jimrandomh comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 2: Atkins Redux - Less Wrong

6 Post author: ChrisHallquist 30 December 2013 12:58AM

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

Comments (186)

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

Comment author: jimrandomh 27 December 2013 06:24:31PM 4 points [-]

This idea of calorie intake and expenditure being an epiphenomenon... Taubes certainly does say things that seem to suggest that, but what it would even mean for that to be true?

Calorie intake and expenditure are automatically regulated by the body, and in a healthy person, marginal increases or decreases in calorie intake will cause matching changes to both appetite and to energy expenditure, by changing body temperature, fidgeting, and other expendable metabolic processes. Large, forced decreases in calorie intake must cause either a balancing release of energy from fat cells, or a matching reduction in energy expenditure, but unfortunately, it's likely to be the latter. In that case, the energy expenditure comes from sacrificing metabolic processes that aren't really expendable, damaging health. Obesity can only occur if this regulatory process is broken somehow. It is more likely to be broken by a high-carbohydrate diet than by a high-fat diet. If it's broken in someone who's on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, then switching to a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet is likely to fix it.

The previous paragraph is what I believe to be true. I don't know how well it lines up with what Taubes has said, but I don't care because Taubes is just a human. It does seem that he's failed to communicate it clearly, but if you're going to criticize him for that, the criticism should be delivered in the context of a clear restatement of the same position. If you're going to go around saying things that are incompatible with the previous, then please address it directly; everything you've said so far is at least one step removed, and it's frustrating because you keep saying things that aren't even wrong.

Comment author: hyporational 27 December 2013 07:05:31PM *  -1 points [-]

RETRACTED: THIS WAS BS.

Are you saying that at no point of our evolution did our ancestors benefit from gaining a little storage fat in a way that we inherited, and even if they did, the only way to use those stores would be damaging?

Comment author: Randy_M 30 December 2013 04:40:09PM 4 points [-]

Consider that the need for extra fat storage may often be seasonally based. Our bodies could sense upcomnig times of scarcity based on temperature, sunlight, and the types of food available (different fruits or vegetables ripe, etc.) All of these cues are of course scrambled to various extents in our (understandable) drive for optimal comfort at any time.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2013 06:32:01PM 1 point [-]

[googles for obesity air conditioning]

Comment author: hyporational 30 December 2013 07:05:52PM *  2 points [-]

Google for sauna for obesity while you're at it. And sauna belt, if you want to go real extreme.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 30 December 2013 09:46:56PM 0 points [-]

What markdown code produced that comment?

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2013 09:58:06PM 2 points [-]

Backslashes to escape the square brackets, and backticks to produce the monospaced font.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 30 December 2013 10:12:03PM *  1 point [-]

thanks [it isn't necessary to escape brackets]

Comment author: drethelin 31 December 2013 07:21:00PM 0 points [-]

Air Conditioning causes Obesity

Comment author: Randy_M 31 December 2013 08:34:40PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure whether that is a reductio ad absurdium refutation or support.

Comment author: hyporational 30 December 2013 07:08:29PM *  0 points [-]

Those are good points, and I think there probably has been a conscious component in such behaviour too in later ancestors, and these same cues might affect hunger just as well as metabolism.

Comment author: jimrandomh 28 December 2013 12:25:10AM 1 point [-]

No, I'm not saying that.

Comment author: hyporational 28 December 2013 05:43:33AM *  1 point [-]

Sorry about the strawman. I should have just asked you some questions.

Obesity can only occur if this process is broken somehow

Why would evolution have applied strong braking mechanisms to the accumulation of fat?

Large, forced decreases in calorie intake

It seems I misunderstood this too. Can you taboo large and forced?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 December 2013 12:44:08PM 2 points [-]

Why would evolution have applied strong braking mechanisms to the accumulation of fat?

People and other animals have satiation for food.

Comment author: hyporational 28 December 2013 01:38:23PM *  0 points [-]

It sure slows down fat accumulation but has other functions too, like not getting so full you're not able do anything else than digest food.

Also there are plausible reasons why you would eat past satiation. Satiation is not necessarily the same thing as not getting pleasure from eating excess food, especially if you live in an environment where food could become temporarily scarce.

I also talked about satiation here, and don't find attacking this issue just from a single angle at once useful.

Comment author: Ishaan 30 December 2013 10:42:37AM *  0 points [-]

Why would evolution have applied strong braking mechanisms to the accumulation of fat?

If humans evolved under conditions where there was usually a calorie surplus available, then humans wouldn't have evolved in such a way that it would just keep storing fat for as long as it could.

So

1) were our foraging ancestors chronically malnourished? (I think no)

2) are there any individuals who don't store additional fat despite eating as much as they want? (I think yes and I think I am one)

There's satiety, there's increases in energy expenditure, there's allocation of excess energy into lean body mass, etc. There's lots of stuff the body might potentially do with extra energy other than throw it away or turn it into fat.

Comment author: hyporational 30 December 2013 10:55:54AM *  1 point [-]

were our foraging ancestors chronically malnourished? (I think no)

Wrong question. Would there have been several times when stored fat could have been useful? You think all the millions of years were smooth sailing?

How much can you eat in calories without getting fat? Have you tried eating say 5000kcal a day without exercise? I could have probably eaten that much as a teenager but I also exercised a lot back then. Now I can eat maybe 2000-2500kcal without getting fat. Muscle is much easier to gain too now. There definitely are individuals who can eat pretty safely as much as they want, and most of them are young.

Comment author: Ishaan 30 December 2013 11:49:27AM *  -1 points [-]

Have you tried eating say 5000kcal a day without exercise?

Of course not, but to the extent that such an experiment would be revealing: an individual named Sam Feltham reportedly did try a similar stunt - 5000kcal of low-carb-high-fat diet for 21 days - without gaining much weight. He didn't stop the exercise he was already doing, but he did account for the exercise in his caloric expenditure calculations.

If we trust his honesty, then it's safe to say that at some individuals exists who don't gain weight in response to eating a lot of some calorie sources.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 December 2013 03:32:39PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: hyporational 30 December 2013 07:34:53PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. I'll have to take a good look at that.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 December 2013 07:54:24PM 1 point [-]

Thanks. If it's at all complete, I'm shocked at little research there was.

Comment author: hyporational 30 December 2013 11:58:21AM *  1 point [-]

It's not exactly a stunt. I've seen several people who eat much as 10000 kcal a day, all of them severely obese. Of course, they're not on a low carb diet, but eating 5000 kcal is a breeze if you put your mind to it. I could do it easily if I wanted to too.

I totally believe he did that and didn't gain weight, but that might not tell us much about people in general.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2013 06:29:52PM 1 point [-]

1) were our foraging ancestors chronically malnourished? (I think no)

It's not like evolution magically stopped when agriculture was introduced, and early farmers were chronically malnourished. (It has had less time to operate since then than before then, though.)