= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 1: Mainstream Nutrition Science on Obesity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (99)
I think it reflects very little. Let's see how cutting down on saturated fat works out for you. Even if it works out well (best wishes), you've got a weird metabolism, so what works for you is not a lot of information about what works for people in general.
"Cut out saturated fat" is the stereotypical horrible purely-made-up bad-science zombie-study opposite-of-smart advice of exactly the sort Gary Taubes was criticizing. It's one of the worst possible bits of advice you could give someone. It's probably not my comparative advantage to go into at length here, browsing paleo blogs (and I do recommend Perfect Health Diet despite the name) would fill you in.
Sorry, I clearly misunderstood your point.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what your point was. Would you be willing to expand on what you meant?
ChrisHallquist claims that Taubes is attacking a misrepresentation of what mainstream nutrition experts actually believe. Eliezer met an endocrinologist, and she just happened to spout horrible advice of the kind Taubes attributes to the mainstream. This is more likely to happen in worlds in which Taubes is correct about such advice being widespread among the mainstream than in worlds in which Taubes is exaggerating the spread of such advice.
Really? Is it that saturated fat is actually good for you, or that it isn't necessarily bad? Would you recommend more saturated fat to a thin healthy person who has no trouble with their food intake?
Yes, Paleo people and the Perfect Health Diet book would recommend that most Americans consume more healthy saturated fats such as the kind in butter from grass-fed cows. I put such butter in my morning coffee.
Most Americans get about the optimal amount of calories from protein, so if you cut out most sugar you have to replace the calories from somewhere else and the Perfect Health Diet suggests they come from healthy fats.
You know of any evidence replacing those calories with saturated fat is better for you then replacing them with (cis) polyunsaturated fats?
It's in the book the Perfect Health Diet.
What makes it a reliable source compared to others?
From what I can tell, yes, although I'm an economist not a life science person.
I think you misread my question.
Sorry I did. It has the look and feel of science. It takes evolution as a starting point, basically as a source of Bayesian priors. It has lots of scientific citations. It uses probabilistic reasoning where the authors admit they are guessing at what is healthy. It uses marginal analysis assuming diminishing and then negative returns to eating any given nutrient. I've listened to one of the authors on several podcasts and he seems very knowledgeable when answering questions. The paleo community seems to have a high opinion of the book.
I think this is an important question and I would refer you to the concept of "nutritionism" as described by Yoni Freedhoff, a Canadian obesity researcher. He defines it as "the notion that specific properties of foods are sufficient to make them healthy"
I've been thinking about this stuff a lot, and it occurs to me that a lot of diet thinkers are guilty of the sin of nutritionism.
To illustrate, everyone knows that doughnuts are unhealthy, but one can ask why exactly they are unhealthy.
Is it that they contain a lot of fat?
Is it that they contain a lot of carbohydrates?
Is it that they contain a lot of sugar?
Is it that they are heavily processed and not what cavemen would have eaten?
It's dangerous to answer these questions incorrectly. If you assert that muffins are unhealthy because they contain a lot of fat, it won't be long until someone shows up with low fat muffins and people start pigging out on them.
Perhaps the most extreme example of nutritionism is diet soda. It contains, no fat, no carbohydrates, and no calories. So you would think people could easily achieve significant and lasting weight loss success by switching from regular soda (and juice) to diet soda. But it doesn't seem to work.
Let's make this a bit more complicated by adding a few questions. By nutrients I will refer to both micro- and macronutrients. You may allow this to refer to indigestible substances and artificial flavors as well.
Is it that they replace healthier food?
Is it that they regulate appetite differently?
Is it that they regulate digestion differently?
Is it that they regulate metabolism differently?
Is it that they regulate where the fat is stored?
Is it that they regulate physical activity differently?
--
I'm sure people can add even more relevant questions to this bunch, and I would be interested to read them.
Yes those are good questions. In answering them, I think one should keep in mind that nobody has ever invented an effective diet doughnut. This suggests to me that it's not a matter of adding some nutrients to the doughnut recipe; that the problem is inherent in the doughnut.
By analogy, one can look at the attempts to create a non-addictive morphine. Which resulted in heroin. Oops! Probably it is impossible to create a non-addictive morphine because the analgesic aspect of morphine is exactly what makes it addictive.
Although AFAIK there is not scientific consensus on this point, I'm pretty confident it's a similar problem with foods like doughnuts. They just make you feel too good. And that screws up something in your brain.
Opiates are relatively non-addictive if their use is regulated intelligently, which for some reason all people can't reliably do themselves. I think the same might make sense for certain foods. I can eat a doughnut every once in a while just fine, but if I started binging them it might be difficult to stop. Same applies to nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, video games and movies for me too.
The question of what is or isn't addictive and why is important but it's a little beside the point. I am happy and perhaps eager to discuss addiction in the context of dieting and obesity, but at the outset we need to agree on a definition of "addiction."
My point in bringing up heroin is that it's basically impossible to separate the good aspects (analgesic) and bad aspects (addictiveness) of morphine because both qualities are the result of the same mechanism. Analogously, it's (in my opinion) impossible to separate the good aspects (tastiness) and bad aspects (fatteningness) of foods like doughnuts because both qualities are evidently a result of the same mechanism.
Actually I am tempted to go further than that and hypothesize that in both cases a big part of the problem is the part(s) of one's brain which process pleasurable experiences.