time or a deeper cause. I don’t think we should dismiss the fact that many obese people have disordered eating and meal times. Maybe they hadn’t had lunch yet and they were starving and the drive to eat was hard to resist. Did the study measure if they had eaten yet? Did they ask those that were obese if they were on a diet? If so, maybe it was an uncontrollable binge session. There are many factors at play and I don’t think we should discount the underlying reasons for their actions and deduce it down to them just being gluttonous…just something to think about.
This may be news to modern nutritional science, but Ayurveda recognises distinct metabolic types or constitutions, and variance in ability to digest and assimilate different categories of nutrients. It is accepted and understood that one person may have therefore a predisposition to accumulate (kapha dosha). Fascinating and has helped me with self-compassion lol for not being able to stay a skinny bean without low fat eating, fasting etc.
The Ayurveda also described type II diabetes 1,000 years ago. I think its fair to say the human genome has not changed since. The culture is just too focused on food these days. The body is really more adapted to famine than feast, which has been more the human condition all during human history. That’s why hormonally, the body has so many exquisite pathways to ensure that the bloodstream always has enough sugar and other fuel molecules in it to sustain life, whereas it has only one way to clear excess calories from the bloodstream: insulin. When insulin fails, the body enters a downward spiral. Fortunately, insulin fails generally as a result of glycine deficiency, easily corrected. Of course, that just makes obesity less toxic: it doesn’t get rid of it.
So if it’s discovered that it’s your genetic make-up that making you fat (which it likely is), then what? Do folks decide to just become apathetic and die of metabolic related disease? Do we invent drugs to alter our genetic code to prevent us from becoming obese in an obesogenic environment (that scares me a lot)?
The body amazes me in how adaptive it is to different environments — from light, social class, cultural messages, gravity, altitude, and of course food.
Will-power over food selection in an obesogenic environment — good luck! The body is choosing the foods it needs to try and adapt to it’s current situation; this is probably a good thing.
The easiest way I’ve found to lose body-fat was to go on a 5 start cruise in warm waters. Zero chores, buffet style delicious food 24/7, all the naps I want in a 100,000 ton hammock, fun random exercises, and so much laughter. No will-power, simply the creation of a non-obesogenic environment.
I think environment is the biggest factor here — not isolated diets or restricted food choice. More highly availability and variable food choices are a good thing in my mind (even “processed junk” food), and I believe will-power is distressful over the long term.
Yeah I think the big dilemma is that fighting against highly palatable food and trying to resist in participating in an obesigenic society usually results in strengthening the compulsion to eat “fattening” food and do so in binge format–resulting in weight gain above and beyond what one would experience had they not made a big effort to lose weight in the first place.
Also, prevention of obesity seems to be the only reasonable solution. Once a person is fat, losing weight permanently comes with negative metabolic consequences that don’t go away. There are a few exceptions of people seemingly cracking the code and finding a way through changing their lifestyle, environment, resolving stress issues, etc., but it’s not something that is easy to duplicate in any kind of meaningful scientific context.
The main takeaway for me from this was the preference for using the word poop. This word was formerly used only by women, mothers mostly, but now it is very common among men. I grew up in the generation of a “man’s man”. Where, guys weren’t afraid to be guys. Where, if you messed with my girl you knew there would be an ass-kicking coming to you. Where, I’d just as soon kick you in the face as I’d say hello. Now, we have guys using the word poop to describe shit. Let’s just stop pussy-footing around ok? Let the women use “poop” and don’t be afraid to grow a pair and at least say “feces”. Please, no more poop.
Amen Johnny!
Sounds like someone’s constipated :-)
Shit, you’re nuts Johnny!
Of course the article was charged so as to have an eye-catching title. And of course the main idea is to console us with, “it’s not your fault, sweetie.” This is the typical editorial eye candy that is prevalent in our media today. I’m so glad you guys provide balance for this type of garbage thinking; just wish your information was getting as much attention. It’s this type of thinking (lack of personal responsibility) that is culturally messing us up. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for this discussion. I really like all Matt and Ari’s books I have read them all. I think the point is that it’s nature and nurture. There are people who have more thrifty genes than others and these are the people ( myself included) that do try one restrictive diet after another and end up decreasing their metabolic rate even more and becoming obese. There are skinny people I know who can do a restrictive diet for a short time, lose the weight and never regain massive amounts of weight and in my case, I have kept trying low calorie, low carb, gluten free, sugar free and each time I would lose weight, only to regain plus 10 more pounds each time. Also found to be hypothyroid as well. Ari, I generally like what you have to say and I am commenting on your new book I previewed on Amazon which overall was very good, but to say that all people are obese because they have bad habits is really unfair. I always tried really hard to eat healthy and exercise only to get fatter. I have also been walking 10,000 steps a day and still getting fatter. Not all obese people are slothful and a lot of times the reason we “overeat” is because we have dieted so much to make our metabolism so slow that we would have to eat nothing to maintain our weight. I think people eat more and are hungrier when they are larger because their bodies are trying to maintain homeostasis and require more calories due to their increased size. Also of course leptin resistance which we all know is a problem. As well as the weight set point theory. I still don’t know what my answer is. I’m pregnant now so I can’t lose weight. I used to be a size 4-6 105 pounds started dieting in high school and obsessively exercising and now I am 220 pounds.
Hi Sara,
Thank you for the nice comments.
Regarding this: “…to say that all people are obese because they have bad habits is really unfair.”
I never did say that. Both in my book and the above article, I stated that genetics (and epigenetic factors, as Matt points out) clearly have a role in determining individual propensity for fat gain.
Moreover, my book specifically is meant to say how it IS NOT just an individual’s conscious laziness or gluttony that causes fat gain–but typically subtle factors that they aren’t even aware of that impact their ability to regulate the appetite and metabolism centers of the brain optimally.
However, fat gain generally only occurs in the context of an overall obesogenic environment (whether by conscious decision to do obesoogenic habits, or unitentionally and against one’s conscious will).
Basically, genetics/epigenetics load the gun, and environment pulls the trigger.
Of course, those who have a very strong propensity for fat gain may gain fat despite doing their very best to implement anti-obesogenic habits.
No one is saying “it’s all your fault–it’s because of your bad habits of being a glutton and a sloth.”
I’m simply saying, there is clearly a gene-environment interaction. Obesity is a result of a mix of those two. In some individuals, genetic propensity may play a big role while in others it plays a relatively minor one.
– Ari
I’m currently working on time travel Sara. As soon as I get this flux capacitor going I will go back in time and remove all PUFA from your parents’ diets, put them on a very high calorie pre-conception diet, and also keep you from going down the dieting rabbit hole which added fuel to the fire. I think that’s the only real solution.
Oooh! Me,too, please, Matt!
Hey Matt,
When you do go back in time would you find me, tell me I am not fat (I wouldn’t listen to my mom), and never ever go on a diet!
Great Scott! Yes I will Linda. You can count on it.
Hey Matt find me and give me a few bottles of penis enlargement pills and a penis pump…. Bwahahahaha!
Really enjoyed this dialogue. Good of you to post it, despite there being some dissenting opinions. I would definitely say that the most weight I ever gained in my life was when I moved to an extremely high stress situation, and simultaneously started RRARFING.
From my experience with overfeeding, as well as my experience for 2 years after, I can definitely say that actively trying to eat more caused me to gain a significant amount of weight. I’m sure macronutrient ratios and stress levels played a role, but I weigh myself on a daily basis, and track all the food I eat on a daily basis, and there is definitely a direct correlation between how much I weigh and how much I’m eating.
When I was younger, weight was NEVER an issue, because I never gave food a second thought, and only ate when I was hungry. After overfeeding however, I have become accustomed to eating on average probably 1,000-1,500 more calories than I ate in highschool.
I’m assuming this is sort of the same process that happens with an obese person. For whatever reason, whether its stress, fucked up blood sugar, family habits, super high fat modern diet, overly palatable foods, or even an idea in their heads (as in my case), a person begins eating more than they are actually HUNGRY for, and over time raise the amount of calories they are accustomed to eating above and beyond their HUNGER threshold. Eventually, the new threshold becomes the normal threshold, and weight gradually increases.
Of course, at some point, people want to lose the weight, and usually end up dramatically cutting calories and/or adding in an extreme amount of exercise, which causes their body to reactively slow their metabolic rate, i.e. what Matt is talking about.
Its entirely possible to lose the weight, but people have to understand that your body has become accustomed to your current calorie intake over a LONG period of time, and thus it will take a LONG period of time to lower the intake in a way that won’t shock your physiology.
TLDR: Eating more than you are hungry for makes you fat. To lose weight, GRADUALLY lower calorie intake until you are losing weight, then stop lowering them.
I’m one of those who live in the “gray area” with millions of other women who dieted themselves to overweight. The women in this gray area can also testify to ALWAYS “watching” what they are eating to the point where they chronically under-eat. They will be eating only “clean”food as well (whatever THAT is!). Many of these women are also chronic exercisers. (My Fitbit, tennis team, and yoga classes can testify to that).
A significant number of women I work with can point to a single stressful event that changed their weight, without a change in their normal eating patterns.
I think society’s impact on teaching young girls that to be fat is the worst outcome that could happen to them in their lives, starts women on the road to overweight. Their constant focus on their body, dissatisfaction to extreme self-hatred have a profound effect on the Mind/Body.
And then there’s menopause – the interaction of hormones, cortisol increase from less sleep due to hot flashes, and the rest.
I also agree with Matt that the area of epi-genetics has a huge effect and it is now just being explored. (and the area of intestinal bacteria flora in thin vs. overweight- aka – poop transplants).
Weight loss for most is easy – but maintaining weight loss is almost impossible for most – no matter how motivated and disciplined. Unless people learn what set off their weight gain, address those issues, and manage their stress – all bets are off!
One of my as of yet unpublished books looks at this general subject, and I see things differently. I’ve read most of Guyunet’s blog posts, and I think the palatability/reward theory is a small part of what’s going one, but in general, I think it’s a weak theory. I don’t think people are getting fat just because there’s more highly palatable food available. What is *in* some of the highly palatable food *may* be a contributing factor, of course, but that’s not the main thing either. For example, some chemical additives or solvent residues plus high linoleic acid stuff can probably raise the set point. But I don’t think it’s just that fat people are eating too much. I think that given the body of evidence showing the dismal success rates of calorie restriction suggest very strongly that people generally eat exactly the right amount. It’s just that the right amount may be, in some cases, greater than some ideal because other factors have increased the set point. The thing is, in studies like the Vermont prison studies it was seen that when weight gain was due solely to an increase in calories, the metabolic rate also increased – in those cases by 50 percent on average. And in order to maintain the increased weight, the men had to continue to eat obscene amounts of food (8000+ calories per day). But they maxed out. They couldn’t gain any more. And as soon as they reduced calorie intake even by just a bit, the weight started dropping. That is NOT what happens with most fat people today. Why? Because they are dealing with elevated set points whereas pure overeating actually LOWERS the set point.
In my (as of yet unpublished books) I discuss the evidence for other factors that are proven to add to weight gain and elevated set points. Among them are a long list of pharmaceutical drugs, sleep debt, and stress (i.e. distress). Oh, and dieting (calorie restriction) and over exercise also increase the set point.
It’s really not the excess of calories that accounts for the dramatic increase in fatness. And neither is it purely genetics. There are other factors that very few people are looking at. But for good reason. Because a lot of those factors are not things that can easily be pinned on the individual. It’s not “you fat, lazy, individual, you should stop being so glutinous”. Neither is it “poor fat you, you just got bad genes”. The individual isn’t necessarily responsible for the atrazine in the drinking water, the increased ionizing radiation exposure from living near a coal-fired power plant or from having served in the military, or the drugs prescribed by the doctor without any warning that those drugs have the known side effect of making people fat. Blaming the individual or the individual’s genes is unkind and unhelpful.
Joey,
There are a few misconceptions in your above statements:
1) When you brush off food reward/palatability as “a small part of what’s going on” I think you fail to realize that there are literally over 3,000 studies (i.e. incontrovertible scientific evidence) that have already established this as a MAJOR (not minor) part of the obesity epidemic.
So saying “I don’t think the food reward theory of obesity” is good is sort of like people who say “I don’t think calories are important.”
You can say that’s your opinion on the matter, but when your opinion conflicts with thousands of studies, opinions aren’t that meaningful.
2) “given the body of evidence showing the dismal success rates of calorie restriction suggest very strongly that people generally eat exactly the right amount. It’s just that the right amount may be, in some cases, greater than some ideal because other factors have increased the set point.”
Joey, even in the short-term in animal studies where there is no factors that have predisposed animals to increased set-point (i.e. food additives, lionleic acid, etc)–but with LEAN perfectly healthy animals–simply increased food reward and food variety of the diet will reliably make those animals obese in a very short period of time.
So no, animals (and humans) clearly don’t “eat the exact right amount” that their body needs. Again, there is an enormous body of incontrovertible evidence showing that hyper rewarding/palatable foods interfere with animals ability to regulate energy balance (i.e. “to eat the exact right amount of food”) such that they chronically overeat and make themselves obese.
3) You said: “And as soon as they reduced calorie intake even by just a bit, the weight started dropping. That is NOT what happens with most fat people today. Why? Because they are dealing with elevated set points whereas pure overeating actually LOWERS the set point.”
Incorrect. Overeating does not “lower the set point.”
You appear not to grasp the difference between SHORT-TERM overeating and chronic, long-term calorie overconsumption.
Short-term overeating DOES cause metabolic upregulation (in a person with a functioning bodyfat set-point system)… and that may be why you think it causes “lowering of the set-point.” Actually it just raises metabolic rate to bring bodyweight back down to the previous set-point–not to a lower set-point than was held previously.
LONG-TERM overeating clearly DOES NOT lower the set-point, and actually causes numerous types of metabolic/hormonal damage–both on a cellular level and neurological level (i.e. in the hypothalamus where the bodyfat set-point system resides–making us leptin resistant).
So no, you can’t say “overeating lowers the set-point.” That’s just fundamentally wrong.
You can’t even say that SHORT-TERM overeating lowers the set-point! But certainly not long-term overeating.
Thus some of your logic around “calorie overconsumption is not the cause…because that should lower the set-point…the real reason is different factors (drugs, dieting, overexercise, lionleic acid, chemicals, etc) that predispose to higher set-point weight” is flawed.
At best, short-term overeating can be compensated for by a healthy bodyfat set-point system and one can return to their previous set point. But even THAT doesn’t always happen, and short-term overeating can RAISE (i.e. the opposite of lower) the set-point. See here for research on that: http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20100825/short-term-overeating-has-lasting-impact
“Our study suggests that a short period of hyper-alimentation [overeating] can have later long-term effects by increasing body weight and fat mass in normal-weight individuals,” says researcher Asa Ernersson, a PhD student at Linkoping University in Sweden.”
Now, long-term overeating CLEARLY and irrefutably raises the set-point.
Joey, all in all, I think that some of the factors you mention clearly play a role in the obesity epidemic, but it seems to me that you’re almost coming from a perspective that pretends as if so little is known about the factors at cause in the obesity epidemic (and most of the thousands of studies that obesity scientists focus on, and think have explanatory power, are generally worthless) and that things are wildly open to debate and speculative theories about the “real causes” of obesity.
– Ari
The problem I have with the whole food reward/palatability theory is I have no idea how it’s anything but circular. In other words, it states that people eat more foods that are palatable, and we know which foods are palatable because those are foods people eat more of. Correct?
I also have no idea how palatability and reward are measured. I’ve looked on the internet for palatability index, food reward index or measurement, and nothing comes up (If you have a direct link to such a chart, I would love to see it). I realize it’s something that varies from individual to individual, but glycemic response would to, and I have seen a glycemic index. And if food reward is something that can’t be measured, how can there be 3,000 studies based on it?
Hi John,
Your logic is based on numerous misunderstandings.
The fundamental one being that reward cant be measured. It can be measured very simply by looking at the brain in an fMRI after eating different types of food.
Hi Ari,
Well, if food reward can be measured, that’s great! I again ask, is there any place where I can find out the food reward scores of various foods? Or a food reward index, similar to the glycemic index? I think it would be really interesting to see reward values of the same food with one different ingredient (eg, french fries cooked in soybean oil vs. french fries cooked in beef tallow). But even being able to compare steak to broccoli to soda to cheesecake to bread to fruits and so forth could be educational.
Ari,
I am genuinely interested in what you have written here. Can you please provide citations to the best studies that show that in humans long term overeating (a loaded term, incidentally) raises the set point?
And regarding the 3000 studies that support your claims that food palatability theory is established as a major factor in the so-called obesity epidemic, can you please point me to, say, the top 3 that in your opinion most clearly prove that this is so in humans (i.e. not rats living in cages)?
I am perfectly capable of searching pubmed, but I am asking for the studies that in *your* educated opinion make these matters no longer debatable. You seem to be educated on this matter and feel that your education has led you to see your views as incontrovertible facts. If you are correct, then I would certainly appreciate being given the evidence that paints such a clear picture.
Again, this is a sincere request. I have no desire to debate opinions nor to defend my opinion if it is untenable. So please do share your evidence that I may put to rest my opinions that to you are so obviously in error.
Sincerely,
Joey
Hi Joey,
This talk of long term overeating has reminded me of an issue that no one seems to want to talk about- what about the lean to regular weight competitive eaters? I’m thinking of guys like Joey Chestnut and Kobayahi, and women like “The Black Widow” Sonya Thomas and Molly Schuyler. Now, I realize these people are outliers, even in the competitive eating world, but is there something we can learn from a person who is able to throw back 15,000+ calories in 10 minutes, and remain reasonably thin?
Also, it turns out there is a competitive eater named “Matt ‘The Megatoad’ Stonie.” I think this is a sign that 180DegreeHealth has to do an article or series on this issue.
I’ve also been curious about that matter (lean competitive eaters). So I researched the matter. I don’t suggest anyone do the same. It’s not for the faint of heart. What competitive eaters do is, in my opinion, unhealthy and disgusting. Stomach stretching is only a part of it. They also train themselves to avoid reflexes that in normal people would cause them to stop eating because the stomach has overflowed. They can stuff food all the way up their esophagus. That is how they are able to “eat” so much.
But do they eat like that all the time? Not that I can tell. In fact, some reports claim that many competitive eaters vomit up much of the food they “eat” after a competition. (Sorry if that’s too much information.) And apart from regular stomach stretching training using large volumes of water and indigestible fiber, I haven’t come across any reports of competitive eaters who regularly consume large amounts of calories.
I too am interested in the evidence pointing to long-term over-eating as raising a persons set point. Billy Craig went on a 6000 calorie per day diet for a year and his metabolism got so fast that he got extremely thin and friends were worried about him. That seems to refute the validity of the above statement but I would like to hear thoughts on my thinking.
Hey Aaron,
First of all, this is not a scientific study you’re referring to.
But let’s ASSUME that it is indeed true–some person went on a 6,000 calorie a day diet for a year and got lean. (He claimed that he got so lean that he had to stop the experiment).
Assuming that he didn’t GET OBESE but actually got leaner, that tells you something very important: He wasn’t OVEREATING.
As in, what he actually did was raise his CALORIC FLUX (the level of energy balance where he was regulating calories in, calories out) to a higher level.
More calories in, and MORE CALORIES out (due to increased RMR, NEAT, and likely physical activity).
That is a GOOD THING–I am a HUGE ADVOCATE of raising caloric flux (without overeating and getting fat in the process)–and there actually IS plenty of scientific evidence to show that training your body into higher caloric flux is extremely beneficial.
John Berardi has been talking about this for years, I have talked about it in numerous places, and we have the example of athletes like Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt who eat incredible amounts of food while being lean.
The KEY though–is training your body into higher caloric flux WITHOUT PUTTING ON LARGE AMOUNTS OF BODY FAT.
– Ari
Joey, did Ari ever produce the requested studies? Unless I’ve overlooked them, it seems he ignored your request.
Joey, I was about to email you to see what you think about this whole post. But there you go :) thanks and I am waiting your book.
Joey, I can’t wait to read your new book. After everything I’ve read on obesity and metabolism and intuitive eating and also working in health care, I’m increasingly inclined to not buy into the theory that 2/3 of America is fat because our food tastes good and we have major character flaws for not being able to stay lean like the other 1/3. Obesity is very complex and different for every person. I’ve read a lot of your books and you are spot on every time. Your life experience is really valuable and your writing is easy to read and understand. Keep up the good work.
That definitely aligns with my thinking. Looking forward to the book Joey!
@ Ari
When Matt said he was against any dietery restrictions, you assumed he was talking about restricting calories or restricting a certain macros, but what he really means is any restriction of any kind. The third major type of restriction you find after the two just mentioned is restricting certain foods (not macros), I.e. drawing up a list of good guys and bad guys.
This is something you do in your book. You don’t restrict macros, but you clearly put fruits at the top of the carb list as the ideal carb, followed by tubers, and a “only sometimes” pass for white rice. Although you don’t ban them, you clearly try to steer people away from grains and legumes, which, no offense, is outdated paleo b.s. At one point you describe a perfect meal as an animal protein, accompanied by fruit and/or vegetables.
My point is not to critique these per se. The point Matt is making is that drawing up lists like these creates a good vs. Evil fight in the minds of susceptible people—people with a history of yoyo dieting or eating disorders, orthorexia, people with ocd and so on– and each deviation from this list leads to feelings of guilt, anxiety, followed by binging, in order to relieve the anxiety or to punish yourself for the “transgression”. This what I believe Matt is driving at.
@Skeptic
There are obviously many different kinds of restriction–calories, macronutrients, food choices.
And there are different levels of restriction within those food choices (“no carbs” vs. “limit to under 200g per day”… “no fat vs. limit to under 100g per day” … “no grains and legumes” vs. “try to eat grains and legumes in moderation”).
All of my comments were inclusive of ALL types of food restriction.
So I understood Matt perfectly well (i.e. you don’t need to interpret his comments for me) and my responses included all types of dietary restriction.
The only misunderstanding is that you misunderstood that my comments included all types of dietary restriction–including restriction of food choices.
Ari, do you believe that your suggestions to eat who foods, sleep, increase NEAT, red light, gelatin, etc will lower a persons set point?
Another question. I notice that you don’t talk much about the average number of calories a person needs. Of course I know this varies by person but do you think it’s above eating to satisfaction. I ask because about 15 months ago I started Matt’s rest and refeeding program. I noticed big differences. I slept better, felt calmer, more ‘alert’, and all body functions doing better. After a while though I started to not eat as much, around 2000 calories a day. I still ate to satisfaction though. But I wouldn’t wake up hungry, I didn’t sleep as good, and other things weren’t functioning as good as they used to. It took several months for it to hit me that maybe it was because I wasn’t eating as much even though I would eat to satisfaction from the good foods you recommend. After I started to force myself to eat more again everything improved and I started waking up hungry again. Although I did gain a few extra pounds. Do you think just eating to satiety is the main thing or should you eat to keep metabolism high even if you’re not losing weight? Thanks.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your questions.
“Ari, do you believe that your suggestions to eat who foods, sleep, increase NEAT, red light, gelatin, etc will lower a persons set point?”
This is somewhat of misrepresentation of my approach, but to answer succinctly… Yes, eating a diet of mostly whole foods (i.e. lowering reward/variety of the diet), increasing movement/NEAT, and a normal functioning circadian rhythm are all necessary for the set-point system of the brain to function normally, and in overweight people, doing these things very reliably lowers set-point.
As far as red light, gelatin, etc… there is no evidence that I’m aware of showing that these lower bodyfat setpoint. And the simple fact that many Ray Peaters who do such things commonly GAIN LOTS OF FAT by following a Peaterian approach (with ample gelatin, red light, etc) shows you that these things probably do not have a big impact on bodyfat mass.
(That’s not to say those practices aren’t healthy–they ARE–but that they don’t have a strong relationship to bodyfat mass. In contrast to whole foods, NEAT, and circadian rhythm, which do have a strong relationship to bodyfat mass.)
You said: “I notice that you don’t talk much about the average number of calories a person needs.”
There is no such general rule (at least one that’s accurate) by which you can give a formula for ‘if you weight this much, you need _______ calories.’
Calories are dictated by the individual. How fast is their metabolic rate…how sedentary are they…how active or they…what kind of activity do they do (walking vs. sprinting vs. lifting weights vs. jogging, etc.)…how much muscle mass do they have…etc etc.
I don’t give calorie estimates because I do not want people to intellectually interfere with eating how much their body needs–in EITHER way. That is, either to consciously RESTRICT calories, or consciously overeat calories.
I believe both types of conscious interference with eating how much the body needs is deeply misguided. (But in the context of anorexics or exercise addicts who are chronically undereating and in a state of starvation–where they will typically be extremely lean/underweight–conscious POSITIVE calorie counting to meet a MINIMUM calorie intake can be useful). However, in my opinion, such a practice is not helpful for the vast majority of overweight people.
I appreciate your response. I do understand your point about not wanting to get to intellectual about calorie counting but what do you think are the reliable body signals. Do you go only by hunger? I ask because I’m going back to what I noticed that when I ate only to appetite I didn’t sleep as well, didn’t feel as well and focused, bowels weren’t as well formed, sex drive went down, etc. But when I consciously increased calories to make metabolism the most important thing and not weight loss, they all improved but I still gained some weight.
Just another note… I do have your Metabolism SuperCharge course and love it.
Thank you, Aaron! :)
@Skeptic
My recommendations in the book were to eat whole foods. I advised to keep grains and legumes and moderation, and to soak/sprout them (ideally) if you use them more frequently.
I stand by that, and I believe it is supported by the literature.
I also explicitly stated that it is the LEAST important aspect of all my recommendations, and if one really loves those foods, that the distress of not eating them is worse than eating them.
Given all that, I can’t help but think that you are ignoring all the nuances of my stances and intentionally using black-and-white thinking in order to create a distorted and more extreme variation of my actual stance in order to paint a picture of a “highly restrictive diet.”
So I feel no need to defend against the strawman that you’ve created.
What is your vision of the ideal diet, Skeptic?
– Ari
While it sounds so easy to wear blue blocking glasses while watching tv at night, and I have a couple of pairs sitting around, I only wear them about 10% of the time. They darken everything making it harder for me to focus. Yes, I know how important they are for sleep, which I struggle with, but the inconvenience is still too great for me. Maybe it’s good that I do wear them once in awhile, but then I feel guilt when I don’t. Am I negating the occasional benefit I get from using them? I don’t mean to sound hung up on this issue, this is just my experience with one of the “easy” habits mentioned above. While, I like the idea of mini habits, I’m an all or nothing type. Although, I know drastic changes don’t last for me either. I’m still looking for a solution.
Shan,
That illustrates an important point: Even with the most UN-extreme changes in lifestyle–one’s which require very little effort, no immense force of willpower, and no negative compensatory metabolic adaptations–it is difficult for humans to deviate from their normal routine and cultivate a new habit.
It’s true of asking someone to wear blue blockers while watching TV, asking someone to start meditating for 5 minutes once a day, and true of asking people to make ANY change in nutrition or exercise routine.
Habit change of any kind–even when the habit is incredibly easy to do, and only causes positive biological effects (no negative ones)–many people fall out of the new habit into old routines.
There seems to be a definite individualization to the mini habits idea. It doesn’t seem difficult to me to count my calories to see if that is a factor for me, but there is another obstacle within that individualization I’d like to point out that Matt just expressed differently.
“What I like about what you just wrote is that those are all examples of things that can be done that WON?T cause compensatory weight regain and feelings of defeat and desperation if you stop doing them once you’ve started”
It seems very stressful to me to consider accumulating enough mini habits to make an effective change, The larger undertaking of constantly making lots of small changes that fail could just as easily add more stress and desperation should they fail, so in conclusion it’s hard to not be tempted by “sweeping” changes. I think Matt is generally right to ask people to be intuitive in their attempts at health whereas Ari seems to like the approach of adding small things like a distracting timer and a 50 dollar under desk cycle( I didn’t know they existed so I thank you for that)
Skepticism doesn’t rest easily by seeing the 3 of you talk along with a Joel Brind Comment because all of you mention thermodynamics, but don’t make it absolutely clear what calories in calories out means in spite of the 3000 studies Ari mentions or any of the comments made. It’s a pet peeve of mine that people mention piles of information without drawing more precise conclusions from them.
This is an example of what I mean.
http://easo.org/obesity-facts-figures
Obesity Facts & Figures: World Health Organization Fact sheet N?311
Key facts
Worldwide obesity has nearly doubled since 1980.
In 2008, more than 1.4 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight. Of these over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese.
35% of adults aged 20 and over were overweight in 2008, and 11% were obese.
65% of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight.
More than 40 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2011.
Obesity is preventable.
These facts are illogical, Obesity itself doesn’t kill anyone. It doesn’t mention on the page what the most common obesity-related ailments are(which should include periodontal infection)only that there is an increased risk of certain diseases. The problem with the latter statement is that increased risk isn’t in itself the most important thing about a risk. The most important thing is how much the risk increased and when compared to the set of all other increased risks, where does it fall in an ordered list of priorities.
The question must be asked of Ari, How much of the information you’ve seen posted in a study is repeated information? From what I understand, when information gets repeated there is an “increased risk” that it will become different information altogether.
Matt Stone you are my favorite reasoning entity (no studies needed other than your own for the most part) but as for the rest of you, you make me so mad I could pinch you. Not really, but Matt has made a very good point in the past about intuitive health.
Appears as a google statement at top of search:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Obesity is imposing an increasingly heavy burden on the world’s population in rich and poor nations alike, with almost 30 percent of people globally now either obese or overweight – a staggering 2.1 billion in all, researchers said on Wednesday.May 28, 2014
This is not staggering, is it? In other words, this isn’t a crisis, is it? What I’m trying to do is point out that Ari also seems to subscribe to this line of reasoning that the fat people of the world need to cut back their numbers because we know what makes people fat. Do we? How certain are you really? If Ari want’s people to just stop being so fat by making little changes it follows that people have to be able to accidentally become lean and considered healthy. I think that is the point of being intuitive, to reduce stress and let the functionality of your body do as much as it can no matter what stressful environment you’re in.
If 48 percent of people exist on less than 2 American dollars a day, I vaguely wonder if that means people in the world are also not eating enough. Food for thought … mmm I love food. And even though I just said that, I’m not hungry and I didn’t even eat lunch. So much for our culture being characterized by an overabundance of food. And maybe the things the obese people had eaten before just made them hungrier and that’s why they’re obese to begin with. Having said that I think there is something to making some general conclusions about this calories thing. I mean, not all of it can be obfuscated right off the bat by repetition and such. What meaningful studies are there about calories? I almost think that Joel is mentioning that study just to say that it’s an impressive 50 years old :), Otherwise it is only coincidental and not a valid study that the obese people ate the sandwiches, other than that you say that the study isn’t clear. Dated, not clear, people ate sandwiches.
Great comment, James!
Hi James,
I don’t particularly care for your vaguely accusatory and aggressive tone. (My annoyance is amplified by the general incoherency of your logic).
I was however, actually going to write a response to you.
Then I saw this gem of a statement:
In remarking on the facts and figures of obesity you quoted–particularly the figure “65% of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight”–you remarked:
“These facts are illogical, Obesity itself doesn’t kill anyone.”
This displays a truly remarkable and dangerous level of ignorance.
No need to further explain. Anybody who understands the nature of obesity and what it does to physiology immediately knows why that is fundamentally wrong–and extraordinarily ignorant.
Thus, you and I don’t even agree on the most basic of scientific understandings of reality, and two people who do not share a consensual reality cannot have an intelligible conversation.
For that reason, I will not grace the rest of your accusatory and aggressive comments with a reply.
If you don’t understand why obesity kills–and it seems that you don’t–you shouldn’t be writing accusatory nonsense to me. You should be reading a physiology textbook.
– Ari
In all fairness to James, there have been many scientists and journalists that have challenged the belief that body fat itself is the cause of the illnesses that are associated with it. They maintain that the same factors, lifestyle behaviors, diet, and otherwise, that cause heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems, hypertension, and so on often lead to obesity. The strongest evidence they have in favor that body fat does not CAUSE these problems is that all of these problems can be prevented or even reversed without losing any body fat. Overweight people who are physically fit also have morbidity and mortality rates that are equal or even superior to lean people that are not physically fit. So however common it is to assume that obesity is a causal factor in our most prevalent degenerative diseases, it is but an assumption with evidence that supports and opposes it. Of course, if you weigh enough it certainly can directly cause health problems, pain, inflammation, etc.
Matt,
You said: “So however common it is to assume that obesity is a causal factor in our most prevalent degenerative diseases, it is but an assumption with evidence that supports and opposes it.”
I believe this is a misrepresentation of scientific consensus that implies both sides stand on equal scientific evidence.
I don’t believe that is the case at all, and it seems to me that the case that carrying large amounts of body fat mass is inherently harmful is overwhelming.
As with anything, there are always a few studies or scientists that one can cherry pick and point to as making a case against even the most well supported claims. But this should be put into the context that it’s in–as a few dissenters in an overwhelming consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community.
The evidence that obesity is an inherently harmful physiological state is overwhelming.
The case in favor of the notion that it’s not inherently harmful to carry large amounts of body fat seems to come from the “metabolically healthy obese”–where 10-20% of obese people are claimed to be metabolically healthy.
However, even focusing on this (and ignoring that 80-90% of obese are NOT metabolically healthy), this is now accumulating evidence that this state of metabolic health is actually transient in many cases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23491523
“‘Healthy’ obesity was a transient state for one-third of subjects.”
From a 2013 meta-analysis and systematic review (the gold standard of evidence) on this subject
The study is titled: “Are metabolically healthy overweight and obesity benign conditions?: A systematic review and meta-analysis” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24297192)
Here was their conclusion (which is a very strong statement, and keep in mind that to make such strong statements requires overwhelming evidence):
“CONCLUSION:
Compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals, obese persons are at increased risk for adverse long-term outcomes even in the absence of metabolic abnormalities, suggesting that there is no healthy pattern of increased weight.”
That evidence and consensus is based on statistical correlation. When correlation and causation are separated from one another, it’s not a matter of dissent from a few naysayers. It’s a legitimate affront to the scientific consensus, and I’m not aware of any full examination that eliminates statistical correlation and shows proof of causation when talking about moderate levels of obesity (say, up to 100 pounds of excess body fat).
@Matt Stone,
You said: “That evidence and consensus is based on statistical correlation. When correlation and causation are separated from one another, it’s not a matter of dissent from a few naysayers. It’s a legitimate affront to the scientific consensus, and I’m not aware of any full examination that eliminates statistical correlation and shows proof of causation when talking about moderate levels of obesity (say, up to 100 pounds of excess body fat).”
Just to be clear, you’re saying that you don’t believe that carrying excess bodyfat is inherently harmful to one’s physiology.
Correct?
So I’ve heard you say that you don’t believe chronic calorie overconsumption is toxic to cells… and now also that you don’t believe that carrying large amounts of body fat is metabolically harmful.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly DO you think is harmful? What is the chain of causation in your mind as to why there is a correlation between obesity and so many degenerative diseases?
Whew, James G! I suspect you burned a whole lot of calories writing that rant! From reading it I gather that you don’t buy the idea that the overabundance of food is an important contributor to obesity. Seriously? I’m sure obesity is not epidemic in the countries where people can barely afford a subsistence diet. Yes it ultimately does boil down to calories–the 2nd law of thermodynamics will not be violated–but how many are needed for a given individual at a given time varies, as well as how much is eaten by a given individual under different circumstances varies, and appetite is affected by so many things other than the actual caloric expenditure, including psychological and emotional stress. I certainly agree with Matt’s perspective that the more one is in tune with–and is obedient to–one’s natural appetite, the healthier one is likely to be. It’s rather like government agencies always trying to meddle with prices and wages externally, through taxation and regulation, which only serves to distort natural market forces and create bubbles and boom-bust cycles. (Maybe you could say Matt is a physiological libertarian:-)
As for me, I am a biochemist/endocrinologist who tries to keep the big picture in mind. There is no question that the hormonal control of apetite and nutritional absorption and utilization are influenced by the mental and emotional state, including–and perhaps especially–by thinking about food and dieting. And what’s wrong with citing a 50-year old experiment that essentially evidenced that those who eat more than they need to–and therefore end up overweight–are more influenced by external stimuli than by their own internal promptings?
It seems to me that you are angry at people with whom you really do not disagree.
Finally, in terms of ill health and risk of morbidity and mortality, I reiterate that it is really glycine deficiency that makes obesity toxic. In our society, in which most people are glycine deficient, obesity quite reliably results in insulin resistance, diabetes and cardiovascular disease and other serious problems, so it is not inaccurate to say that it has reached crisis proportions. That’s why my major advocacy is for glycine supplementation, which ameliorates or eliminates these complications of even minimal obesity (including periodontal disease, btw: just ask my dentist.)
Thanks James and Joel for the comments, I find them useful :D
However, I would still disagree with the study of obese people eating the sandwich and lean people didn’t, actually I would say this study means nothing.
What if none of the lean individuals was hungry? ( since it was presented not at a meal time)
if one of the lean individual was hungry and took a sandwich? does that make the study invalid?
another thing, I think most people know how hard it is to OVER EAT especially when Matt suggested resting and refeeding (I totally agree with it but it is SO HARD to overeat)
What if the hunger trigger for obese individuals is always ON because of some hormonal imbalance? that means it is mostly not the calories that is making them fat, but a clear hormonal imbalance.
Let’s say their hormonal triggers are working perfectly which I doubt in obese individuals.. would they be able to eat if they were not hungry?
Why obese people eat too much? ( it is not because they want to, it is because there is HUNGER that is constantly triggered, and I would say it is most likely hormone-related)
Also obese people are big, they need more calories to drive their bodies (If they are moving in the first place) they went to the study place didn’t they :P ?
And to add to all my rant :P
I don’t believe in most studies done in a capitalist world where each and every study will lead to some financial profit.
Calories in calories out? well.. we know how the diet industry work.
Studies showing that some magical semen taken from a whale living the north pole will treat obesity and cancer? (more selling of some whale semen :P)
There is 3000 studies on anything nowadays.. unlimited studies world we live in
I am not a scientist but that’s how my common sense interpret this kind of studies or the intentions behind those studies and the results.
Hey Ali,
I’m confused.
You said: “I think most people know how hard it is to OVER EAT …”
Are you aware that there is an obesity epidemic? As in, millions of people who are in a state of chronically overconsuming calories and accumulating large amounts of bodyfat.
Yet you seem to be assuming that there is an epidemic of people struggling to over eat?
This is very confusing to me.
You said: “I totally agree with it but it is SO HARD to overeat”
I’m very confused by this, Ali.
Particularly since you posted just yesterday on the Ray Peat fb group that you’re “Gaining abdominal fat at fast pace.”
Gaining abdominal fat at a fast pace is a fairly obvious symptom of calorie overconsumption.
So how is it that you’re both “gaining fat at a fast pace” and you simultaneously believe that “it’s hard to overeat”?
– Ari
Gaining weight and struggling to eat enough is not a contradiction. I estimate that I ate about 1500 calories a day for many years. Eating 2000 calories a day (still under eating) was a challenge at first, and yet I gained weight eating more than I had been eating. Eating 2500 calories a day (still under eating) was a challenge next, but I gained weight eating more than I had been eating.
Not only that, but during the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, in the 6th month of the semi-starvation phase (1600 calories a day, on average) none of the men lost weight. Some had been restricted to 1000 calories a day and still could not lose weight. And, here’s where it gets interesting, some of the men actually gained weight.
Thanks Joey for clarifying the matter.
Dear Ari, I don’t find it confusing at all.
I mean I’ve been on 180degreehealth for quite sometime and I think one of Matt Stone’s basic ideas is on this subject eating no much calories and gaining weight because of long term calorie deprivation. I might have got it wrong but the less I eat, the less I feel good, the more abdominal fat I gain.
Taking in account that I rarely eat rewarding or engineered food.
I don’t desire food.
There is a big loss of appetite, when I was a teenager I ate double what I eat now and also lots of processed Crap, and I was still underweight.
It was only when I tried to become healthier and started watching my food and calories I started eating less, fearing food and now it’s hard to get over the disorders developed in the name of health.
Joey,
You said “gaining weight and struggling to eat enough is not a contradiction.”
Actually, YES it is. Gaining body fat mass while still UNDER eating is absolutely a contradiction.
Here were have a case of scientific illiteracy. You are now operating in a realm where you have actually CHANGED the accepted definitions of OVEREATING and UNDEREATING.
You’re using these terms incorrectly.
You seem to be defining undereating as “I ate very little calories, and even though I was maintaining weight (or even gaining weight), I had symptoms of low metabolic rate–fatigue, cold hands and feet, lack of libido, etc. and didn’t FEEL healthy…therefore I was UNDEREATING.”
This is not a scientifically accepted definition of undereating.
Overeating, by definition, means that you’re consuming MORE calories than your body is burning off.
If you’re accumulating body fat mass, you are, by definition, OVEREATING.
The reason bodyfat mass is accumulating is PRECISELY BECAUSE you are consuming more calories than your body is burning off.
So no, it’s not possible to be accumulating bodyfat while in a state of UNDEReating.
Your statement actually presumes as scientific fact–which it is NOT–that the path to feeling better and being in optimal health/vitality is simply eating more calories.
Therefore, based on this logic, one can say “even if I’m gaining weight, as long as I don’t FEEL healthy, I’m UNDEReating.”
This is just wrong. You’re not using these terms correctly, and you’re presuming something as fact which is not.
What you are actually trying to talk about (while using incorrect words to say do it) is caloric FLUX.
And one CAN rightfully talk about the health consequences (and symptoms) associated with regulating energy balance at low vs. high levels of caloric flux.
What you CANNOT do is start misusing words that do have accepted definitions.
If you’re gaining fat, you’re NOT undereating–regardless of whether you’re eating 4000 calories or 1000 calories.
Undereating and overeating aren’t defined by arbitrary calorie numbers or symptoms–they’re defined by gain or loss of body mass.
Ari, if you really believe in set point and needing to be at that set point, at least initially in order to heal your metabolism, wouldn’t overeating and thus initial weight gain by somebody who in the past had gone on strict calorie\carb restriction be beneficial even if that set point means the person will be overweight? Wouldn’t that lead to the best opportunity for good weight loss in the long run?
Ari, you realize that the way you use the term undereating, it is simply a synonym for weight loss, and overeating is simply a synonym for weight gain. So, if Joey was gaining weight at 1500 calories a day, he was overeating. If he was losing weight later at 3000 calories a day, he’s then undereating. So, by scientific definition, sometimes the way to stop overeating is to double your caloric intake.
John, you said: “Ari, you realize that the way you use the term undereating, it is simply a synonym for weight loss, and overeating is simply a synonym for weight gain.”
Yes, that’s called the proper use of these terms–undereating and overeating are in fact defined by whether “calories in” is below or above “calories out.”
I know that may seem odd to people who are used to using these terms incorrectly (to equate certain kinds of SYMPTOMS or arbitary calorie amounts with “undereating” or “overeating”) instead of the physical reality of energy balance in that individual.
But such use of those terms is incorrect.
The terms are indeed defined by thermodynamics, not subjective experience or arbitrary calorie amounts.
You said: “So, if Joey was gaining weight at 1500 calories a day, he was overeating. If he was losing weight later at 3000 calories a day, he’s then undereating. So, by scientific definition, sometimes the way to stop overeating is to double your caloric intake.”
Your initial statement is correct, but you then use faulty logic built on equating training
If Michael Phelps is losing weight while eating 10,000 calories a day, he is undereating.
If an obese sedentary person is gaining weight at 1,000 calories, they are OVEREATING.
I find that most people on this site are simply using these terms incorrectly (and so you think I am the one saying weird things!). You guys are TRYING to refer to CALORIC FLUX (when you say “undereating” and “overeating”), and how the body behaves differently at differently at lower vs. higher levels of caloric flux.
You can talk about this, and that’s legitimate. Just use the correct words to describe what you’re trying to say.
The two issues here are:
1) You assume I’m an advocate of intentionally eating less calories, which is false.
In fact, I’m a HUGE advocate of training the body to regulate caloric flux at HIGHER levels of calories in, calories out.
2) You act as if THE path to increasing this is simply EATING MORE CALORIES–which is a rather foolish assumption, and though that practice WILL absolutely cause you to eventually start regulating flux at a higher level, most people will typically gain lots of bodyfat in the process.
What you actually want to achieve is training the body to regulate caloric flux at a high level of calories in, calories out WITHOUT putting on bodyfat.
A couple thoughts:
1- On rhetoric- Ari, not everyone uses the same terms. I’ve personally never heard of caloric flux before. Define your terms first and with a generosity of spirit. If I have to admit that I’m an idiot for using different language than you, I’m not going to want to agree with you. Even if your terms are industry standard, recognize that many of us here may not be familiar with them, so allow for different assumptions coming in, and then get on the same page. Then we can discuss ideas rather than language.
2- I agree that simply re-feeding doesn’t produce magic results for everyone, presumably since not everyone’s problems are related primarily to caloric restriction. Time and again I’ve heard from people who both benefitted tremendously from RRARFing and people who seemed to just gain weight but never resolve their metabolism-related issues. So I’m all for insights into why it works for some, why it doesn’t work for others, and other strategies to increase caloric flux without excess fat gain.
3- Good points about not conflating the benefits of added fat mass for underweight (underfat) individuals versus overweight (overfat) individuals. Getting caloric flux higher regardless of weight seems to be beneficial though, and I think most of what Matt discusses in terms of metabolic rehab dovetails with this.
Edits to above post… I left a sentence incomplete and should’ve put one thing in context:
“?So, if Joey was gaining weight at 1500 calories a day, he was overeating. If he was losing weight later at 3000 calories a day, he’s then undereating. So, by scientific definition, sometimes the way to stop overeating is to double your caloric intake.
Your initial statement is correct, but you then use faulty logic built on the ASSUMPTION (which is incorrect) that training the body to regulate energy balance at higher flux is ACHIEVED BY MERELY EATING MORE CALORIES.
This is wrong. It can work–to either a small or large extent–but frequently comes with lots of bodyfat gain.
See here:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20100825/short-term-overeating-has-lasting-impact
?Our study suggests that a short period of hyper-alimentation [overeating] can have later long-term effects by increasing body weight and fat mass in normal-weight individuals,? says researcher Asa Ernersson, a PhD student at Linkoping University in Sweden.
And with my statement: “What you actually want to achieve is training the body to regulate caloric flux at a high level of calories in, calories out WITHOUT putting on bodyfat.”
I should’ve stated context properly… ASSUMING ONE IS ALREADY overweight or obese, what you actually want to achieve is training the body to regulate caloric flux at a high level of calories in, calories out WITHOUT putting on bodyfat.
For someone who is anorexic of genuinely in a state of starvation or semi-starvation, putting on bodyfat so as to go up a normal bodyfat level is healthy.
Hi Aaron,
You said: “Ari, if you really believe in set point and needing to be at that set point, at least initially in order to heal your metabolism, wouldn’t overeating and thus initial weight gain by somebody who in the past had gone on strict calorie\carb restriction be beneficial even if that set point means the person will be overweight? Wouldn’t that lead to the best opportunity for good weight loss in the long run?”
Assuming someone is BELOW their bodyfat setpoint (e.g. anorexics, exercise addicts, etc who are EXTREMELY LEAN and underweight), your logic that eating more and gaining fat is 100% valid.
The problem is confusing the state of anorexics with people who are OVERWEIGHT and being convinced that there is some epidemic of fat people out there who are desperately in need of eating more calories to solve their problems.
This is a claim that has virtually zero scientific support.
There is little to no evidence to support the notion that a period of overeating and gaining bodyfat is beneficial for fat loss or health in the long run in anyone other than anorexics (those in true semi-starvation who are underweight).
And there is substantial evidence that CONTRADICTS this claim:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20100825/short-term-overeating-has-lasting-impact
?Our study suggests that a short period of hyper-alimentation [overeating] can have later long-term effects by increasing body weight and fat mass in normal-weight individuals,? says researcher Asa Ernersson, a PhD student at Linkoping University in Sweden.
Outside of anorexics and those in genuine semi-starvation, the approach of eating more calories to improve health/metabolism/body composition–and I speak from personal experience as DOZENS of my clients have TRIED the approach of eating more calories to fix their metabolism–they just get fatter and notice no appreciable health or fat loss benefit in the short-term or long-term.
To be clear, THERE IS absolutely proven benefits of regulating energy balance at higher caloric flux, but one should achieve this state while minimizing fat gain.
Here’s the problem I have with the use of the term “overeating” being synonymous with gaining weight or fat, even if that’s the scientifically correct way of using using it- There are times when a normal or overweight person may gain weight from eating even a paltry amount of calories. Maybe that person is on the drug prednisone, or just coming off a crash diet. They may even be suffering from malnutrition due to lack of sufficient caloric intake. In such a case, a person would be “overeating yet suffering malnutrition from inadequate caloric intake,” which seems contradictory. The reverse could be said for someone with wasting syndrome, they are “undereating despite enormous caloric intake.” It also comes with the connotation that the solution would simply come from eating more or less food, which isn’t the case. That’s why I think the terms are poor, even if they are scientifically correct.
Rob, You said: “1- On rhetoric- Ari, not everyone uses the same terms. I’ve personally never heard of caloric flux before. Define your terms first and with a generosity of spirit. If I have to admit that I’m an idiot for using different language than you, I’m not going to want to agree with you. Even if your terms are industry standard, recognize that many of us here may not be familiar with them, so allow for different assumptions coming in, and then get on the same page. Then we can discuss ideas rather than language.”
Rob, while I understand what you’re saying, and that’s nice in theory. It is not particularly kind for people to attack others’ perspectives based on one’s own ignorance of the definition of words. Yes, I find it annoying when people do that, and evidently I’m not patient and nice enough to tolerate people making arguments that stem only from their misunderstandings of the definitions of words.
Having said that, I believe that I actually did behave patiently and cordially in pointing out to people that their use of these words is wrong, while also explaining that there are other words that one can use to accurately explain the phenomena they’re referring to.
I tend to be blunt, and apparently my way of being patient and nice isn’t quite as nice as you may be (or expect me to be) :-) But I do understand your point about me being kind of a dick. Sometimes I can’t help it. I’m not the most tolerant and patient person in the world.
“Time and again I’ve heard from people who both benefitted tremendously from RRARFing and people who seemed to just gain weight but never resolve their metabolism-related issues.”
As do I. I believe that RRARFing can be tremendously beneficial in certain contexts–like anorexics or exercise addicts or underweight people genuinely in a state of semi-starvation and chronic stress. But I believe it’s quite dangerous to not clarify that context and have already overweight people believing that the answer to their problems is even less movement and even more calories and processed food.
I hear more from the people who gain fat without any appreciable health benefits or symptomatic improvements, but this is also probably due to the fact that those people are probably my likely to seek me out.
I believe clarification of context is an important issue, particularly because–unlike Matt–I believe that putting on large amounts of bodyfat IS quite harmful to health.
In my opinion–understanding that Matt does not agree with me–there is very good reason to be concerned about those who adopt this approach and do nothing but get fatter while not improving metabolic health appreciably.
From the other side of things, he believes that my approach is too restrictive or strict and may cause some people to eventually fail.
I think it’s clear that ANY method (including my own, and Matt’s) of trying to help someone with ANY dietary or lifestyle changes–if not applied rightly, or applied in the wrong circumstance, or with too much extremism by trying to do too much too soon–can backfire and be quite harmful.
But I also don’t believe that should stop us all from trying to help people–it should just make us want to integrate everything we know into methods and practices that have the greatest chance of benefit and the least chance of harm.
– Ari
Yeah, that’s mainly it Ari- having a low tolerance for misunderstanding or different assumptions irks me.
There are advantages to creating your frame and excluding people who won’t fall in line. But it’s just my preference to be a peacemaker and assume my own ignorance and the good intentions of others until I have clear and present evidence otherwise. Maybe you and I just assess differently how long to go before withdrawing the olive branch.
Anyway, in terms of substance, I largely agree with you. And you’re right, you probably see more clients who fail at RRARFing, since if it worked, they’re not seeking you out. Same with Matt and low carbers/calorie-counters/ raw foodists, etc. If it’s working for you, you don’t give up on it until you have to. You may well be refuge site for RRARF failures.
My point is, if the past has shown most of my ideas to be untenable, then chances are whatever I’m sure of now will be similarly untenable eventually. And I like to hedge against that and not over-reach or presume undue certainty. I think that’s a good look for almost everyone, and in my heart of hearts, that’s probably what I’m looking for from you.
But it’s all good, man- you still have lots of valuable insight to share regardless of your communication style, and you can take or leave that suggestion.
Hey it would be cool if you wrote something about this caloric flux idea. Sounds interesting to me. Everyone wants to increase metabolic rate without gaining fat, and if I knew how to do that, that’s exactly what I’d be advocating for metabolic rehab. Berardi may have something valuable there despite his massive errors in other departments (such as weight loss, intermittent fasting–his assessment on his change in lab values while doing it is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read on health on the internet by a supposedly reputable authority–, etc.).
@Ari
I don’t think i misunderstood, because Matt called it “the fundamental difference” between you and him, and he was referring to clean eating (whole foods), even though he (and me too by the way), agree that eating whole foods is the way to go. The point is that when you prescribe that to people, it usually backfires for the psychological reasons discussed in my last comment.
As i tried to explain, I’m was not critiquing your book per se, but i was just pointing out the gist of your book is to eat clean, although as i also pointed out, you don’t outright ban anything, which in my book puts you ahead of 98% of all nutrition writers. On more thing i forgot to mention, that Matt points out in several of his books, is that clean, whole foods are not calorie dense, and usually full of water, so it is quite easy to under eat with a whole foods protocol. Say my lunch is animal protein and fruit, as you say, so lets say 4oz chicken breast plus 3 bananas, that only works out to 600 hundred calories max (and who eats 3 bananas anyway?). If i do this 3 times a day, then my total daily intake will be 1800 calories, which is not enough for a “big boned” person like me, male, 5’10”, and indeed is not enough for anyone other than maybe petite women with sedentary jobs.
I wasn’t trying to attack your book or offend you, for the record i liked your book and agree with most of it. What’s my ideal? I agree with you, should be mostly clean whole foods, and plant foods, but I’m more in agreement with Matt, who favors a higher carb ratio, and less meat (because of methionine), and finally with a greater allowance for processed foods (not Cheetos and Oreos, but i mean bread, white rice, maybe a home cooked cake without crazy amounts of sugar, etc…). As to my Paleo comments, i also stand by them. Sorry, but i think it’s one of the worst fads shat out by humanity, and it’s a dead fad at that. I don’t believe gluten makes you fat, gives you schizophrenia or whatever the hell that Wheat Belly retard is ranting about today, and I don’t think beans “punch holes” in your gut. Bonus fact: the Masai, the one magic tribe that paleos worship because they eat a lot of meat and other animal products, actually make this herbal tea from wild plants that is very high in phytic acid, the demon acid that’s supposed to be in grains and legumes, shooting up your insides with machine guns in both hands. Go figure!
@Skeptic
Please forgive me in advance for having a little fun with my reply here. I think injecting a little humor and playfulness here is warranted :-)
“I don’t think i misunderstood, because Matt called it ‘the fundamental difference? between you and him, and he was referring to clean eating (whole foods), even though he (and me too by the way), agree that eating whole foods is the way to go.”
Wait a minute?! You think eating whole foods is the way to go? And so does Matt Stone?
But I thought that asking overweight people who are currently eating mostly highly rewarding processed to switch to eating mostly whole foods is “an attempt at eating clean” and thus would be destined to fail and be counterproductive for 90% of people?!
If you advocate eating the majority of one’s diet as whole foods, I think you’re advocating “clean eating” and “orthorexia”–unsustainable eating habits that are destined to fail and make most people mired in guilt and feelings of shame and failure while only making them FATTER!
______________
“On more thing i forgot to mention, that Matt points out in several of his books, is that clean, whole foods are not calorie dense, and usually full of water, so it is quite easy to under eat with a whole foods protocol.”
Yes, I’ve heard that it is common for animals in the wild–who unfortunately don’t have access to modern processed food like we do–to starve to death due to not being able to get enough calories. ;)
(In all seriousness, this has some relevance to a small subset of the population who is already chronically undernourished–i.e. anorexics–but has ZERO relevance to the millions of people who are overweight in the modern world. So it’s important to distinguish that subset of the population (those who really are in chronic semi-starvation) from the millions of people who are chronically OVERCONSUMING calories–so as not to conflate chronic calorie underconsumption and chronic calorie overconsumption as having ANYTHING in common. There is absolutely no problem of most people receiving adequate calorie intake from whole foods, and it is actually fairly ridiculous to suggest that there is an epidemic of overweight people who aren’t receiving adequate calories due to eating whole foods. Even a cursory appreciation for the millions of years humans have existed and procreated with access to only whole foods is enough to tell you that there isn’t any problem with being undernourished due to eating whole foods).
_______________
“Say my lunch is animal protein and fruit, as you say, so lets say 4oz chicken breast plus 3 bananas, that only works out to 600 hundred calories max (and who eats 3 bananas anyway?). If i do this 3 times a day, then my total daily intake will be 1800 calories, which is not enough for a ?big boned? person like me, male, 5?10?, and indeed is not enough for anyone other than maybe petite women with sedentary jobs.”
Interesting.
I’m 205 pounds and 9% bodyfat, I am highly physically active, and somehow, I eat only whole foods without any problems. In fact, I don’t find it difficult at all. I eat upwards of 3,500-4,500 calories most days.
Very strange how I would be able to do this, but it’s just impossible for everyone else who doesn’t have nearly the muscle mass I do, or the levels of physical activity. Very strange indeed.
_____________________
“What’s my ideal? I agree with you, should be mostly clean whole foods, and plant foods, but I’m more in agreement with Matt, who favors a higher carb ratio, and less meat (because of methionine)…”
ORTHOREXIA ALERT! CLEAN EATER!
If you ask people eating the Standard American Diet to start altering their carbohydrate to protein ratio, you’re advocating dietary restriction (a.k.a. “CLEAN EATING”) in the form of restrictions on macronutrients! As we know, that’s unsustainable for upwards of 90% of people and will only cause them to fail and get fatter! You’re just as bad as those scumbags who stupidly try to limit people’s grain and legume intake.
Oh, and if you ask people to limit their intake of omega-6s and vegetable oils (because of that demon linoleic acid), you’re advocating an even more extreme form of “clean eating.” I mean, now everything that’s high in omega-6 is a “bad food”. I can’t stand it when people create these lists of “good foods” and “bad foods” by telling me that the lionleic acid (which is in tons of foods and used as cooking oils in virtually all restaurants) is fattening. Omega-6s are in everything! You can’t REALLY expect me to limit my intake of foods that have omega-6–it’s everywhere! That’s extreme restriction and orthorexia. Totally unsustainable. Everyone is just gonna fail and get fatter. (Plus, the science around the effects of omega-6 in epigenetically inducing obesity are highly speculative and are not accepting by most scientists in the field… see here: “I think seed oils promote obesity because they’re used to increase the reward/palatability value of processed food, but this would be equally applicable to animal fats and more saturated plant oils if they were used in the same foods. Do seed oils promote obesity by another mechanism as well? It’s possible, but I’m not aware of any compelling evidence to support that idea at this point.” http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/seed-oils-and-body-fatness-problematic.html
So you’re not only asking me to avoid certain foods and “eat clean”, but you’re also doing it on the basis of very speculative and unproven science! That’s the worst kind of clean eating!
And on top of that, you want me to limit my intake of muscle meats because of the methionine! Oh that’s just a bunch of outdated unscientific Ray Peat BS! It’s just as bad as those idiots who tell you to limit your intake of grains and legumes. Restrict my intake of meat! That’s orthorexia and clean eating. Which as I’m sure you know by now, causes 90% of people to fail and feel bad about themselves while only making themselves fatter.
You can’t possibly expect people to avoid foods high in linoleic acid (which is a very long list of foods), to change their carb:protein ratio of their diet (helloooo….macronutrient restriction!), and to lower their intake of meat (which is a huge portion of most people’s diets).
You’re such an orthorexic. I can’t believe you would dare advocate all those extreme and unsustainable ways of asking people to change their diet. All your “clean eating” recommendations and dietary restrictions are only going to cause people to fail on get even FATTER!
____________________
@Skeptic, I really don’t have much of a problem with much of your line of thinking. I just thought this would be a nice opportunity to have some fun, and I thought I would provide a different perspective, and show how your logic and many of your arguments against my recommendations could easily be made of all Matt Stone’s recommendations as well.
It sounds like we’re mostly in agreement with one another on most things–perhaps more than you realize :-)
I read a little more than %50 of the comments. I just wanted to add my two bits. I was more or less normal sized, healthy girl who wanted so badly to lose weight her whole life even though she was fine. But now that I have had 2 kids in less than three years and a c-section, my body has turned into a googley-eyed, striped, crooked mouthed, boobie monster. So I’ve just said f***k it, I have more important things to fill my mind and I don’t want to think about food or compare myself anymore. It is making me do AMAZING things like get out of a bad relationship, do activities that I like doing, learn more of what I’m interested in, laugh and cry more, etc. The other day I weighed myself which is against the rules and I had lost 10 lbs, and it has been completely thoughtless and effortless. I actually was worried and thought maybe I should be eating more and gain that weight back. I literally have been making myself eat anything that sounds good on a whim or if I am tempted anywhere I just go with it. No restrictions.
Ari,
I meant that Obesity killing people doesn’t work as a generalization. One could think that Being fat is equivalent to a death sentence, which it’s not.
I have Seen Matt Stone Communicate, either in a book or blog post, that even if you feel inclined to exercise that it is better to let your body attempt to adjust your weight set point by increasing metabolism.
I also thought Matt was all about eating for heat which does go against the idea of calories in calories out. I think my question to you, that isn’t vaguely accusational this time, would be how much like Matt are you when it comes to Eating for Heat? Is it safe to assume that it is directly oppositional to Calories in Calories out? I’m not ignorant of the other aspects of this conversation such as whole foods, Glycine,PUFA’s, Mini habits, and the eventual inclusion of things that have been mentioned on this blog before, but I get frustrated when there is a discussion like this that doesn’t seem to go anywhere. I Kind of preferred when 180 degree health was Matt Stone singling out subjects about Health and what they included beyond the research that you might have done on your own about it. Nevertheless, I do think it is the right way to go to have these conversations.
So whattaya say Ari will you give me a response. I’m sorry I sounded like a Jerk.
Joel Brind~ “I gather that you don’t buy the idea that the overabundance of food is an important contributor to obesity. Seriously?”
Nope. I think that in my state, Most farmers grow corn for ethanol and there is not this, so called, overabundance of food, I believe that if there were then there would be a lot more restaurants on my way to work than there are now. It’s true to me that the only food sources seem to be generally unhealthy options, crappy produce compared to expensive produce you can buy off the internet like Comice Pears grown in Oregon sold by Harry and David, and 7-11’s and pre manufacture food stuff restaurants like double T Diners TGI Fridays, Olive Gardens, Subway etc. seem to take up more and more real estate. Buying “seemingly” decent food is becoming harder and more expensive even if food options by themselves are growing. So now you could postulate that non picky eaters are more susceptible to overeating and that is much more specific than what was talked about.
“I’m sure obesity is not epidemic in the countries where people can barely afford a subsistence diet.”
According to FAO.org the prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide, including in some developing countries with previously very low prevalences.
There is nothing wrong with citing a 50 year old item, but you weren’t specific in saying whether the Obese people actually ate more that day than the Skinnier ones, only that they ate the sandwiches that were offered to them. Granted it is really hard to look at a fat guy eating a sandwich and not think he has an eating problem when the skinny guy isn’t, but the science problem of not knowing whether there were more calories eaten is what you said your job was in looking at the bigger picture.
Having said that I’d also like to know what you think of this thread as you are mentioned in it.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/70858-a-report-from-the-first-international-mini-symposium-on-methionine-restriction-and-lifespan/
Thanks for the link, James, although I don’t see where I am mentioned in the article. No matter, the article on methionine restriction is interesting, especially in mentioning the Orentreich Foundation symposium in 2013 on methionine restriction. I was a participant in that symposium, where I presented a brief summary of the experiments I had conducted on glycine supplementation in rats in collaboration with that foundation (and published the study as an abstract at the FASEB annual meeting in Washington, DC in 2011. And here’s an interesting irony: I presented that abstract on the veritable 60th anniversary of the very first ever published report of glycine supplementation’s reduction of methionine toxicity, by Cohen & Berg, in an abstract presented at the FASEB annual meeting of 1951! )
I certainly agree that a methionine-restricted diet is quite impractical, because it really involves an 80% restriction: a very radical change for anyone and very hard to stick to. However, I have to disagree that methionine restriction increases longevity in laboratory rodents for the same reason as caloric restriction: They are certainly quite different phenomena; a difference that took about 2 decades to establish in academic circles, where there is still a reluctance to admit this.
I originally proposed glycine supplementation as a (much easier!) means to obtain the same benefits as methionine restriction. We found that there was some overlap between the two effects, but the benefits of glycine supplementation were also distinct. I have concluded that part of the benefit of methionine restriction is due to glycine sparing (since it takes glycine to get rid of excess methionine), and that the benefits of glycine supplementation are largely due to the correction of a glycine deficiency (e.g., protection from metabolic inflammation, insulin resistance and diabetes.) You can certainly read my earlier posts on this blog for more details on this.
Re: the overabundance of available food in our society and in many other places in the world, I will make no further arguments: This situation is quite self-evident to me. As to the quality of food available, I am convinced that we compromise our health more because of what we don’t eat, rather than what we do eat, and glycine is a big part of that.
Hi James,
You wrote: “I think my question to you, that isn’t vaguely accusational this time, would be how much like Matt are you when it comes to Eating for Heat?”
It’s not totally clear to me what you’re asking me here.
You want to know how much of Matt’s book I agree with? You’ll have to be far more specific with your question. But in general, I think Matt’s approach has TREMENDOUS VALUE for anorexics and eating disordered people and exercise addicts, etc (i.e. those in a chronic state of semi-starvation).
And I believe his approach is MORE valuable and more effective than my approach in that specific subset of people.
You wrote: “Is it safe to assume that it is directly oppositional to Calories in Calories out?”
Is what directly oppositional to calories in, calories out? Are you asking if Matt’s approach violates basic thermodynamics? No, it doesn’t.
It’s effective in helping people who have trained themselves into regulating energy balance at a very low caloric flux into regulating energy balance at a higher caloric flux.
The key is being able to minimize body fat gain as you restore metabolic health.
– Ari
James you stated “I also thought Matt was all about eating for heat which does go against the idea of calories in calories out.” I don’t see how Eating For Heat is not inline with thermodynamics or calories in/calories out. In the cells of a person with a higher metabolism, more calories are converted to heat rather than being used in making ATP which can then be used for work or stored. The calories do not just disappear but the energy (calories) that was stored in the bonds (bond energy) of nutrients such as glucose gets converted into a different type of energy – heat. All energy is conserved, it just changes form.
I would just like to add, Ari, I know that Matt talks a lot about exercise in his book, but if you’ve read Eat for Heat, Do you disagree with any of the ideas Matt has about exercise? I feel like I should ask that instead of trying to dwell on something to do with you compared to him.
Agh, I’m confused. Is common knowledge right, then? Should we fight obesity? Eat less, be hungry? Is only junk food palatable enough to be considered obesogenic, or does that mean that the food I cook shouldn’t be pleasing to the senses?
What should I do with my fat body? Does obesity *cause* diabetes and high pressure, just as the doctors say?
I really need some answers, I don’t understand anything now. :(
thanks
Don’t despair, Fab! Read my last post on this blog re: glycine and insulin resistance. My whole point was that obesity only causes insulin resistance and diabetes in the presence of a glycine deficiency. It’s not the adipose tissue itself, but the immune cells (macrophages) embedded in abdominal adipose tissue that cause the problem (i.e., metabolic inflammation), because glycine levels are inadequate to keep them under control. Different lines of research on rodents and people provide good evidence for this.
Yes, it’s probably hard to become obese on starvation rations, but I don’t buy that having plentiful food available makes us fat or that carbs or processed foods per se make us fat. When I was growing up in Brooklyn in the 70s – not in a rich neighborhood – delicious food was plentiful. Also, everywhere I went, people were eating white bread, pasta, coffee cake, and ice cream as daily staples and most of us were effortlessly normal weight.
Yes, there were always a few people with weight problems, but for the most part, people I knew didn’t start having serious weight issues until the 90s. Since then, I have seen many formerly thin friends and family members balloon up and be unable to lose the weight despite intense struggles and sometimes extreme measures.
These days at family gatherings, we eat things like salmon, kale, and quinoa, with fruit for dessert. If someone had served this fare at a party in my childhood neighborhood the 70s, people would have thought they’d lost their minds. Back then, at a party, you’d expect something like a big plate of lasagna followed by Carvel ice cream cake – and you’d also expect to maintain your normal weight without a thought.
Amen Cara. Food abundance with highly palatable food has been around for a long, long time. Of course there have been many chemical flavor enhancements that might affect rood reward, but still, a large percentage of people, particularly Caucasians, and especially young people, maintain effortless leanness even with “junk food” based diets. Only when they become older, have kids, go through stressful events, and other things does fat start to accumulate–typically in short bursts followed by long periods of weight stability. All this points more to something changing internally and metabolically, taking effect only after many decades. I think the evidence points towards something long-term and cumulative over multiple generations. Calorie-dense food may help people achieve greater levels of body fatness, but the physiological tendency to store excess fat/dysregulate energy balance seems like a more important precursor.
Yes, getting older has a lot to do with it. When I was a teenager, my best friend and I would often go have lunch at the local pizza joint and split a large pie between us–4 slices each (after playing tennis or softball or football for a couple of hours.) Now, 1 slice suffices easily to make a meal. Of course there are all these life changes and stresses that happen also. And yes, food was plentiful (I’m not sure how much better it was–lots of margarine and artificial colors that are now illegal to use in food. There was more collagen in the diet, though, as Matt has pointed out), but I think the major change has been toward a sedentary lifestyle. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with eating a big bowl of ice cream and then going out and playing ball all afternoon. But it’s quite another thing to eat a big bowl of ice cream and then sit down to watch someone else play ball all afternoon, all the while being just a few steps from the kitchen, with commercials for food punctuating the game. So you are certainly correct in that it is not just the overabundance of food, but the sedentary lifestyle (calories in; calories out: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you know), metabolic changes that come with age and stress, and the unending mental focus on food and weight. So I see it really as a perfect storm in the modern human condition (the human body being best adapted to famine rather than feast). Do I have any simple answers on how to fight obesity? No–that’s really Matt’s department, and many have clearly benefitted from following his advice. My contribution–as I’ve said before–is to remove the toxicity of obesity by correcting the “epidemic” of glycine deficiency.
I will second the idea that sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger contributor to obesity than the food itself. Metabolic rate does contribute to desire to move physically, so it’s not all a matter of “just doing it.”
But even so, we have involuntary energy-regulating homeostatic mechanisms. So if you eat a bunch of ice cream and sit around doing nothing, you should get really hot and fidgety and experience a loss in appetite and thus consistent body fat levels over weeks, months, and years. If you don’t, the homeostatic mechanisms have faltered.
There’s no question that energy regulation happens involuntarily. The remaining question is simply, “What causes our involuntary energy regulation systems to fail.” And that question is the tough one to answer. There is an abundance of evidence, but very little definitive proof of anything, and exceptions at every turn–especially when you stray away from statistics and start examining individual cases. And there are probably over 100 contributing factors with varying degrees of significance.
That’s why this kind of thing is tirelessly debatable. It’s also why Jillian Michaels hasn’t won a Nobel prize, lol.
Amen brother!
An as an individual, I’ve had to taken a lot of the ideas presented by the contributors (thank you) and decide to try them for myself. Some tools and techniques are beneficial, some are negligible (none have been negative).
From a world population point of view: it’s all just for interest, and has little applicability to my specific environment.
In a socially stressful environment (i.e. work), I can over-eat “healthy” food and still gain weight with symptoms of inflammation. Remove the stress, and symptoms and weight diminish — regardless of the food I have available. Unfortunately, I never get back to my 18 year old physique.
Cara, you said: “I don’t buy that having plentiful food available makes us fat or that carbs or processed foods per se make us fat. When I was growing up in Brooklyn in the 70s ? not in a rich neighborhood ? delicious food was plentiful. Also, everywhere I went, people were eating white bread, pasta, coffee cake, and ice cream as daily staples and most of us were effortlessly normal weight.”
You seem to be stating this as if this observation is NOT in alignment with what we know about the obesity epidemic. And apparently with the presumption that obesity happens overnight–as a result of eating a few scoops of ice cream or cake, rather than a condition developed over years or decades.
Your observation is actually in perfect alignment with the fact that the obesity epidemic was JUST STARTING UP around this time (late 60s and early 70s), and does not contradict anything we know about the obesity epidemic.
Add today’s focus on food and diet to the incredible focus on body image with social media exploding. That’s too much pressure for anyone and may explain why it is difficult for some to even stay consistent with the small seemingly stress-less changes.
Ari, so if you eat a lot of processed foods and refined carbs in the 1970s, the weight gain doesn’t show up until the late 1980s and 1990s, when the obesity epidemic gained steam? I don’t know about that. Americans have been consuming a substantial amount of sugar, white bread, and other products made from industrially milled white flour since around 1900. We’ve had Oreos since 1912. According to some sources, we consumed as much sugar in the 1930s as we did in the 1970s. If refined carbs cause obesity after a decade or two of consumption, Americans should have been obese by 1920 or 1950 at the latest. And yet most of the refined-carb eating people I knew in the 1970s, old and young, were slim to normal weight.
The processed foods from my childhood in the 1970s aren’t the same as the processed foods today. In the 1970s, our sodas, cakes, and ice creams were made with sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup. We were satisfied with small servings, not primed to crave more. Our McDonald’s french fries and similar items were cooked in lard or beef tallow, not in canola and hydrogenated soybean oil. In addition, we didn’t have as many of the issues we have today – foods pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, unpronounceable chemical preservatives, trans fats, embedded pesticides, bread baked with bromide, genetically modified and irradiated foods, corn-fed livestock, and mineral-poor soils, etc.
Deprivation dieting fails almost everyone over time. Let’s try something else. I think a worthy experiment would be a return to the “more natural” processed foods and refined carbs we had in the 1970s before the food industry went off the deep end.
Great comment Cara C. The introduction of fake fats, fake sugars, fake flavors and year after year of mineral depleted/eroded farmlands; the problems will continue to increase. When our food grows in soil with low calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, copper, sodium, iron, selenium… etc… are bodies are ‘starved’ for these. Then add fake fats/sugars/flavors, disease of western culture!
Cara,
Just to be clear, I never blamed obesity on “refined carbs” or “sugar.”
Nor have I ever suggested that “deprivation dieting” is the answer–and everything I have ever written about is against deprivation dieting.
However, you should understand that there are indeed various nutritional factors that we have extraordinarily strong evidence as being causal in the obesity epidemic and that it is simply not particularly wise to ignore that science.
Nor is it wise to assume that all types of nutritional modification are equally unsustainable. We know they’re not. Some types of nutritional modification have horrible chances of long-term success (and may potentially do harm), while other types of nutritional modification have very little risk of harm and are sustainable and effective for a large portion of people.
Like ARi has pointed out before, obesity isn’t all about diet. And people in the 1970s and before perhaps weren’t exposed to the same life altering factors such as blue light from screens, emfs, toxins, not getting as much sunlight, less activity, etc… and included more whole foods. And as Matt has pointed out, mothers can pass on obesity propensity, not through genes but through having a low metabolism they have themselves so that this effect gets bigger and bigger for every subsequent generation. Once a person has a lower metabolism, perhaps the more helpful way to get back to health for some is to follow Ari recommendations. I have been calorie restricting for decades. Since I was a teenager I have had a tendency to be chubby so I started dieting and doing aerobic exercise. Looking back, a much smarter thing would have been to not calorie restrict, but to cut out the junk food, emphasize palatable whole foods and have pasta, rice, and homemade bread at times too. My metabolism wasn’t terrible back then, but I think making a large part of one’s diet with palatable whole foods would have made me healthier and as everyone says, you have to be healthy to loose weight. Maybe letting go and just eating anything you want for some with eating disorders is the best, but for me, it was a mistake. I started eating avocado oil fried potato chips , gummy bears, ice cream and bugles…. and now am extremely upset over the fat gain. Besides the type of foods I added, I added too many calories too fast. I wish I had only increased calories if I was able to incorporated more moving and other lifestyle changes. The fat gain is very stressful in many ways to me. I know you are not supposed to get upset about the fat gain, but that is really, extremely, nearly-impossible for some. Maybe for those that are happy with themselves in other areas can make their fat gain tolerable and maybe even welcome. For me, I have very low self esteem that can not be solved with just saying to my self that it is healthier to have gained weight so that I can restore my metabolism. I am more depressed than ever and even though my body temp may be better, I do not have more energy. When I weighed 20 pounds less, I could hike a long way and not get too fatigued. A year later and 20 pounds heavier, hiking is much harder and less pleasant. Everyone is different and has to find their own way.
I spent quite of bit of time in ?rural? China. By rural I mean a lesser known city with a population of 1.2 million.
It’s striking that obesity there is non-existent. I mean it’s crazy. I literally remember seeing 3 overweight individuals the entire time I was there. 2 of them were cooks at KFC.
They didn’t appear to diet or restrict anything in particular as far as I can tell. Plenty of carbs, rice of course, white rolls, fruits, some sugary desserts and whatnot. A lot of gelatin in the form of soups, but they would have been high PUFA- mainly pork and chicken (always with the skin).
The grocery stores were quite a bit different than here of course, but there was still plenty of PUFA’s/etc.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this. The Chinese in general did seem to get a lot more exercise in the form of walking. There was also a lot of smoking, which is likely a contributing factor. But my guess is the lack of obesity is mainly due to the exercise and that nobody is dieting.
Studies may show that the ?food reward thing? is a primary factor, but it seems likely that the people in those studies had a low metabolism to start with. My opinion- if you can get your metabolism high and your body working correctly, hyper-palatable/high calorie foods should not cause you to gain weight. Just make you poop more, increase fidgeting, desire for exercise, etc.
There are an awful lot of us that could mow thru an entire pizza and a 2L of root beer at age 18 and not gain an ounce. I think many people can regain that ability later in life, too. But you’re very likely going to have to gain some weight getting to that point.
Well firstly, the biggest factor in food reward is calorie density. KFC beats out local Chinese cuisine or just about anything anyone is making in their home kitchens. But you also have ungodly amounts of vegetable oil, powerful flavor enhancers like MSG (its cousin is aspartame, tell me that everyone you know that drinks Diet Coke isn’t totally addicted to it. People are fiends for that stuff), etc.
But exercise is certainly a factor as I’ve discussed when talking about my observations in the outdoor recreation meccas that I’ve lived in for most of my life. It’s almost like an anti-obesity vaccine, but without the mercury.
Hey Matt, I’m reading your site and gradually implementing your rules in my lfestyle, however I’m tempted to share my story and add a tiny question.
I’ve had a history of restricted eating followed by episodes of binge/purge all my teen and adult life as my job requirements are to be goodlooking.I’ve been eating 1600-1700 calories per day for the last decade or so coupled with 1-2 binges per week,my weight has been stable at 120 pounds and my lifestyle is sedentary. Since I discovered your philosophy I started taking my temp daily and it’s between 36.3 degrees Celsius when menstruating to 37.2 during ovulation – this would indicate a healthy metabolism I guess. My hands and feet are rarely cold, I eat 3 times per day starch-based meals with some meat,eggs,dairy and my main fat sources are coconut butter, cow butter or nut pastes. I avoid soy and man-made oils like the devil…my blood tests are prime, my sleep has improved drastically after I decided to cut off water…I had a water problem as I used to chug over a gallon per day, now I rarely exceed 1.5 liters of liquids. However what baffles me are my caloric needs.
I feel I need to raise my allowance over 1700 kcal per day and my weight will stay the same yet I can be finally binge free. Since I have some days with higher activity I tend to binge on them and on starchy and sugary stuff like pancakes, cake, bisquits.All this leads me to the conclusion that this ain’t an addiction and this is my body’s natural way of shwing me it needs to be fed a bit more to keep up with the energy expenditure. Oh and by the way my menstruations are regular, quite long and bleedy but not painful. Overall I feel good, certainly better than the lettuce grizzling girlfriends out there YET the social stigma that a woman eating over 1300 kcal per day is still chasing me. LOL a fun fact is that after my last carb binge (around 150 grams worth of cookies, some heapings of cashew butter and a ton of dates) I took my body temp and it was skyrocketing over the 37.3 mark…this has to be healthy metabolism after all.
I just wanted to point out that 25 years is more than enough time for the genes to change. Dr. Jeffrey Friedman(top tier geneticist) goes out of his way to emphatically correct the common incorrect argument that they “cannot change”. Totally wrong. This is a common misconception and assumption of laymen
Richard Dawkins (world renowned in biology) also knows that they CAN change in a single generation.
Also, the increase in obesity is wildly exaggerated. Actual data shows we are only 7 to 10 pounds more than in 1990,with greatest difference seen among severely obese, The lean people have held steady. Dr. Katherine Flegal source.
Obesity has a bigger genetic factor then ANY other condition besides maybe height,but is only A SMIDGEN less than height.
Dr. Friedman has the data for this and shows it during his lectures.
Raz,
I think early developmental things and inherited factors of the non-genetic variety are often confused with the study of actual genetics. For example, the amount of linoleic acid in an infant’s diet seems to be the primary determinant for the number of fat cells a person develops in youth–one of the greatest determinants of future propensity to become obese. The linoleic acid content of breast milk and infant formula has changed much more dramatically than our genes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16516300
This trend holds up in human studies as well. Gerard Ailhaud’s work will be an interesting Razzle Hole for you to explore.
Stephan Guyenet, Lyle McDonald, CarbSane, Anthony Colpo, and many more have been totally misusing “themrodynamics’ ( whatever that is, you must be specific- physcists would laugh at that phrase). They have ALL been totally misusing the first alw of themrodynamics-0p which says NOTHING whatsoever abuot HOW this fuel is used in the body.That has to do with the metabolism of the individuals. I have LEGENDS in physics fully agreeing with Gary Taubes and me. I have their e-mails too for PROOF. Somebody needs to TAKE DOWN guys like GUyenet, CarbSane and the like. I can say for SURE that legends in physics do NOT agree AT ALL with the INVALID articles they write exploiting physics and using it INCORRECTLY for PROFIT. The laws of themrodynamcis are not ANY kind of EXPLANATION for phenomena as Weinberg wrote in an article once.
Everyone from Guyenet to McDonald are DISINGENUOUS. They WILL NEVER in a million years POST my e-mails and ADMIT THEY have ben WRONG for a decade, whilst Urgelt, me and Gary Taubes have been CORRECT. THIS IS A BSIC ISSUE- the MISUSE of physics.
Obesity is extreely complex, poorly understood deals with fat cell dysregulation somehow and it i snot even 1/10th solved. Guyet is headd in the wrong direction. he is like a smnall toen doctor 20 years behind the times. Internet logic makes NOSENSE to me- GENUINE experts are Dr Jeffreuy Friedman-= who is rejected by the MISINFORMED Blogospeghre. Just becauise GUyent has a Ph.D. he is applauded, while the OTHER GUY ( Friedman) has a Ph.D. ( and a cutting edge breakthrough record) and is the Michael Jordan of obesity reseasrchers.
The obese have a BIOOLGY that is MUCH DIFFERENT from lean peepl and normal peopel and the rest of us. This is driectly from Rosenbaum;s MOUTH , his most recent workl from the HBO special. Dr Leibel and Rosenbaum NOITE obese peopel have “A BIOLOGY TO BE FATTER.” It is THEY who have studied this area best with the most modern techniques.
That obese peopel have been OBSERVED IN DESTITUE , ABJECT POVERTY IS THE ULTIMATE TEST of the claorie model. Dio NOT let gurus DAZZLE you with FANCY terms ( liek the laugghable “metabolci ward” I NEVER heard Rosemnbaum call them that) to SOUND credible. These studies they linkt op are from 1930 and 1959 FARRROUTDATED “in patient hospital studies.” That is ALL they are, Cheating CAN occur- cheating CAN;T occur in destitute poverty,.
Obese poeel have a BIOLOGY TO BE FATTER in Rosenbaum’s own words. Colpo, GUyenet, McDonald – they are all like small town doctors twenty years behind the times.
Rob, your link was EXCELLENT. Only gurus selling something would have a problem with it. Thakfully, guys like Dr. Rosenbaum are tryng to fight thwe misinfromation and asumptions these book salesmen gurus make and possess. Rosenbaum is trying to educate doctors AND other scetiosts that , and I QUOTE “Obesity is NOT what you tionkl it is.”
Hope Guyenet gets bnack on track FAST- food is NOT the direction to look.The BEST scientists ( physcists AND biophysics) in the WORLD have PERSONALLY TOLD ME: The first law of themrodyanmcis SAYS NOTHING- NOTHING about HOW this fuel is USED by the body- that rel;ates to biology/biochemistry and the metabolsism of the specific indivduals. WE ARE SNOWFLAKES ( GENUINE scientists VERIFY that) – do not LET Lyle McDonald LIE to you. My information coems DIRECTLY from on eof the best scientsts ion the molecular storm that is life.
ANYBODY who brings up the first law of themrodynamics in an obesity doscussion needs their a@@es slapped……
Taubes’ stance about themrodynamcis misuse among Blogpshere is 100 % SUPPORTED by Noebl prize leading phsycists- LEGENDS of the modern era I HAVE THE E-MAILS FOR PROOF .
I have personally told Stephan GUyenet, Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo that I have , in my possession, the PROOF POSITIVE E-MAILS from LEGENDS in physics sating that they TOTALLY AGREE WITH ME ( exact words) THESE e-maisl would show rthese salesmen WRONG FOR SURE.
HOW UTTTERLY DISINGENUOUS for carbSane and Stephan to continually bash Taubes ( while being TOALLY WRONGAND PROVABLY WRIONTG) when I possess the information to correct them. This is a CASE CLOSED issue- I can for SURE Guyenet and McDonald and CarbSane are EXPLSOTING AND ABSUUSING AND MISUSING the first law of themrodynamcis. It is NOT valid what they say or write abnout.
IF Guyenet or McDonald REALLY were ethical or had no problem BEING SHOWN WRONG- THEY’D POST my e-mails with a logn apology and retarction of al their former articles bringup the first law of themrodynamics.
This is not even an issue- GUyenet ( and CarbSane are WERONG0 AND ARE mususing the first law of themrodynamics; LEGENDARY physcists SAY SO – CASE CLOSED . ( This is a basic , basic topic – the identification of the misuse of the first alw of themrodynamcis- ANY competent legend can evaluate that…..)
Their criticism is Tauebs ISNOT AT ALL VAID on that one specific issue. andtopic. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.I have been saying ths for YEARS.
IF ONLY the Blogpshere KNEW THIS./
Hi MAtt –
I have a quick question that I would like some clarity on. You state: “My last tidbit is a quick word on ?genetics,? which has always been a strong pet peeve of mine. I look at genetics and heredity as completely separate concepts.
You can inherit a slow metabolism from your mother eating lots of polyunsaturated fat. You can inherit a propensity to store fat if your mother dieted before or during pregnancy.”
Isn’t a gene the mechanism in which the hereditary slow metabolism or propensity to store fat is passed along in. I had thought that the gene is like the building block that codes for that specific feature of a slow metabolism or the fat-storing propensity. If you can explain a little more of what you mean I would greatly appreciate it!
Hey Genny,
I don’t think what’s passed along by the mother during pregnancy and nursing is genetic in nature, but hormonal and nutritional, affecting genetic expression and factors such as fat cell count and size, metabolic rate, appetite, and more.
Ah- that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying!
Genes even strongly affect how our bodies respond to healthful eating and exercise. Lyle McDonald will never accept the overwhelmingly powerful evidence of twin and adoption stdies and Dr. Friedman’s additional work that obesity is monstrously genetic. At least 85% of how fat we are is genetic. Admitting this is career suicide for salesmen. Obesity is also not even remotely new. Guyenet had a presentation saying it is new…. He offered “old solutions”. O.M.G..,.. It dates back to at least 23,000 B. C. I question his competence being so misinformed. Friedman stresses these old dolutions never existed. We need new, highly creative deep molecular level understanding (said Friedman and his colleagues of stature)to cure obesity… NEW UNPRECENDENTED IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS. Yet , Guyenet and Lyle have the hutzpa to criticize Taubes????
Great scientists are people such as Susskind, Maldacena etc. Hey understand that in physics VAGUE NOTIONS are VERY USEFUL. H eat is very vague which is WHY it is so useful because it is unprecise.A legend once stressed this to me. Guyenet hasn’t a clue about physics yet he constantly cites it.(McDonald, too) If onky the audiences knew how full of SHITE Guyenet and Colpo really are with their total exploitation and misuse of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics can never be used to explain or infer tge vehavior of fat cells, their hoarding or dysregulation. That eldetly peopke lose fat pads on the soles of tgeir feet gas NOTHING to do with thermodynamics or “energy vakance” another dumb buzz word