hyporational comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 1: Mainstream Nutrition Science on Obesity - Less Wrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 25 December 2013 06:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (99)
Tags: gary_taubes

Comments (99)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: hyporational 28 December 2013 09:08:23AM *  4 points [-]

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?

  • They contain a lot of calories and contain few micronutrients compared to macronutrients.
  • They might taste better than other foods, and might make healthier foods taste bland in comparison.

Is it that they regulate appetite differently?

  • They might taste better than other foods, and people would eat them past satiety because they enjoy their taste.
  • Different nutrients might regulate satiety differently.
  • Different flavors might regulate satiety differently, and this is relevant to zero calorie artificial flavors.

Is it that they regulate digestion differently?

  • The effectiveness of absorbing different nutrient ratios might vary in different portions and timescales.
  • Different nutrients might regulate different digestive excretions differently.
  • Different flavors might regulate different digestive excretions differently.
  • Different nutrients might regulate the effectiveness of enterohepatic circulation differently.
  • Different nutrients might lead to different bacterial normal flora in the gut.

Is it that they regulate metabolism differently?

  • Different nutrients might be inherently different in how effectively they can be used to store fat.
  • Different nutrients might regulate the efficiency of metabolism differently through increasing or diminishing thermogenic waste metabolism.
  • Different flavors might regulate metabolism differently, either directly through taste or through hormonal changes from digestion, and this again is relevant to zero calorie artificial flavors.

Is it that they regulate where the fat is stored?

  • The fat might be stored evenly, abdominally or in the proximity of different vital organs.
  • Fat stored in different locations in the body might have different health effects.

Is it that they regulate physical activity differently?

--

  • Does one's body composition affect how these questions are answered and are there other important individual differences?
  • How interconnected are these questions and in where exactly are the relevant nodes?
  • Are there nodes where many of these questions can be answered at once?
  • Does the fact that different diets lead to different results in weight loss allow us to make accurate assessments of which nodes are affected, or is our level of understanding of the human body inadequate for that?

I'm sure people can add even more relevant questions to this bunch, and I would be interested to read them.

Comment author: brazil84 28 December 2013 02:56:38PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: hyporational 28 December 2013 03:09:31PM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: brazil84 28 December 2013 07:07:29PM 0 points [-]

Opiates are relatively non-addictive if their use is regulated intelligently, which for some reason all people can't reliably do themselves.

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit